Hi all Am 18.06.20 um 11:25 schrieb Italo Vignoli: > The draft presentation is available online on TDF Nextcloud: > https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/jzryGw7XDkJadmo > > Please focus on the overall strategy and not on specific details, as > details can be tweaked to reach a wider consensus.
Slide 12 "• Thanks to the combined efforts of the entire project, with contributions from community and ecosystem, we have released LibreOffice for desktop, online and mobile • We are proud of being recognized by the LibreOffice brand name, which represents the common asset for community and ecosystem members (with a large number of people being active in both areas)" So it is understood that "community" and "ecosystem" are basically two different things. (c.f. also slide 22: "Relationships between ecosystem and community are not ideal...") Slide 13: And there is also a "LibreOffice Project" - a third different thing (an "umbrella brand name")? An this "umbrella brand name" "...will communicate with one voice,to make it easier for users ..." - also a communicating brand name? Like a bigmouth brass ? Honestly: Who will be the entity behind the brand name which is the sender of the message? Slide 14 This shall be explained by a graphic. This graphic tells us that the entity called "LibreOffice Community" consists of the intersecting set of "LibreOffice volunteers" at the one hand and "LibreOffice Ecosystem" at the other hand;. All three together combine to the "LibreOffice Project". Some remarks on this: 1. So a volunteer not engaged in the ecosystem cannot be a part of the community, but of the project. On the other hand are some parts of the ecosystem are not part of the community, but of the Project. (...and then talking there with one voice?) 2. Was looking for TDF - didn't find. (Personal remark: IMHO this graphic representation should be deleted immediately and thoroughly been rethought of - and surely not at all solely by marketing people, because this is far beyond their scope.) Slide 15 and 16 These two are a slap into the face of many of the community members. It is made clear that only contributions to the source code are counted - but outlined as "Community the last two years - community by numbers". Perhaps the authors should rehearse the regulations of membership of the TDF and what is considered as contribution there - and correct their metrics then accordingly in a hurry. For instance, I never contributed one line of code into the repository - so I'm not contributing? In that metrics surely not. With Italo or Mike S., I'm not that sure . Slide 19 and 20 Sense, use and message seems hidden into a deep dark hole for me - especially for a communications concept of LibreOffice (I got my problems with the label "marketing Plan", because marketing in a nutshell cares of customer requirements [1]- what this concept does not at all so far) And then, coming to the core: Slide 25 "Finding the right balance between the free product and the enterprise supported product" This seems to be the utmost concern of the paper. But: It can not be neither the task of the community nor the TDF to do so. Why? At first hand just because they are not able to because they don't have any influence on the enterprise supported product. So every attempt will be fairly unfair because only the free product will have to adjust then. As a reaction on this unbalanced situation we will see attempts to gain some influence on the enterprise supported product (i.e. via trademark license) which will increase the discord. No one is in need of this. This balance has to be found another way - and the TDf has some means for that, i.e. the Advisory Board, which in my perception is the place where the ecosystem meets (maybe I'm wrong?). Slide 28 Right start - but where it leads us? No requirements analyzed. Could also be "blue users", "green users" etc. Slide 29 A "Version" is not a requirement. Central step which leads from Group specificrequirement to a specific offer is missing. An example: "Educational Orgs" are assigned to "Community Version" when they're first/second cycle, but universities are assigned to "Ecosystem Version". Why? Which requirements a differentiating them? Not-to-pay-for-Version only for first/second cycle, because Universities do have more money to spend and less buerocracy? Slide 30 "Move from “TDF announces” to “the LibreOffice project announces”, with quotes from community members or ecosystem members, as appropriate" This is overdue, indeed. And will strengthen the brand "LibreOffice" as well. But c.f. remark to Slide 13. Slide 32 "LibreOffice Personal..." - There have been expressed a lot of (imho) appropriate arguments against this kind of labeling. No need to repeat. We should not tell things to our customers which are not true (like "LibreOffice Enterprise:... suggested for production environments and strategic documents" which strongly implies there is a quality or even functionality gap between the two versions - if not even unfixed bugs in the community version). Slide 35 to 38 Good ideas - bot not TDFs business at all (cf. for the statutes: "promotion and development of office software available for use by anyone free of charge" is exactly /not/ what the ecosystem companies do, so TDF cannot support them to that effect)! Acting accordingly to this concept by TDF undoubtly will lead it to be a part of the marketing branch of the ecosystem companies and violating it's statutes. Maybe the ecosystem companies make up a joint agency for realizing these good ideas? Stopped here by now, will be continued maybe later on the rest of the topics. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Uwe Altmann -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
