> > > > 1. TDF governance is adopted by all - in that case OOo community > > Council etc is absorbed into TDF > > 2. OOo CC is adopted by all - in that case TDF is absorbed into OOo CC > > 3. A new organisation is created with a new constitution and > > governance for both communities > > 4. Either governance is modified in some way to take account of the > > other 5. Each remains separate but agrees to cooperate in a sort of > > coalition. > > > > Once community and project governance is resolved the duly elected > > officers in consultation with the community can make decisions about > > eg development priorities use of names etc. I think until there is > > agreement on governance with delegated power to the governing body, > > there will always be the potential for acrimonious disagreement > > about every individual issue. > > I must say you got me confused here. :-) So let me try to > address your 5 points, I understand you may be thinking about some > more, but anyway that would be food for thought. Also, this is my > opinion only, not the one of TDF. > > 5: this is in fact very feasible. The minimum being: "we use ODF, > stupid!" but tighter cooperation is always good to work on. However > the 5 can only work or even be possible if some development force still > exists. Which means that the Hamburg engineers would continue to get > paid for their work. > > 4. that would depend what you mean by "modified in some way". We would > much rather aggregate more contributors from OOo rather than modifying > our governance to have one specific "OOo representative" who is not > elected and only nominated by some strange authority. But we do have > an Advisory Board, maybe we could work something out there. > > 3. frankly that would be a waste of time. Sorry to put it bluntly, but > the way I always saw us (all of us, here) as one community and two > projects. Basically, most of the community went away to create > another new project because the first one was plagued by too many > issues and uncertainty of the future. Now the former project is in > peril, his resources are not being ensured by its sponsor... We created > new structure, new processes (sometimes we kept the old ones), > precisely to fix the project, while working as one community. > > 2. :-) > > 1. I actually have some questions about this one. You're alluding to > a simple integration of OOo into TDF. That is very much what already > happened, but there are still engineers here (who don't code anymore, I > think) and a few people who sticked to OOo (no criticism from my side > here). In this case we could think about ways to alleviate concerns > from the OOo community but also to communicate about what we could then > call "unification". > > So to answer to your argument that we need to sort out governance first > and then issues will be handled in due time I think I'm not so much in > agreement with you, because I think the OOo project has come to a point > where there are various diverging interests on the inside; I would even > call them existential interests: there is a very skilled developers' > workforce on one hand who might soon be looking for a job, on the other, > there are several teams here and there, but mostly users. If you take a > look at the size of the LibreOffice project (that's not meant for me to > brag) I would actually say that it's got its own momentum now, while > this project here is disagregating in its structure (but perhaps not in > its ideas). Mixing the two governance would also be not supported by the > LibreOffice folks. > > On the other hand, having some sort of representativity inside, say, > TDF's Advisory Board might be a very good thing. So a mixture of 1 +4 > +5 could be a good way forward, while not emphasizing too much on > governance. >
I was careful to say in the original post that these were illustrative examples, not specific suggestions or recommendations. There are probably other possibilities too. Your reply is exactly why agreement (or disagreement) on governance is required. Without it there will be constant uncertainty and a lot of wasted energy and that is one thing neither group can really afford. btw, I'm speaking here as a neutral. I'm not trying to persuade anyone of any specific governance - the examples I produced were deliberately balanced in that respect. > best, > Charles. > > > > > -- > > > Charles-H. Schulz > > > Membre du Comité exécutif > > > The Document Foundation. > > > -- > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe send email to > > > dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org For additional commands > > > send email to sy...@marketing.openoffice.org with Subject: help > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Charles-H. Schulz > Membre du Comité exécutif > The Document Foundation. > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe send email to dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org > For additional commands send email to sy...@marketing.openoffice.org > with Subject: help > -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send email to dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org For additional commands send email to sy...@marketing.openoffice.org with Subject: help
