Re: [board-discuss] TDF, the online version, and its missions
El 27/6/22 a las 19:28, Cor Nouws escribió: Hi Sophie, all, sophi wrote on 27/06/2022 22:09: I'm opening a new thread because I would like to clarify a bit my position on why this is necessary for TDF to have an online version and why I think it's possible if we all take a balanced position and listen to each others. I believe delivering LibreOffice on centralized online services in resource-constrained environments and on Android powered tablets and phones is explicitly part of our mission. It is a fair choice to believe that. I think not the only valid one. So for me the topic is not do we want to compete each other, but do we want to complete each other. And if we brainstorm on that common goal, We see a clear winn-winn currently with Collabora Online.. Not only it is promoting LibreOffice (since clearly based on LibreOffice Technology), of course open source code to the best standards (anyone can join, study, build, contribute, share, fork), with non limited free versions available, and with an open community with many we know.. but it is also allowing the ecosystem to have it's role, as we thought out it would be wonderful when setting up the foundation, to contribute significant to TDF and LibreOffice as a result of the companies investments and risk taking and capabilities to deal with the commercial markets. Win-win is a situation to which we all aspire. However, one of the key pieces in this mutant puzzle is to broaden the ecosystem rather than narrow it. And, in this sense, clear rules and boundaries are necessary. TDF cannot force the entire mass of LibreOffice users to consume a particular product. It can, however, improve it's work to raise awareness about the importance of contributing (which is not reduced to code) to the community that embraces the project. I'm sure we will find ways to be beneficial for both the ecosystem and the foundation and that should even broaden the ecosystem. Yes. Finding balance between ecosystem members and TDF is not easy. In the Autumn of 2020 we learned the hard way that it can be easily broken. So indeed we have to be respectful and considerate. Community can ask the very same. Suffice it to recall that the door was slammed when the foundation was working on the required marketing plan. I cannot believe that there is a clear and conscientious will in TDF to compete with it's own ecosystem. And I agree with you that, also when there is an online under TDF infrastructure (which no one can nor want to forbid, since we have a meritocratic community. And for which we know what is reasonable and asked for to have a sensible fair project) we must have ways to simply not compete with the ecosystem. I still don't understand why people resort to self-flagellation by arguing that TDF is trying to compete with the ecosystem. I think Sophi has put it very well by saying that there are spaces for everyone and that worldwide not all users are able to pay a subscription to access a product. In Latin America, for example, there are countless social organizations or organizations linked to indigenous peoples whose main role is to narrow the gap in access to technology. Sound familiar? And for growing the ecosystem: both mentoring and projects to find new markets/parties that understand the opportunities and want to do some investment are needed. Let's (again) try to focus on work like that, would be my suggestion. TDF has to take care of those left over users anyway. Not sure what you mean with that. Some may reply that it doesn't fulfill the technical part, but to my eyes, if we get room for everyone, community will show up to help filling the gap. It is encouraging to see, apart from some problems as pointed out by others, enthusiasm. But hmmm..., with all history, discussions and careful working on proposals, I think it is not unfair if I notify that it is somehow late. Then of course: better late then not at all ;) I believe that neither TDF nor the community can be blamed for not satisfying the whims of a company. -- Uso LibreOffice, por privacidad, seguridad y control de mis datos. Da un vistazo a la mejor suite de oficina: https://es.libreoffice.org O únete a la Comunidad Hispana: https://matrix.to/#/#hispanos:documentfoundation.org -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] TDF, the online version, and its missions
Hi Sophie, all, sophi wrote on 27/06/2022 22:09: I'm opening a new thread because I would like to clarify a bit my position on why this is necessary for TDF to have an online version and why I think it's possible if we all take a balanced position and listen to each others. I believe delivering LibreOffice on centralized online services in resource-constrained environments and on Android powered tablets and phones is explicitly part of our mission. It is a fair choice to believe that. I think not the only valid one. So for me the topic is not do we want to compete each other, but do we want to complete each other. And if we brainstorm on that common goal, We see a clear winn-winn currently with Collabora Online.. Not only it is promoting LibreOffice (since clearly based on LibreOffice Technology), of course open source code to the best standards (anyone can join, study, build, contribute, share, fork), with non limited free versions available, and with an open community with many we know.. but it is also allowing the ecosystem to have it's role, as we thought out it would be wonderful when setting up the foundation, to contribute significant to TDF and LibreOffice as a result of the companies investments and risk taking and capabilities to deal with the commercial markets. I'm sure we will find ways to be beneficial for both the ecosystem and the foundation and that should even broaden the ecosystem. Yes. Finding balance between ecosystem members and TDF is not easy. In the Autumn of 2020 we learned the hard way that it can be easily broken. So indeed we have to be respectful and considerate. I cannot believe that there is a clear and conscientious will in TDF to compete with it's own ecosystem. And I agree with you that, also when there is an online under TDF infrastructure (which no one can nor want to forbid, since we have a meritocratic community. And for which we know what is reasonable and asked for to have a sensible fair project) we must have ways to simply not compete with the ecosystem. And for growing the ecosystem: both mentoring and projects to find new markets/parties that understand the opportunities and want to do some investment are needed. Let's (again) try to focus on work like that, would be my suggestion. TDF has to take care of those left over users anyway. Not sure what you mean with that. Some may reply that it doesn't fulfill the technical part, but to my eyes, if we get room for everyone, community will show up to help filling the gap. It is encouraging to see, apart from some problems as pointed out by others, enthusiasm. But hmmm..., with all history, discussions and careful working on proposals, I think it is not unfair if I notify that it is somehow late. Then of course: better late then not at all ;) Cheers, Cor -- Cor Nouws, member Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28 A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6 mobile : +31 (0)6 25 20 7001 skype : cornouws blog: cor4office-nl.blogspot.com jabber : cor4off...@jabber.org -- 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
[board-discuss] TDF, the online version, and its missions
Hi all, I'm opening a new thread because I would like to clarify a bit my position on why this is necessary for TDF to have an online version and why I think it's possible if we all take a balanced position and listen to each others. I believe delivering LibreOffice on centralized online services in resource-constrained environments and on Android powered tablets and phones is explicitly part of our mission. There are a lot of countries in the world where the current ecosystem is not and will never be present. For example health workers in Africa who rely on Android OS almost uniquely to perform their work. There is a big part of the population which will never pay for support because they *cannot* offer it. For example micro-businesses in France represent 96% [1], SMEs 3.8% and it's only France. There are also journalists, students and pupils over the world, and so on. That should leave enough room for everybody to exist, without preventing TDF to support a big part of the world. So for me the topic is not do we want to compete each other, but do we want to complete each other. And if we brainstorm on that common goal, I'm sure we will find ways to be beneficial for both the ecosystem and the foundation and that should even broaden the ecosystem. TDF has to take care of those left over users anyway. Some may reply that it doesn't fulfill the technical part, but to my eyes, if we get room for everyone, community will show up to help filling the gap. [1] see the black bloc on the left of the page in English: https://www.insee.fr/en/outil-interactif/5543645/tableau/60_ETP/0.62_ENT Cheers Sophie -- Sophie Gautier so...@libreoffice.org GSM: +33683901545 IRC: soph Foundation coordinator The Document Foundation -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] Another "merged" proposal of in-house developers
Hi Kendy, On 27/06/2022 17:38, Jan Holesovsky wrote: Thank you very much for that! I've once again rebased the changes on top of yours, but I see we are getting much closer; so in the TDF-In-House-Developers-Proposal-v2-3-Merged.odt I've accepted your changes where we both agree, to avoid confusion in change tracking, hope that's fine. The differences are not that many apart from those that I could not accept as they impose limitations that have no place in an employment proposal. In the document v. 2.3 you just merged back the issues that will cause TDF to incur more costs and issues in finding the developers we need so we should not accept those changes- If commercial contributors seek limitations on who employees should be and what they should do then the reasons should be made clear, they should be negotiated in public and should be valid for current and future commercial contributors. Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Another "merged" proposal of in-house developers
Hi Paolo, all, Paolo Vecchi píše v St 22. 06. 2022 v 16:49 +0200: > as finally many of the changes requested by other proposals are clear > I've integrated what makes sense to have on a > developers recruitment proposal and added a few items clarifying > some aspect in version 2.2 (in ODF format) of this "merged" proposal > that you'll find here together with the other proposal: > > https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/960049 Thank you very much for that! I've once again rebased the changes on top of yours, but I see we are getting much closer; so in the TDF-In-House-Developers-Proposal-v2-3-Merged.odt I've accepted your changes where we both agree, to avoid confusion in change tracking, hope that's fine. Also it is good to see that we both agree that BoD has the ultimate deciding power; I think now it is mostly about finding the balance between the ESC and team, to make the conditions equal for all developers - internal, volunteer, or commercial. For those who don't have access to the TDF Nextcloud, here is a direct link: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/pJLYLiH4m4HcjSN For those interested, I have also provided a change-tracked version of your document as TDF-In-House-Developers-Proposal-v2-2-Merged-Change-tracked.odt I am sorry I didn't find time yet to go through your below points one by one, happy to do that in a follow-up mail if needed. All the best, Kendy > What changed: > I've adapted a few sentences/words to get closer to the other > proposal where possible and eliminated some sentences/words > that might not add much to the context. > I've also reinstated the app store area as now is not controversial > anymore. > There is a specific paragraph stating that in-house developers are > not bound by ESC decisions. > > Overall the original logic is still there but showing a lower number > of differences to the other proposal. > > > What is still different: > The developers do not need to be senior or already capable of > mentoring, training them is part of our goals so we should do that > > The focus is clearly on the development side with mentoring to be > done when the developers are ready and willing > > There is less focus on the ESC handling the task and more on staff > dealing with it as developers are going to be part of TDF's staff so > they shouldn't be told what to do by non employees of TDF or the > Board. > > > What is not there: > The section related to "Targeted Developers" as it's a construct that > imposes limitations on what TDF's staff can do. We will employ in- > house developers that will work for the best interest of TDF and it's > wider community which initially will surely focus on specific areas, > the "Focus Areas", but over the years could cover other areas if they > like it and it's necessary. > > I believe that a candidate reading that an organisation is looking > for "targeted developers" might already feel the limitation of the > role and the lack of opportunities for personal growth so we might > prefer to welcome in-house developers that won't feel that > limitations as full members of TDF's staff. > > ESC deciding and having a final word on "overlaps in the development > of the LibreOffice code" is too broad as it might imply also > development related to projects, features or bug fixes on which a > third party might have interests expressed through the ESC which at > present has no CoI Policy. Limitations imposed on TDF's staff that > satisfy the interests/needs of third parties, or in some cases both > TDF and third parties, should be part of a separate agreement, not a > recruitment proposal. > > Other similar limitations, including non competition or development > of alternative implementation to (eg.) "Collabora Online, mdds, or > cppunit" have not been included in this version as they should be > covered by separate agreements which are independent to TDF's staff > recruitment. > > Contracts with subcontractors, trainers and specialists do not belong > in a recruitment proposal. Additional support or training will be > taken in consideration once we have evaluated the candidates and when > our mentors will inform us of what is necessary. > > Development contracts present in the other proposal will follow the > due tendering process. > > > I hope that the rationale for not including certain areas, terms and > limitations is clear to all in this "merged" proposal and that we can > proceed in finding great candidates to join our team as soon as > possible. > > Ciao > > Paolo > -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke píše v So 25. 06. 2022 v 00:05 +0200: > FYI: I wrote a short blog post about my work. And for those who like > visuals, I added two ones. > > https://amantke.de/2022/06/25/work-on-revival-of-libreoffice-online/ Thank you for sharing that! Seeing the pictures, you have not only applied the security patches, but actually you took the entire Collabora Online and rebranded it as LibreOffice Online. You could have saved a lot of work, it was enough to configure Collabora Online with: ./configure --with-app-name="LibreOffice Online" \ --with-vendor="The Document Foundation" \ --with-info-url="https://www.libreoffice.org"; Now the question is - does TDF want to be in a business of rebranding other well behaving open source projects? And - when you find out that COOL / LOOL is just the editing bit, in other words, it does nothing without a file sync & sharing solution, will you rebrand eg. Nextcloud or ownCloud to "LibreOffice Cloud" next? All the best, Kendy -- 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
[board-discuss] re-discovering the Foundation roots?
Hi Am 25.06.22 um 16:36 schrieb Paolo Vecchi (in thread: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived): We might need a meeting dedicated to re-discovering the Foundation roots as I have the impression that some have different understanding of why TDF was created and what its role should be. If this proposal is appreciated, we may do so at the LO conference? I feel such a a discussion is far better made face-to-face than online or per a mailing list. -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)
Hi Andreas, On 24/06/2022 16:51, Andreas Mantke wrote: I'm not sure, if you as a former Collabora staff member don't any potential CoI in the whole topic. I'm pretty sure though =) László hasn't worked with Collabora since 2017 and AFAIK has no (even indirect) commercial relationship with us since then. If working together at the same company with someone creates a five+ year CoI - then we have an issue, because large numbers of core LibreOffice developers have enjoyed working with each other at different companies over the years from Sun and Novell/SUSE onwards. In fact - it's wonderful that the community has managed to retain as many passionate and competent developers and keep their institutional knowledge for this time. It is perhaps more amazing that the ecosystem companies have managed to keep paying jobs for them: go LibreOffice! I'd prefer if only community members without potential CoI share their opinion on this topic. Clearly opinions can differ without anyone needing to be paid. For my part I'd like to pay a quick tribute to László - there is really a lot to say - much more than I can fit in a paragraph. László has contributed a huge amount to LibreOffice, not just the 700+ code commits[1], but also authoring our hunspell spell checker infrastructure (László has helped spell-check much of the web too via Mozilla & Chrome ;-). He authored our Lightproof grammar checker, the Hungarian spell checking dictionary, and don't let me forget LibreLogo - what better mix of TDF's educational purpose and promoting LibreOffice =) as well as being a long-term TDF member, working for FSF.hu, NISZ and perhaps more. Did I mention what a positive and thoughtful contributor to discussions he has been too - and what a wide experience of different FLOSS projects he has ? =) Thanks for all you do László =) Accusations of CoI can be extremely divisive, it is not a small thing to baselesly suggest inappropriate behavior - to shut someone down. I also have no idea why it's not possible to work on a common ground of LOOL (LibreOffice Online) and why it is/was instead necessary to fork the code away from the LibreOffice community and rename it. This is covered as a FAQ: https://collaboraonline.github.io/post/faq/#own-project Projects are all different - as you point out. Some go through periods of turmoil and strain and then come out of them again - I'm really hoping that LibreOffice can re-focus and move on constructively. Regards, Michael. [1] - https://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/credits/ -- michael.me...@collabora.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity Hangout: mejme...@gmail.com, Skype: mmeeks (M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe -- 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
