Re: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)
Hi Paolo, all, Am 03.07.22 um 13:50 schrieb Paolo Vecchi: > Hi all, > > On 03/07/2022 00:21, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > (...) > is important to look at the past to try to correct eventual mistakes > and avoid repeating them. > >> If you want to change the status quo, I suggest you pledge your case >> to the current board, with arguments not attacking an old vote, but >> why the actual change would be needed. > I believe that's what Andreas has been trying to do. > > Sometimes it is also important to understand what led to a specific > situation to evaluate the measures that should be implemented to > correctly deal with issues and proposals. > its the responsibility of the current board to review past decisions, at least if the board gets a hint, that there has been a not declared / overlooked CoI of one participant. There is no space for closing eyes and proceed further. Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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)
El 1/7/22 a las 17:16, Cor Nouws escribió: Hi, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 01/07/2022 13:54: On 29/06/2022 22:29, Marco Marinello wrote: I want to put it in black and white: being the most committing contributor does not allow anyone to pick the source and move it away, while have previously agreed to develop under a non profitable foundation umbrella. Apparently some things changed there? I think I tried to explain earlier in this thread how delicate it is to have a balance. ... I don't think TDF should get into services provision, we promote our members of the ecosystem to do that, but I did propose at the time to Did you ever realize that your proposals are mostly very interesting for hosting companies and negative for ecosystem companies doing development, in this case Collabora? Cheers, Cor Shouldn't you use your corporate email when you are in fact wearing your corporate hat? -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)
Hi all, On 03/07/2022 00:21, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Hi Andreas, all, Andreas Mantke wrote: Thus the board has to amend the result at least. And if the vote of the member with a CoI was decisive the proposal was rejected. Our current CoI policy makes some helpful distinctions between an interest in something, and the determination of an actual conflict of interest. It does even if IMHO is not yet fully understood especially by new members of the board. It would have been great that during the weekend, where unfortunately I was not present, the board took as first item the presentation of what is TDF as intended when it has been created, the explanation of the statutes and principles that should be the basis for understanding the role of BoD members and the CoI policy so that members could recognise when their actions and decisions are influenced by external factors and/or interests. I've proposed that as I think it's essential for all members of the board to use that information as the basis on which to shape their debates and decisions. Unfortunately it seems like no time has been made for it so we'll have to find time for a session where we should invite the founders and those that wrote the statutes to explain to us again what their vision was. Then naturally we should have another session with our legal counsel which helped shaping the CoI Policy to explain in clear terms what it means and how it works. At the time, the vote was called & the decision published & acted upon (so apparently there was no CoI determined). Actually Andreas raised the issue of CoI but at the time we didn't have a clear definition of it: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2020/msg00660.html Apart from the debate about the chairperson decisive vote, this comment would be totally correct today: "In addition: as far as I know two members of the board have a CoI on this topic. But only one board member abstained from voting (correct behavior). The second approved the proposal, instead of abstaining. This could be seen as a violation of his duties as a member of the board or his loyalty for TDF. Thus his vote had to been rejected (and not counted in)." At the time I was not yet sure what to think about it as the rule wasn't clearly defined in the statutes and internal comment seem to indicate that we could not strictly consider it CoI. When Collabora Productivity's general manager decided to fork LOOL he added at the end of his statement: "Clearly Collabora participants would want to abstain on any board vote to ship competing Online products, but do expect to be included in the discussion around that." That might induce some to think that he was aware that a vote on LOOL related items by person affiliated with Collabora Productivity would have triggered a CoI but he didn't, as member of the board, point out that the vote from his marketing manager should have been removed. It is probably too late to invalidate that vote but it is not too late to do the right thing today and give LOOL another chance. IMHO it is today clear that Collabora Productivity's employees and partners should be excluded from such vote and also from imposing their own proposals on how to deal with LOOL's future. Non conflicted members should review the proposal that has been summarily put together by our chairman, whose company is a Collabora's partner, during the public part of Monday's board meeting and implement the relevant changes that would allow the proposals received to stand a chance to develop into an active community. I don't think it is constructive to revisit the details of a decision the previous board took in 2020. It is important to look at the past to try to correct eventual mistakes and avoid repeating them. If you want to change the status quo, I suggest you pledge your case to the current board, with arguments not attacking an old vote, but why the actual change would be needed. I believe that's what Andreas has been trying to do. Sometimes it is also important to understand what led to a specific situation to evaluate the measures that should be implemented to correctly deal with issues and proposals. Cheers, -- Thorsten 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] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)
El 2 de julio de 2022 7:21:50 p. m. GMT-03:00, Thorsten Behrens escribió: >Hi Andreas, all, > >Andreas Mantke wrote: >> Thus the board has to amend the result at least. And if the vote of the >> member with a CoI was decisive the proposal was rejected. >> >Our current CoI policy makes some helpful distinctions between an >interest in something, and the determination of an actual conflict of >interest. At the time, the vote was called & the decision published & >acted upon (so apparently there was no CoI determined). > >I don't think it is constructive to revisit the details of a decision >the previous board took in 2020. > >If you want to change the status quo, I suggest you pledge your case >to the current board, with arguments not attacking an old vote, but >why the actual change would be needed. I do think such decision needs to be undone, as it was a clear mistake in first place. Would be nice to had all this discussion here back then. -- 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, all, Andreas Mantke wrote: > Thus the board has to amend the result at least. And if the vote of the > member with a CoI was decisive the proposal was rejected. > Our current CoI policy makes some helpful distinctions between an interest in something, and the determination of an actual conflict of interest. At the time, the vote was called & the decision published & acted upon (so apparently there was no CoI determined). I don't think it is constructive to revisit the details of a decision the previous board took in 2020. If you want to change the status quo, I suggest you pledge your case to the current board, with arguments not attacking an old vote, but why the actual change would be needed. Cheers, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)
Hi Paolo, all, Am 01.07.22 um 13:54 schrieb Paolo Vecchi: > (...) > > Regarding the freeze in my opinion should have never happened but at > the time we didn't have a clear CoI Policy so a single vote from a > what now would be considered a conflicted member of the board made > that happen: > > https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2020/msg00648.html > > in my opinion the CoI policy is only a concretion of the statutes. They are not a reinvention of the statutes or something that goes above the statutes. And thus the members of the board had to abstain from a decision on a topic where they have a CoI. And if a member with a CoI participated in such decision and voted her/his vote is not valid. This vote has to be excluded from the result at a minimum. Thus the board has to amend the result at least. And if the vote of the member with a CoI was decisive the proposal was rejected. And a short addition to the whole topic on forking away LOOL to COOL: The foundation has to take care of the sustainability of its assets. Beside a capital stock there are two big assets: the brands LibreOffice and The Document Foundation. The fork of LOOL to COOL didn't strength the brand LibreOffice, instead this diluted and weakened the brand. It had an negative impact on the value of the brand. Maybe it's the same effect, if you add dilutive additions to the product name of the software (with the perception of second class software). Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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, Paolo Vecchi wrote on 01/07/2022 13:54: On 29/06/2022 22:29, Marco Marinello wrote: I want to put it in black and white: being the most committing contributor does not allow anyone to pick the source and move it away, while have previously agreed to develop under a non profitable foundation umbrella. Apparently some things changed there? I think I tried to explain earlier in this thread how delicate it is to have a balance. ... I don't think TDF should get into services provision, we promote our members of the ecosystem to do that, but I did propose at the time to Did you ever realize that your proposals are mostly very interesting for hosting companies and negative for ecosystem companies doing development, in this case Collabora? 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
Re: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)
Hi Marco, thanks for your clarifications. On 29/06/2022 22:29, Marco Marinello wrote: Il 27/06/22 13:31, Jan Holesovsky ha scritto: Now the question is - does TDF want to be in a business of rebranding other well behaving open source projects? Yes. Specifically since a company decided to name after herself a project that was - up to that moment - under TDFs umbrella. I want to put it in black and white: being the most committing contributor does not allow anyone to pick the source and move it away, while have previously agreed to develop under a non profitable foundation umbrella. I suppose many read the same message and have been let to understand that it was the case. Even Collabora's own website used to convey the same message at the time: "Will it be hosted by The Document Foundation? Yes: It will be hosted by The Document Foundation, and contributed to the LibreOffice project in the normal way, as was done for the Smoose / Collabora LibreOffice Viewer for Android, in accordance with Collabora’s open-first development policy. Who will maintain LOOL after launch? Collabora will maintain it alongside the LibreOffice community, and all are welcome to contribute to development." https://www.collaboraoffice.com/community-en/libreoffice-online-questions-answered-what-who-how-and-when/ And for years also TDF invested on it and supported it with its own staff and infrastructure together with contributions from the wider community: "Today’s launch of the first LibreOffice application for Android pushes our community into exciting new waters. As we speak, new infrastructure is being prepared by Document Foundation Staff for documentation, translation, and bug reporting of the new app, laying the foundations for a busy future. This is just the beginning." https://www.collaboraoffice.com/community-en/libreoffice-on-android-one-less-barrier-to-public-sector-open-standards/ Looking at the communication and the promotion that LOOL had also from TDF, well before I joined the board, made me believe that LOOL should have been made available to the community and that's why I published my proposal 2 years ago: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2020/msg00091.html The subsequent threads and board minutes provide a very interesting reading for those that want to understand more about what happened after I presented my proposal. Regarding the freeze in my opinion should have never happened but at the time we didn't have a clear CoI Policy so a single vote from a what now would be considered a conflicted member of the board made that happen: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2020/msg00648.html Emiliano had a very good take at the time which also explained why we haven't seen a lot of requests to contribute to LOOL up to now: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2020/msg00632.html So it seems like there is more work needed to give LOOL an actual chance to restart as a proper community project under the TDF umbrella. 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? No need to answer, I guess, since TDF is "The Document Foundation" and not "The Cloud Foundation". True. I don't think TDF should get into services provision, we promote our members of the ecosystem to do that, but I did propose at the time to have also TDF branded connectors for NextCloud, ownCloud, Univention, etc. so that users would have a choice (naturally notifying that supported/enterprise version were available from our members of the ecosystem) but unfortunately that choice has been removed from them. All the best, Marco 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] 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
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
Re: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)
Hi Andreas, *, Andreas Mantke wrote: > I don't see the necessary respect for the work of every individual > in the LibreOffice community and all talents. It looks like if the > developers think they are the only important part in the community. > TDF has been celebrating & acknowledging the work of all volunteers, if not since day one, then at least when we started to have dedicated marketing staff. I'm personally very grateful to each and everyone, contributing their time, energy, commitment & personal resources to our projects. I therefore find your statement needlessly divisive, at a time when instead we should work towards more unity. It is also not constructive - e.g. if you would have written 'the email from developer XY made me think they consider themselves the only important part in the community', we could have asked that person to clarify. As it stands, it blames a large group of community members of something that is likely not true (e.g. I myself don't believe only developers are important). The quoted excerpt is thus not the way we want to communicate here, so let's please try to do better next time. Thanks, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)
Replying from the smartphone. The LibreOffice Technology umbrella brand has been developed to group all products based on the LibreOffice transactional engine, independently from their origin and from details which are irrelevant for the end user such as file's headers. Prohibiting its use would be against the spirit and the objectives of the marketing plan, and would kill it forever (the label Community has already killed half of it, by providing a wrong message to the project stakeholders). Best regards, Italo 25 Jun 2022 15:41:03 Paolo Vecchi : > Hi Laszlo, > > thanks for your engagement. Just a few notes as I've been directly involved > in proposing to get the community to be more involved with LOOL and to enjoy > it's use while trying to agree with the major code contributor a mutually > beneficial way to do it. > > On 24/06/2022 17:27, laszlo.nem...@documentfoundation.org wrote: >> >> We need not only a security warning, but clear information that the >> recommended versions of LOOL are still CODE and Collabora Online >> (LibreOffice Technology (TM)). > > I respectfully disagree. > > We can surely promote the fact that there are members of the ecosystem that > provide support and other services that TDF does not provide for LibreOffice > Community on the desktop but then that's it. > > As we are not, yet, delivering to our community LOOL Community we don't have > a supported edition to recommend. CODE and Collabora Online are just other > products from a member of the ecosystem that at present have no TDF's hosted > community version to refer to. > > So at the end we cannot recommend an enterprise version of something we do > not publish. > >> >> A few months ago my corporate client wasted time and money because they >> didn't notice on the >> TDF site that LOOL is not actively developed. > > It was a very unfortunate outcome and but it's a long time that we promote > the fact that corporate clients should seek adequate support services. > > LOOL has been frozen, by a split board vote, due to the unilateral decision > of the major code contributor to fork and not contribute back. > > You will find in the board-discuss archives several threads that try to > explain how hard the board worked to provide more support to members of the > ecosystem and to find a mutually beneficial agreement but once we made good > our side the agreement the other side just walked out. > >> Thanks to the helpfulness of employees of >> Collabora Productivity, now they can test its fork with an up-to-date >> LibreOffice in their intranet, and >> started to contribute back to CODE (they have already been one of the >> biggest contributors >> of LibreOffice Desktop). > > It is good that your corporate client can enjoy the benefits of the combined > efforts in terms of code and lots of contributions from TDF and the wider > community. > > Your corporate client made anyway the right choice as, unless they have a > very capable team able to fix bugs and contribute back to a community project > as LOOL was, then they should get support from other parties. > >> >> Why do we need to emphasize that CODE/Collabora Online are the recommended >> versions (by TDF, too: >> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/LibreOffice_Online#Current_Status)? > > Thank you for pointing to that page that has been heavily edited since last > time I looked at it. > > It now seems to be an advertising page for products for which TDF doesn't > have a community counterpart so I wonder if those changes shouldn't be > reverted. > > >> Not only because LOOL was the idea and for the most part, product of >> Collabora Productivity, >> but because the original core LOOL developers still work for Collabora in >> the spirit of the >> free software: CODE is the only actively developed version of LOOL, and this >> is the only maintained >> version which contributes back to LibreOffice actively. > > LOOL has been "temporarily" frozen for a long time so or we take a decision > to bring it back to life, following suggestions that arrived in the past few > days, or there is no LOOL and as a consequence no alternatives to point to. > > OSSII seems to show that it is possible to have both a commercial and a > community version, a bit of a shame that we couldn't find an agreement with a > major contributor of LOOL. If it will be possible to create clear rules for > cooperation, which might also include synergies to improve CJK handling, then > that could be a commercial offering available for enterprise users. Needs > more investigation. > > Andreas options also requires investigation as it seems to involve > backporting of an Open Source project managed by a commercial provider. It > would be great to see if that commercial provider is also willing to > cooperate under clear rules so that we can refer back to their products for > enterprise users. > >> >>> >>> If after 12 months we don't
Re: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)
Hi Sophie and all, On 25/06/2022 01:44, sophi wrote: Hi Andreas, all Le 25/06/2022 à 00:05, Andreas Mantke a écrit : Hi all, 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/ Thanks a lot for your work on this, I really appreciate and welcome the efforts :) Maybe what we should do is to have an online meeting between you, Franklin, Daniel, Paolo and of course who in the community is interested to follow-up. I'm very much in favour of it. It is also important that you express your opinion during the board meetings. Coincidentally LOOL was put in Monday's agenda just to confirm its "disposal" so come to tell us what you think about it. The new online version is a really good news for me (thanks a lot Franklin and Andreas for that), and I guess for a large part of the non European community (as well as for students, SMEs and so on). There is a clear interest in the community to have this online version. There is still no "new online version", there are a couple of proposals on the table but it's up to all of us to make it happen. This is for me rejoining part of the Foundation roots. 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. But we also have to think about the ecosystem and the value they have built upon this version and for us. I'm also concerned about this. We should not ignore it. I fully agree with you but as TDF has grown and got more complex it is essential to set clear rules of engagement between TDF and the ecosystem. I'm really happy that TDF come back in this dynamic, however I think a serious discussion have to take place between the ecosystem and TDF, not to stop TDF in acting like it was in the past, but to find a fair place to live for everybody. I'm sure this place exists if all parties are ready to make an effort to reach a common goal. You may have noticed some decisions that have been recently published, and there are more to come, showing that lots of work is being put into it so that we can ensure that there is a fair and predictable environment for current and future members of the ecosystem. It takes time for a bunch of stubborn guys to get to some agreements but we are getting there. It would be great if we could have more diverse future boards to bring in different approaches to problem solving ;-) I ask, if I may, everybody taking part to the discussion to have a deep thought to the international community we, at TDF, are committed to represent. True and it would be great to have more feedback from other parts of the world. Hopefully once Decidim is up and running we'll have an easier way to collect feedback and ideas from the various community so that it will be easier to help each others. Cheers Sophie 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 -- 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 Laszlo, all, Am 24.06.22 um 20:57 schrieb laszlo.nem...@documentfoundation.org: > (...) > Forking is possible for everyone, but only with renaming. So it was > very unfair to write about that renaming is some evil thing, while > that was likely a mandatory trade mark issue for Collabora > Productivity, too. if you look at the LibreOffice source code you'll find out that there is no renaming of e.g. the start scripts of LibreOffice and its modules. Like in the times of OOo you could run the program with 'soffice', 'swriter' etc. Also as far as I know no former modules / directories got new naming after the born of LibreOffice. Thus it is not common in OSS development to rename source code files or directories after a fork. Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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 Laszlo, thanks for your engagement. Just a few notes as I've been directly involved in proposing to get the community to be more involved with LOOL and to enjoy it's use while trying to agree with the major code contributor a mutually beneficial way to do it. On 24/06/2022 17:27, laszlo.nem...@documentfoundation.org wrote: We need not only a security warning, but clear information that the recommended versions of LOOL are still CODE and Collabora Online (LibreOffice Technology (TM)). I respectfully disagree. We can surely promote the fact that there are members of the ecosystem that provide support and other services that TDF does not provide for LibreOffice Community on the desktop but then that's it. As we are not, yet, delivering to our community LOOL Community we don't have a supported edition to recommend. CODE and Collabora Online are just other products from a member of the ecosystem that at present have no TDF's hosted community version to refer to. So at the end we cannot recommend an enterprise version of something we do not publish. A few months ago my corporate client wasted time and money because they didn't notice on the TDF site that LOOL is not actively developed. It was a very unfortunate outcome and but it's a long time that we promote the fact that corporate clients should seek adequate support services. LOOL has been frozen, by a split board vote, due to the unilateral decision of the major code contributor to fork and not contribute back. You will find in the board-discuss archives several threads that try to explain how hard the board worked to provide more support to members of the ecosystem and to find a mutually beneficial agreement but once we made good our side the agreement the other side just walked out. Thanks to the helpfulness of employees of Collabora Productivity, now they can test its fork with an up-to-date LibreOffice in their intranet, and started to contribute back to CODE (they have already been one of the biggest contributors of LibreOffice Desktop). It is good that your corporate client can enjoy the benefits of the combined efforts in terms of code and lots of contributions from TDF and the wider community. Your corporate client made anyway the right choice as, unless they have a very capable team able to fix bugs and contribute back to a community project as LOOL was, then they should get support from other parties. Why do we need to emphasize that CODE/Collabora Online are the recommended versions (by TDF, too: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/LibreOffice_Online#Current_Status)? Thank you for pointing to that page that has been heavily edited since last time I looked at it. It now seems to be an advertising page for products for which TDF doesn't have a community counterpart so I wonder if those changes shouldn't be reverted. Not only because LOOL was the idea and for the most part, product of Collabora Productivity, but because the original core LOOL developers still work for Collabora in the spirit of the free software: CODE is the only actively developed version of LOOL, and this is the only maintained version which contributes back to LibreOffice actively. LOOL has been "temporarily" frozen for a long time so or we take a decision to bring it back to life, following suggestions that arrived in the past few days, or there is no LOOL and as a consequence no alternatives to point to. OSSII seems to show that it is possible to have both a commercial and a community version, a bit of a shame that we couldn't find an agreement with a major contributor of LOOL. If it will be possible to create clear rules for cooperation, which might also include synergies to improve CJK handling, then that could be a commercial offering available for enterprise users. Needs more investigation. Andreas options also requires investigation as it seems to involve backporting of an Open Source project managed by a commercial provider. It would be great to see if that commercial provider is also willing to cooperate under clear rules so that we can refer back to their products for enterprise users. If after 12 months we don't see much activity then we could be certain that the community is not really interested in working on LOOL. It would be great to know if others have other takes/options/alternatives on this subject. I'm sure, the potential corporate contributors will prefer CODE/Collabora Online, so it's really important to inform them (and every LibreOffice users) correctly, like in https://collaboraonline.github.io/post/faq/. Corporate contributors surely prefer to have their projects/products/services promoted, which TDF does for version that it hosts, but CODE/COOL do not relate to LOOL any more so it should be up to them to market their own products and services. Until we revive LOOL and we (re)create a community around it we should not point to
Re: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)
El 25 de junio de 2022 8:53:54 a. m. GMT-03:00, Andreas Mantke escribió: >Hi Sophie, all, > >Am 25.06.22 um 01:44 schrieb sophi: >> Hi Andreas, all >> Le 25/06/2022 à 00:05, Andreas Mantke a écrit : >>> Hi all, >>> >>> 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/ >> >> Thanks a lot for your work on this, I really appreciate and welcome >> the efforts :) Maybe what we should do is to have an online meeting >> between you, Franklin, Daniel, Paolo and of course who in the >> community is interested to follow-up. >> >> The new online version is a really good news for me (thanks a lot >> Franklin and Andreas for that), and I guess for a large part of the >> non European community (as well as for students, SMEs and so on). >> There is a clear interest in the community to have this online version. >+1 >> >> This is for me rejoining part of the Foundation roots. >> >> But we also have to think about the ecosystem and the value they have >> built upon this version and for us. I'm also concerned about this. We >> should not ignore it. >> >> I'm really happy that TDF come back in this dynamic, however I think a >> serious discussion have to take place between the ecosystem and TDF, >> not to stop TDF in acting like it was in the past, but to find a fair >> place to live for everybody. >> I'm sure this place exists if all parties are ready to make an effort >> to reach a common goal. > >I think such common ground could be reached, if not one side try to >dominate the other one. I don't see the necessary respect for the work >of every individual in the LibreOffice community and all talents. It >looks like if the developers think they are the only important part in >the community. And then there is the issue that the LibreOffice >(commercial) ecosystem is not divers enough. This leads to a situation >comparable with the situation in OOo community during the years before >the start of LibreOffice. > >I want to state here that I have no issue with creating and selling >(commercial) derivatives from OSS projects, but I think there should be >the common ground of an upstream project, where all participants could >add their commits. And the hosting/administration of this upstream >project should be done by the LibreOffice community and TDF and not by >any vendor. > >I think good citizens of a OSS community like to work together on a >common ground owned and administrated by the community. > >And as far as I know the MPL and LGPL allows to make (commercial) >derivatives from this source with different flowers and for different >needs of customers (and if a customer agreed modifications on the source >code were committed back to the upstream project). > >> >> I ask, if I may, everybody taking part to the discussion to have a >> deep thought to the international community we, at TDF, are committed >> to represent. >> >+1 > >I hope my statement above is a starting point to get back to the root >spirit of TDF and the LibreOffice community. > >Regards, >Andreas Nothing no add, just want to express full support to previous -- 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 Sophie, all, Am 25.06.22 um 01:44 schrieb sophi: > Hi Andreas, all > Le 25/06/2022 à 00:05, Andreas Mantke a écrit : >> Hi all, >> >> 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/ > > Thanks a lot for your work on this, I really appreciate and welcome > the efforts :) Maybe what we should do is to have an online meeting > between you, Franklin, Daniel, Paolo and of course who in the > community is interested to follow-up. > > The new online version is a really good news for me (thanks a lot > Franklin and Andreas for that), and I guess for a large part of the > non European community (as well as for students, SMEs and so on). > There is a clear interest in the community to have this online version. +1 > > This is for me rejoining part of the Foundation roots. > > But we also have to think about the ecosystem and the value they have > built upon this version and for us. I'm also concerned about this. We > should not ignore it. > > I'm really happy that TDF come back in this dynamic, however I think a > serious discussion have to take place between the ecosystem and TDF, > not to stop TDF in acting like it was in the past, but to find a fair > place to live for everybody. > I'm sure this place exists if all parties are ready to make an effort > to reach a common goal. I think such common ground could be reached, if not one side try to dominate the other one. I don't see the necessary respect for the work of every individual in the LibreOffice community and all talents. It looks like if the developers think they are the only important part in the community. And then there is the issue that the LibreOffice (commercial) ecosystem is not divers enough. This leads to a situation comparable with the situation in OOo community during the years before the start of LibreOffice. I want to state here that I have no issue with creating and selling (commercial) derivatives from OSS projects, but I think there should be the common ground of an upstream project, where all participants could add their commits. And the hosting/administration of this upstream project should be done by the LibreOffice community and TDF and not by any vendor. I think good citizens of a OSS community like to work together on a common ground owned and administrated by the community. And as far as I know the MPL and LGPL allows to make (commercial) derivatives from this source with different flowers and for different needs of customers (and if a customer agreed modifications on the source code were committed back to the upstream project). > > I ask, if I may, everybody taking part to the discussion to have a > deep thought to the international community we, at TDF, are committed > to represent. > +1 I hope my statement above is a starting point to get back to the root spirit of TDF and the LibreOffice community. Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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)
Andreas thanks for taking the time to put all those bits together in your post. And would like to add that you are not the first developer stating that there were an artificial barrier for LOOL development and that is reflected in the lack of contributions back claimed by Lazlo. /me don't like the idea to "recommended" any version at all, user (person/corporate) has the right of make its own choice. What TDF should do, and already does if I'm not mistaken, is emphasize that organizations in need of dedicated support should turn to the companies in the ecosystem, not one in particular. Also support Sophi's proposal about the needing of a *serious discussion between the ecosystem and TDF with the aim to find a fair place for everybody*. -- 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] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)
Hi Andreas, all Le 25/06/2022 à 00:05, Andreas Mantke a écrit : Hi all, 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/ Thanks a lot for your work on this, I really appreciate and welcome the efforts :) Maybe what we should do is to have an online meeting between you, Franklin, Daniel, Paolo and of course who in the community is interested to follow-up. The new online version is a really good news for me (thanks a lot Franklin and Andreas for that), and I guess for a large part of the non European community (as well as for students, SMEs and so on). There is a clear interest in the community to have this online version. This is for me rejoining part of the Foundation roots. But we also have to think about the ecosystem and the value they have built upon this version and for us. I'm also concerned about this. We should not ignore it. I'm really happy that TDF come back in this dynamic, however I think a serious discussion have to take place between the ecosystem and TDF, not to stop TDF in acting like it was in the past, but to find a fair place to live for everybody. I'm sure this place exists if all parties are ready to make an effort to reach a common goal. I ask, if I may, everybody taking part to the discussion to have a deep thought to the international community we, at TDF, are committed to represent. 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] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)
Hi all, 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/ Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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 all, Am 24.06.22 um 20:57 schrieb laszlo.nem...@documentfoundation.org: > Hi Andreas, > > On 2022-06-24 17:51, Andreas Mantke wrote: > (..) >> >> 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. >> If I look over the fence into another OSS community there is no such >> behavior. Maybe because the license is GPL and there is a contributor >> assignment for the foundation in place (or there is more common spirit >> in the project and the professional contributors are more divers). > > I'm sorry about the change, too. I don't know the details, maybe LOOL was > never a core LibreOffice development, but it seems, there was no > choice for > Collabora Productivity, only forking. Likely the reason is known for the > former TDF board, and Michael Meeks wrote about it, too, see "Why is > Collabora Online its own project?" in > https://collaboraonline.github.io/post/faq/. the faq and the linked info graphic showed the perception of the company of itself and its view on the LibreOffice community and project. > > Forking is possible for everyone, but only with renaming. So it was > very unfair to write about that renaming is some evil thing, while > that was likely a mandatory trade mark issue for Collabora > Productivity, too. It's not necessary to change the naming of the upstream project or create a second competing project, if you want to use the code from the upstream project to develop a (commercial) derivative. The MPL license is as far as I know open for such derivative work. Regards, Andreas -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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 2022-06-24 17:51, Andreas Mantke wrote: Hi Laszlo, all, I'm not sure, if you as a former Collabora staff member don't any potential CoI in the whole topic. I'd prefer if only community members without potential CoI share their opinion on this topic. I'm not only a former Collabora contractor (near 3 years until 2017), but a former LOOL developer, too, and still like the term "LibreOffice Online". But now as a fresh TDF director ȧnd almost fresh full-time LibreOffice developer, I would like to continue on my 20-year contribution, based on my experience (see the case of my corporate client with LOOL mentioned in my previous letter). 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. If I look over the fence into another OSS community there is no such behavior. Maybe because the license is GPL and there is a contributor assignment for the foundation in place (or there is more common spirit in the project and the professional contributors are more divers). I'm sorry about the change, too. I don't know the details, maybe LOOL was never a core LibreOffice development, but it seems, there was no choice for Collabora Productivity, only forking. Likely the reason is known for the former TDF board, and Michael Meeks wrote about it, too, see "Why is Collabora Online its own project?" in https://collaboraonline.github.io/post/faq/. Forking is possible for everyone, but only with renaming. So it was very unfair to write about that renaming is some evil thing, while that was likely a mandatory trade mark issue for Collabora Productivity, too. The good thing, that CODE/Collabora Online are still "LibreOffice Technology (TM)" (see https://www.collaboraoffice.com/community-lot/), so we have the common ground. We must continue to recommend CODE/Collabora Online, as the best way to use LOOL code base: CODE is the only actively developed fork of LOOL, and this is the only maintained fork which associated with active LibreOffice development, while other forks left alone not only LOOL, but LibreOffice, too. Best regards, László Regards, Andreas Am 24.06.22 um 17:27 schrieb laszlo.nem...@documentfoundation.org: Hi, On 2022-06-23 17:09, Paolo Vecchi wrote: Hi Andreas, thank you for letting us know that you are working on it. Ideally it would be great to have a few developers working on it, especially to fix known security issues, and sufficient activity to make it viable. It is true that LOOL has been in a kind of limbo. The repository has been frozen "temporarily" but it kind of became a permanent situation. In your opinion, would reopening the repository for 12 months provide enough time for a community to form around it? It would require warnings until all the security bugs have been fixed and that it might not be well maintained until we see constant and sufficient activity but it could be an option to make it up for the longer than expected temporary freeze of the repository. We need not only a security warning, but clear information that the recommended versions of LOOL are still CODE and Collabora Online (LibreOffice Technology (TM)). A few months ago my corporate client wasted time and money because they didn't notice on the TDF site that LOOL is not actively developed. Thanks to the helpfulness of employees of Collabora Productivity, now they can test its fork with an up-to-date LibreOffice in their intranet, and started to contribute back to CODE (they have already been one of the biggest contributors of LibreOffice Desktop). Why do we need to emphasize that CODE/Collabora Online are the recommended versions (by TDF, too: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/LibreOffice_Online#Current_Status)? Not only because LOOL was the idea and for the most part, product of Collabora Productivity, but because the original core LOOL developers still work for Collabora in the spirit of the free software: CODE is the only actively developed version of LOOL, and this is the only maintained version which contributes back to LibreOffice actively. More information: https://collaboraonline.github.io/post/faq/ (by the way, Collabora's description mentions other maintained versions, like OSSII and Zimbra Docs). If after 12 months we don't see much activity then we could be certain that the community is not really interested in working on LOOL. It would be great to know if others have other takes/options/alternatives on this subject. I'm sure, the potential corporate contributors will prefer CODE/Collabora Online, so it's really important to inform them (and every LibreOffice users) correctly, like in https://collaboraonline.github.io/post/faq/. As CODE/Collabora Online are LibreOffice Technology (TM), and for the healthy long-term LibreOffice development, I would like to see more contribution with Collabora
Re: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)
Hi Laszlo, all, I'm not sure, if you as a former Collabora staff member don't any potential CoI in the whole topic. I'd prefer if only community members without potential CoI share their opinion on this topic. 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. If I look over the fence into another OSS community there is no such behavior. Maybe because the license is GPL and there is a contributor assignment for the foundation in place (or there is more common spirit in the project and the professional contributors are more divers). Regards, Andreas Am 24.06.22 um 17:27 schrieb laszlo.nem...@documentfoundation.org: > Hi, > > On 2022-06-23 17:09, Paolo Vecchi wrote: >> Hi Andreas, >> >> thank you for letting us know that you are working on it. >> >> Ideally it would be great to have a few developers working on it, >> especially to fix known security issues, and sufficient activity to >> make it viable. >> >> It is true that LOOL has been in a kind of limbo. The repository has >> been frozen "temporarily" but it kind of became a permanent situation. >> >> In your opinion, would reopening the repository for 12 months provide >> enough time for a community to form around it? >> >> It would require warnings until all the security bugs have been fixed >> and that it might not be well maintained until we see constant and >> sufficient activity but it could be an option to make it up for the >> longer than expected temporary freeze of the repository. > > We need not only a security warning, but clear information that the > recommended versions of LOOL are still CODE and Collabora Online > (LibreOffice Technology (TM)). > > A few months ago my corporate client wasted time and money because > they didn't notice on the > TDF site that LOOL is not actively developed. Thanks to the > helpfulness of employees of > Collabora Productivity, now they can test its fork with an up-to-date > LibreOffice in their intranet, and > started to contribute back to CODE (they have already been one of the > biggest contributors > of LibreOffice Desktop). > > Why do we need to emphasize that CODE/Collabora Online are the > recommended versions (by TDF, too: > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/LibreOffice_Online#Current_Status)? > > Not only because LOOL was the idea and for the most part, product of > Collabora Productivity, > but because the original core LOOL developers still work for Collabora > in the spirit of the > free software: CODE is the only actively developed version of LOOL, > and this is the only maintained > version which contributes back to LibreOffice actively. > > More information: https://collaboraonline.github.io/post/faq/ (by the > way, Collabora's description > mentions other maintained versions, like OSSII and Zimbra Docs). > >> >> If after 12 months we don't see much activity then we could be certain >> that the community is not really interested in working on LOOL. >> >> It would be great to know if others have other >> takes/options/alternatives on this subject. > > I'm sure, the potential corporate contributors will prefer > CODE/Collabora Online, so it's really important to inform them (and > every LibreOffice users) correctly, like in > https://collaboraonline.github.io/post/faq/. > > As CODE/Collabora Online are LibreOffice Technology (TM), and for the > healthy long-term LibreOffice development, I would like to see more > contribution with Collabora Productivity. In my opinion, as LOOL was, > CODE is still the key for the survival of LibreOffice. In the spirit > of a successful free software contribution, respecting the decision of > Collabora Productivity, TDF must help CODE development, as much as > possible, for the sake of LibreOffice! As a first step, we shouldn't > hijack future CODE users and as described above, future (and recent) > LibreOffice users and contributors with false hopes and misleading > information. > > Best regards, > László > >> >> Ciao >> >> Paolo >> >> On 21/06/2022 21:14, Andreas Mantke wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> only a short info that I'm currently working on an update of the LOOL >>> source code with the latest patches. Because I have an issue with my >>> newly bought hardware I had to migrate my environment (etc.) to another >>> hardware (will need some hours of spare time). Thus I was not able to >>> finish my work during this week. >>> >>> If someone wants to join me, feel free to send me an email. >>> Once the necessary bits are done, I'll come back and try to make a >>> proposal for the further process to get LOOL back under the TDF >>> umbrella. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Andreas >>> >>> >>> Am 21.06.22 um 14:15 schrieb Paolo Vecchi: Hi all, just a heads up in case the community would like to come up with proposals in regards to LibreOffice On-Line. As you might be aware LOOL's
Re: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)
Hi, On 2022-06-23 17:09, Paolo Vecchi wrote: Hi Andreas, thank you for letting us know that you are working on it. Ideally it would be great to have a few developers working on it, especially to fix known security issues, and sufficient activity to make it viable. It is true that LOOL has been in a kind of limbo. The repository has been frozen "temporarily" but it kind of became a permanent situation. In your opinion, would reopening the repository for 12 months provide enough time for a community to form around it? It would require warnings until all the security bugs have been fixed and that it might not be well maintained until we see constant and sufficient activity but it could be an option to make it up for the longer than expected temporary freeze of the repository. We need not only a security warning, but clear information that the recommended versions of LOOL are still CODE and Collabora Online (LibreOffice Technology (TM)). A few months ago my corporate client wasted time and money because they didn't notice on the TDF site that LOOL is not actively developed. Thanks to the helpfulness of employees of Collabora Productivity, now they can test its fork with an up-to-date LibreOffice in their intranet, and started to contribute back to CODE (they have already been one of the biggest contributors of LibreOffice Desktop). Why do we need to emphasize that CODE/Collabora Online are the recommended versions (by TDF, too: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/LibreOffice_Online#Current_Status)? Not only because LOOL was the idea and for the most part, product of Collabora Productivity, but because the original core LOOL developers still work for Collabora in the spirit of the free software: CODE is the only actively developed version of LOOL, and this is the only maintained version which contributes back to LibreOffice actively. More information: https://collaboraonline.github.io/post/faq/ (by the way, Collabora's description mentions other maintained versions, like OSSII and Zimbra Docs). If after 12 months we don't see much activity then we could be certain that the community is not really interested in working on LOOL. It would be great to know if others have other takes/options/alternatives on this subject. I'm sure, the potential corporate contributors will prefer CODE/Collabora Online, so it's really important to inform them (and every LibreOffice users) correctly, like in https://collaboraonline.github.io/post/faq/. As CODE/Collabora Online are LibreOffice Technology (TM), and for the healthy long-term LibreOffice development, I would like to see more contribution with Collabora Productivity. In my opinion, as LOOL was, CODE is still the key for the survival of LibreOffice. In the spirit of a successful free software contribution, respecting the decision of Collabora Productivity, TDF must help CODE development, as much as possible, for the sake of LibreOffice! As a first step, we shouldn't hijack future CODE users and as described above, future (and recent) LibreOffice users and contributors with false hopes and misleading information. Best regards, László Ciao Paolo On 21/06/2022 21:14, Andreas Mantke wrote: Hi all, only a short info that I'm currently working on an update of the LOOL source code with the latest patches. Because I have an issue with my newly bought hardware I had to migrate my environment (etc.) to another hardware (will need some hours of spare time). Thus I was not able to finish my work during this week. If someone wants to join me, feel free to send me an email. Once the necessary bits are done, I'll come back and try to make a proposal for the further process to get LOOL back under the TDF umbrella. Regards, Andreas Am 21.06.22 um 14:15 schrieb Paolo Vecchi: Hi all, just a heads up in case the community would like to come up with proposals in regards to LibreOffice On-Line. As you might be aware LOOL's repository has been frozen since the major code contributor decided to move it to GitHub and not contribute back to TDF's repository. At the time there has been a debate about it but then nothing actionable seems to have been proposed by the community since then. Recently an ex-member of the ESC proposed to the ESC to archive LOOL [0] and during the following ESC meeting no concerns were expressed for doing so [1]. The "Attic Policy" [2], that has been written to archive obsolete projects, states that the Board will need to vote on the archival process to confirm ESC's choice. It is likely that the board will need to vote on it soon so if the community would like to do something with LOOL there might be a small window of opportunity to have your preferences on what to do with it heard. If nobody comes along proposing to look after it and update if so that it could be brought back into an usable form for the community then the board might have to vote for having LOOL archived. Ciao Paolo
Re: [board-discuss] Work On Update LOOL (was Re: LOOL is about to be archived)
Hi Andreas, Paolo, all El 23 de junio de 2022 1:44:39 p. m. GMT-03:00, Andreas Mantke escribió: >Hi Paolo, all, > >my work on this topic is an offer to the LibreOffice community. I had to >put some work in the update of the source code because a commercial free >software company made some name changes in the source code of their fork >to make it more difficult for the LibreOffice community. >That is a behavior I'd not expect from a good citizen of a free software >community. And if I look over the fence into another open source >community they work more collaboratively and don't raise such barrier. >But the difference may be that there is not only one big player in the >room and more diversity in the development community (and among the free >software companies). Have to say Thank You for your work and also for sharing those serious issues. I do agree with your take about needing a more diverse development community. That idea was raised in the last term and received a "non-coders can't talk" almost inmediately, glad to know people doesn't see pink elephants flying. >I'm curious if other want join me in my efforts and like to share some >ideas how to proceed LOOL further. >In my opinion the online version with collaboration features is a >necessary development line for the future of LibreOffice and its >community. If TDF drop this line it will decline the importance of >LibreOffice and its community further (with appropriate consequences >e.g. in donations). The pandemic placed great emphasis on the need for an alternative to proprietary tools. And TDF should not be left out. >Regards, >Andreas > >Am 23.06.22 um 17:09 schrieb Paolo Vecchi: >> Hi Andreas, >> >> thank you for letting us know that you are working on it. >> >> Ideally it would be great to have a few developers working on it, >> especially to fix known security issues, and sufficient activity to >> make it viable. IMO, an open repo will attract several people from all around the world. >> It is true that LOOL has been in a kind of limbo. The repository has >> been frozen "temporarily" but it kind of became a permanent situation. >> >> In your opinion, would reopening the repository for 12 months provide >> enough time for a community to form around it? >> >> It would require warnings until all the security bugs have been fixed >> and that it might not be well maintained until we see constant and >> sufficient activity but it could be an option to make it up for the >> longer than expected temporary freeze of the repository. >> >> If after 12 months we don't see much activity then we could be certain >> that the community is not really interested in working on LOOL. The community will certainly show their love & passion for LO. >> It would be great to know if others have other >> takes/options/alternatives on this subject. Every organization needs a tool that provides solidity while responding to daily needs, but above all that allows it to collaborate in its development without any limitations or impediments. So, do you know any organization commited to eliminate the digital divide in society by giving everyone access to office productivity tools free of charge, to enable them to participate as full citizens??? -- 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 Paolo, all, my work on this topic is an offer to the LibreOffice community. I had to put some work in the update of the source code because a commercial free software company made some name changes in the source code of their fork to make it more difficult for the LibreOffice community. That is a behavior I'd not expect from a good citizen of a free software community. And if I look over the fence into another open source community they work more collaboratively and don't raise such barrier. But the difference may be that there is not only one big player in the room and more diversity in the development community (and among the free software companies). I'm curious if other want join me in my efforts and like to share some ideas how to proceed LOOL further. In my opinion the online version with collaboration features is a necessary development line for the future of LibreOffice and its community. If TDF drop this line it will decline the importance of LibreOffice and its community further (with appropriate consequences e.g. in donations). Regards, Andreas Am 23.06.22 um 17:09 schrieb Paolo Vecchi: > Hi Andreas, > > thank you for letting us know that you are working on it. > > Ideally it would be great to have a few developers working on it, > especially to fix known security issues, and sufficient activity to > make it viable. > > It is true that LOOL has been in a kind of limbo. The repository has > been frozen "temporarily" but it kind of became a permanent situation. > > In your opinion, would reopening the repository for 12 months provide > enough time for a community to form around it? > > It would require warnings until all the security bugs have been fixed > and that it might not be well maintained until we see constant and > sufficient activity but it could be an option to make it up for the > longer than expected temporary freeze of the repository. > > If after 12 months we don't see much activity then we could be certain > that the community is not really interested in working on LOOL. > > It would be great to know if others have other > takes/options/alternatives on this subject. > > (...) >> -- >> ## Free Software Advocate >> ## Plone add-on developer >> ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog >> >> -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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, thank you for letting us know that you are working on it. Ideally it would be great to have a few developers working on it, especially to fix known security issues, and sufficient activity to make it viable. It is true that LOOL has been in a kind of limbo. The repository has been frozen "temporarily" but it kind of became a permanent situation. In your opinion, would reopening the repository for 12 months provide enough time for a community to form around it? It would require warnings until all the security bugs have been fixed and that it might not be well maintained until we see constant and sufficient activity but it could be an option to make it up for the longer than expected temporary freeze of the repository. If after 12 months we don't see much activity then we could be certain that the community is not really interested in working on LOOL. It would be great to know if others have other takes/options/alternatives on this subject. Ciao Paolo On 21/06/2022 21:14, Andreas Mantke wrote: Hi all, only a short info that I'm currently working on an update of the LOOL source code with the latest patches. Because I have an issue with my newly bought hardware I had to migrate my environment (etc.) to another hardware (will need some hours of spare time). Thus I was not able to finish my work during this week. If someone wants to join me, feel free to send me an email. Once the necessary bits are done, I'll come back and try to make a proposal for the further process to get LOOL back under the TDF umbrella. Regards, Andreas Am 21.06.22 um 14:15 schrieb Paolo Vecchi: Hi all, just a heads up in case the community would like to come up with proposals in regards to LibreOffice On-Line. As you might be aware LOOL's repository has been frozen since the major code contributor decided to move it to GitHub and not contribute back to TDF's repository. At the time there has been a debate about it but then nothing actionable seems to have been proposed by the community since then. Recently an ex-member of the ESC proposed to the ESC to archive LOOL [0] and during the following ESC meeting no concerns were expressed for doing so [1]. The "Attic Policy" [2], that has been written to archive obsolete projects, states that the Board will need to vote on the archival process to confirm ESC's choice. It is likely that the board will need to vote on it soon so if the community would like to do something with LOOL there might be a small window of opportunity to have your preferences on what to do with it heard. If nobody comes along proposing to look after it and update if so that it could be brought back into an usable form for the community then the board might have to vote for having LOOL archived. Ciao Paolo [0] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-June/088982.html [1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-June/089018.html [2] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Policies/Attic -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- 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 -- 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
