Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> > The evolving consensus in the board it
> > seems (though of course I cannot speak for them), is that TDF should
> > for the moment close the chapter of LibreOffice Online.
>
> More than a consensus I believe that we may have to resign to the fact that
> we may have been
Hi all,
I believe a few comments require notes and corrections as they may
mislead the community:
On 26/01/2022 17:19, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Not directly answering on a controversial proposal,
Members of the community are actually asking for answers and members of
the board should help in
Hi Marco,
it's unclear if we're talking past each other -
Marco Marinello wrote:
> it's of course legit to ask people contributing here to comply with the
> ML netiquette but I don't think closing the thread here is the solution.
>
This part of the thread is a conversation about the past, and
Hi Marco,
I have to agree with you here that maybe censoring threads isn't the
best way forward and that surely isn't a message agreed within the board.
While there haven't been yet clear answers that can bring a solution, at
least we all have a clearer view on how LOOL came to be, evolved
Hi Thorsten, all,
it's of course legit to ask people contributing here to comply with the
ML netiquette but I don't think closing the thread here is the solution.
In my opening message sent on January 9th I made a proposal consisting
of four points as an alternative approach to the current
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> In regard to your questions:
>
[references to earlier emails]
> I'll follow up on the board list also with the proposal to look more
> in detail at what we host and status and future of the Android
> Viewer.
>
Thanks. So let's end-thread here.
Cheers,
--
Hi Thorsten,
this is the thread that Marco Marinello created to see if anybody can
come up with other proposals that may bring back LOOL instead of just
having to forget about it.
While sadly it seems like the original main contributors to LOOL don't
seem to add much in terms of proposals,
Hi Andreas, hi Paolo,
this thread has been going on for some time, and the subject is still
"Counterproposal to the 'actization' of LibreOffice Online"
I don't find any new input for that discussion. All points have been
made already, most of them repeatedly.
The irony of someone on the board
Hi Andreas,
I agree the narrative on Collabora's own site seems to clash a bit with
what happened down the line.
I see that you were in the board at the time, as some of the current
board members, so I guess you were as excited as others know that LOOL
was going to be available for free to
Hi,
the linked documents shows the different behavior / narrative during a
period without a commercial product and with the opposite.
During the first one it is a community project and it is one of the core
projects. It is welcomed that every community member (everyone)
contributes to the
And also:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160320072620/https://www.collaboraoffice.com/community-news/libreoffice-online-questions-answered-what-who-how-and-when/
Maybe also that gave some people the impression that LibreOffice OnLine,
being hosted at TDF and "contributed to the LibreOffice
Hi all,
On 18/01/2022 11:33, Simon Phipps wrote:
Hi Marco!
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 9:06 AM Marco Marinello
mailto:li...@marcomarinello.it>> wrote:
Hi Simon,
Il 17/01/22 18:15, Simon Phipps ha scritto:
I especially liked something in your first idea:
TDF should
Hi Marco,
Marco Marinello wrote:
> No. I started a new thread, as requested, not to be confused with *your*
> thread regarding the actization proposal.
>
Indeed, sorry for the imprecise wording. Counter-proposal discussion
here. ;)
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi Marco!
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 9:06 AM Marco Marinello
wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> Il 17/01/22 18:15, Simon Phipps ha scritto:
>
> I especially liked something in your first idea:
>
> TDF should publicly endorse
>> this choice, stating that the project is now hosted on Github and the
>> development
Hi Cor,
I'm sorry to say it in public but I'm honestly appalled by your comment
which shows your insensitivity to the matter that is being discussed and
is providing an example of how disinformation works.
On 17/01/2022 23:32, Cor Nouws wrote:
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 15/01/2022 20:56:
Maybe
Hi Simon,
Il 17/01/22 18:15, Simon Phipps ha scritto:
> I especially liked something in your first idea:
>
> TDF should publicly endorse
> this choice, stating that the project is now hosted on Github and the
> development is managed by a company of the ecosystem but is – at
> the
Hi *,
discussions that don't make progress towards agreement are a waste of
everyone's time.
If this is about personal gripes, the best way to sort things out is a
phone or video call.
Otherwise, let's please circle back to the topic at hand (atticisation
of LibreOffice Online, and what to do
Hi,
only for background information I recommend to read:
blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2015/01/27/the-document-foundation-announces-the-results-of-the-android-tender/
and e.g. the annual report 2013 of TDF, page 9/10
Regards,
Andreas
Am 17. Januar 2022 23:32:30 MEZ schrieb Cor Nouws :
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 15/01/2022 20:56:
> Maybe you missed the point here.
>
> Some of us actually worked hard to prepare the ground to help others
> trying to act in a fair and balanced way but after months of work and
> negotiations someone decided that solidarity wasn't a priority.
Another
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 15/01/2022 20:56:
> Maybe you missed the point here.
>
> Some of us actually worked hard to prepare the ground to help others
> trying to act in a fair and balanced way but after months of work and
> negotiations someone decided that solidarity wasn't a priority.
Another
Hi Simon,
On 14/01/2022 18:14, Simon Phipps wrote:
This has led to progress grinding to a halt through mistrust
If TDF is to satisfy its mission this has to stop. The new Board has a
huge opportunity and responsibility to put all this behind them and lead
positively. It must shun
Hi Simon,
On 17/01/2022 18:15, Simon Phipps wrote:
I suggest being very cautious with making "strong rules" in a
volunteer community. While superficially they seem good at the time,
our experience at TDF has been that strong rules made under
challenging condition turn out to be problematic
Hi Marco! Thanks for contributing.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 10:52 AM Marco Marinello
wrote:
>
> regarding, as per subject of the thread, counterproposal(s) to the
> "actization" of LibreOffice Online, were barely discussed.
>
My apologies for the delay Marco, I had meant to comment on your
Hi all,
On 17/01/2022 13:08, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Marco Marinello wrote:
I hope source-only projects will not happen again.
In fact, if you just count by the number of projects, almost all code
that is hosted at TDF is source-only.
There's a lot to discover and weigh here, and it's a
Hi Marco,
Marco Marinello wrote:
> I hope source-only projects will not happen again.
>
In fact, if you just count by the number of projects, almost all code
that is hosted at TDF is source-only.
There's a lot to discover and weigh here, and it's a challenge (in the
wider context) that the
Hi Marco,
thanks a lot for your engagement and your contributions to the discussion.
On 17/01/2022 11:51, Marco Marinello wrote:
Hi Paolo, hi all,
Il 16/01/22 11:01, Paolo Vecchi ha scritto:
IMHO what is being called "infighting" has been an excellent exercise
of transparency and exchange of
Hi Paolo, hi all,
Il 16/01/22 11:01, Paolo Vecchi ha scritto:
> IMHO what is being called "infighting" has been an excellent exercise
> of transparency and exchange of point of view.
I agree, a lot of new (at least for non-board people) information came
out from this thread, although the topics
Hi Sophie, all,
what I find interesting is, that everybody in these thread(s) around
Sophie's mail is asking for balance. And let me add, I do too.
But what I could observe is, that independent of what is about in
the daily work, is it coming to decision making
Hi Thorsten,
On 16/01/2022 01:48, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Let's now stop this infighting.
IMHO what is being called "infighting" has been an excellent exercise of
transparency and exchange of point of view.
It was probably overdue as some members of the community, due to lack of
Let's now stop this infighting. Nothing good will come from it.
In particular: this is a public list, so let me remind everyone that
our statutes suggest, and our code of conduct mandates:
- that we behave respectfully towards all others, including those that
are different or think differently
Hi Simon,
I'm deeply concerned by your comments as you are presenting a very
distorted view of reality contributing in creating more confusion,
misinformation and divisions.
If you are unaware of what happened within the board in the past two
years then it would be better for you not to say
Hi Andreas! Hi Sophie!
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 8:55 AM Andreas Mantke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 14.01.22 um 19:14 schrieb Simon Phipps:
>
> > If TDF is to satisfy its mission this has to stop. The new Board has a
> > huge opportunity and responsibility to put all this behind them and
> > lead
Hi Simon, all,
Le 14/01/2022 à 19:14, Simon Phipps a écrit :
> Hi Sophie,
>
> I appreciate your comment here and (with some fear) have to respond to
> amplify it.
Thank you for your support. You amplified more than my initial thoughts
which were only about solidarity, altruism and generosity.
>
Hi Simon,
Sorry to be very direct in my answer.
Il 14/01/22 19:14, Simon Phipps ha scritto:
Yes, I have to agree with you. Freedom, equality and solidarity used to
be the norm at TDF. Over the last couple of years that has largely ended
at the Foundation level (fortunately our community still
Hi,
Am 14.01.22 um 19:14 schrieb Simon Phipps:
Hi Sophie,
I appreciate your comment here and (with some fear) have to respond to
amplify it.
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 11:14 AM sophi wrote:
On my point of view, it was not about achieving market dominance but
about solidarity. And TDF
Hi Sophie,
I appreciate your comment here and (with some fear) have to respond to
amplify it.
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 11:14 AM sophi wrote:
>
> On my point of view, it was not about achieving market dominance but
> about solidarity. And TDF has failed here, again on my point of view.
>
Yes, I
Hi Sophie,
thank you for reminding us what TDF and its community is all about.
It is also great to see that members of TDF team are passionate about
what they are doing within TDF for the community.
I agree with you that we failed to act. Some of us tried to deliver the
information and the
Hi Michael, all,
Le 13/01/2022 à 18:44, Michael Meeks a écrit :
> Hi Marco,
[...]
>
> I also agree with Thorsten that the stories about achieving
> market dominance during the COVID crisis with this approach are
> impossibly naive. From a hardware provision perspective alone - being
>
Hi all,
I won't comment about the rest of the email as I've already provided
plenty of additional information here:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00029.html
However, the following comment made by our fellow member of the board
needs to be framed
Hi Marco,
On 09/01/2022 16:05, Marco Marinello wrote:
> I also would like to emphasize the fact that, in the current situation,
> building a competing product starting from the frozen repo with no
> companies working on it and the one on GitHub 1 year ahead, would just
> be impossible.
Hi Marco,
see below.
On 09/01/2022 17:05, Marco Marinello wrote:
Based on this two quotes, I’d like to make a counterproposal for the
online project:
1. Since not only Collabora-affiliated developers but almost
everybody that was previously involved in development of Online moved on
Hi *,
as requested by Thorsten and others many times, I’m starting a new
thread to discuss an alternative proposal to the “attic” for LibreOffice
Online.
I think there has been, in the other thread, room enough to discuss
about the status quo of Online and LibreOffice Viewer, which is in a
42 matches
Mail list logo
