Hi *, Michael Meeks wrote: > For my part - I'd like to try to work with others to > understand all of the motivations, and to somehow, together chart a > path towards a better way of marketing and positioning LibreOffice and > its ecosystem - as Italo has outlined. Many of the above issues are > significantly addressed in this proposal - and I think it forms a > great basis for discussion, hopefully its possible to map many of > these solutions back to the problems I outline now. > I'd like to second what Michael wrote (in its entirety, but specifically highlighting the quoted paragraph).
Those of you knowing Michael and me for longer know that we tend to disagree on very many things - but his analysis of the status quo, and the risks of further de-monetising the ecosystem is spot-on. This is not an easy problem (and the opensource industry at large is struggling with it - the moment VC funding runs out, and money needs to be earned), and therefore I don't think there's an easy fix for it. LibreOffice wouldn't be what it is without the sometimes decade-long work from all of you, in this community. This is why we want (and need) your input and buy-in - we don't want to lose anyone over this debate. But if you look at the history of the project (both OOo and then LibreOffice), you'll have to realistically conclude that for staying competitive (better interop, new platforms, pivots like Online, compelling features) - a chunk of money is needed, that someone with a product management hat on can ~freely spend. So that's what the proposal in front of us is meant to provide. Let's pick it apart, let's constructively criticise it - but what I'd want as an outcome in the end, is a plan that stands a chance of working (and goes beyond keeping the - known-problematic - status quo). Thanks a lot for taking part in this discussion, thanks for all your work & passion - and here's to the continued success of LibreOffice! :) Cheers, -- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
