Hello Louis, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
> Hi > > On 2005-11-08, at 13:58 , Laurent Godard wrote: > > I too think that it makes sense to separate an OOo entity (foundation > or not) from an OpenDocument one. I wish things were clear and > simple and that what we wished were always so. > > For now, I think that the status quo wrt OOo will continue. There is > a possibility that an ODF foundation will be created (probably) and > that it may even include some OOo assets, however defined. But this > is a little speculative. Okay. How did the NY meeting go, by the way :-) ? > > The reason I proposed on council the totally unpopular idea of an > addons foundation was because I did not see it likely Sun would see > it in its interests to create an independent foundation, at least not > now. We discussed this off list together, Louis, and I don't see it the same way, but the two of us can be wrong here. What I wish is a better coordination and a organizing the groundwork on what the community really wants for a foundation. In this regard, I can only apologize for not having coordinated with you as well, but time here is not so much an issue, as the community (whatever the way the foundation can happen or not happen) wants to be heard and respected. Creating an ODF foundation can, if some criteria are respected beforehand, be a good thing, but putting an ODF foundation as an excuse as to not discussing and opening an OOo foundation is simply not acceptable. > However, there is, at the same time, a lot of work out there that > could be contributed to the community and isn't, mainly for > "political" not technological reasons. An addon foundation, I > thought, would be a way of providing a neutral space, and also, > possibly, a seed for something greater. It would also give us, I > think a space for exploring new technologies. > > Yes, there would be logistical issues, and these may kill the idea > before its fully explored. The add-ons idea has also much more dangers than benefits: (Sophie explained that on the CC list in detail) but more to the point, it is a matter of how high we aim and the method used to aim: I don't consider that talking about a full-fledged foundation is a mistake; and I don't think that aiming much lower with an add-on entity is the smart way to do it; no real negotiation would work out this way. But this is just the humble opinion of some here and myself. > I'll address Sophie's comments on the council list, but again, my > main point is to propose a neutral space where contributions can be > made. Not everyone wants a neutral space and many see no problem > with the status quo. Status quo as it works today can go on for some time, but as months go by problems arise and desires are unveiled to the light of the day. Ignoring them would not just frustrate many among here, it would simply deny the importance of the contributions brought by this community. Best, Charles. > > Best > Louis > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
