Hello,
On 2005-11-09, at 06:31 , Charles-H.Schulz wrote:
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 :-) ?
I think Ryan and Ian and others have given good accounts. The focus
was purposefully not on OOo, not even on OOo as a reference
implementation, but on ODF. IBM wanted to coordinate (and lead, at no
risk) work in helping Massachusetts defend its choice of using ODF.
Interestingly Peter Quinn, CIO of Massachusetts (MA), was initially
more strongly advocating open source, but evidently the Free Software
people made that difficult, as he spoke about the difficulties of
negotiating GPL only issues. OpenDocument, which is blind to free,
open, or closed and proprietary software, is thus more appealing an
issue.
The resolution of the meeting (which took too long to come to this
point, as it seemed fore-ordained), was to create an organisation
that would do a better job of the OASIS TCO than the TCO itself.
Several arguments for that, but they came down to the perception that
OASIS lacked the credibility and legitimacy and flexibility an
international, vigourous marketing and development campaign requires.
(One might wonder if Sun would see this as a lesson; but then, no IP
is being lost in the exchange.) The needs of the effort:
accessibility improvement in the opendocument format, and, as was
communicated to me in Japan, better CJK management.
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.
Perhaps I am reading this wrongly, but you seem to imply that a) I am
ignoring the community, when that is hardly the case--that is why i
initiated the CC thread!--and b) that an add-on foundation (a neutral
space) would necessarily write out an OOo foundatio and thus ignore
the community. In fact, it would arguably be the start of a community
foundation. Is that clear? What may eliminate the idea of an OOo
foundation is in fact putting a lot of interest in an ODF foundation
that has some assets from OOo. I see that as a sort of danger for
the same reason everyone else would.
Second, to re-emphasize the first point, the reason I initially
raised the point was to *bring in* community views!
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.
It is not a mistake if you just like talking. It is a mistake if you
actually want to get something done. I would rather get something
going that we have some say in. I also do not see it as a mistake,
as the point is to establish a structure that allows for free
contributions with minimal risk. But, as mentioned, the idea seems to
find little favour.
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.
Most of the issues regarding governance and process can be resolved
without a foundation: that was clear at Koper and clear now. They
have to do, substantially, with how contributions are dealt with. But
there is also the perception that Sun "controls" things and that
others are at its mercy. That perception, right or wrong, can be
helpfully dispelled with the creation of a neutral space where Sun is
no more than any other cadre of developers and not also the
copyright holder and primary contributor.
Cheers
Louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
