Hello Louis, thanks for the NYC report. See my other comments inline. Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
>>> >>> 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!-- No, it was a rather general statement. But the point I was making regarding you was that people talked about some ideas in Koper that were highly different from the add-on foundation. And in this I thought you didn't even give it a concern. That was the sense of my message. > 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? It wouldn't necessarily, indeed, but it would weaken the OOo structure to a point that I feel we would even be far better of without such a foundation. To answer the needs for additional developments, local structures can be used indeed. > 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. I do completely agree with you on that point. > > Second, to re-emphasize the first point, the reason I initially > raised the point was to *bring in* community views! I understand Louis, but let me re-state my statement; the add-on foundation is unpopular and did not take into account *other proposals*. You gave your reasons for this, but still they were falling short of the point and did elude the question of a real OOo foundation so much that it seemed people were simply not listened at. >> >>> 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. The proposal about a foundation is far from being a mere talk. Surely we can achieve intermediate results: but the add-on foundation seems, as it is, to come up from some entity that doesn't care about OOo and its community, and by this I don't mean from you, really. But let's not walk down this slippery slope :-) ... > 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. Yes, to a certain degree. We discussed that publicly and it was also said that some issues could be helped by a *full-fledged* foundation. > 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. Yes, but the add-on foundation would have the primary result of isolating the core development from the community process, and hence give the perception that Sun *really does control everything*. Only an independent entity sustaining the entire process could work. What can be done though, is what the CC is currently doing by dicussing these questions and by letting the community express itself. I'm sure we can go on with the status quo while we work on an elaborated proposal and try to organize a meeting (virtual/physical) with Sun to discuss these questions. What do you think? Best, Charles. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
