Le Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:42:17 -0400, drew <[email protected]> a écrit :
> On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 13:18 +0000, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > Le Fri, 17 Jun 2011 06:34:48 -0400, > > drew <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > > On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 10:53 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > > > Hello Martin, > > > > > > > > Answering to the discuss AT TDF list as I'm not subscribed to > > > > the other ones... > > > > > > > > > > > > Le Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:39:54 +0200, > > > > Martin Hollmichel <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > Hi Sam, > > > > > > Do you have a concrete proposal? > > > > > yes, I have. > > > > > > > > > > First, I do not have any problems with the Apache style of > > > > > decision making, lazy consensus sounds perfectly reasonable to > > > > > me. I like that style. This fits perfectly to the > > > > > "meritocracy" principle. > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is, that this principle is based on > > > > > * contributing individuals > > > > > * organizations/institutions contributing developers and/or > > > > > money for the infrastructure/governance, these organizations > > > > > contribute because they have derived products or other > > > > > business around the regarding software. So users are > > > > > represented in this model by own work power or indirectly by > > > > > companies. This principle has been proven to work quite well > > > > > for many open source projects. > > > > > > > > > > I think this principle may get enhanced by enabling a non > > > > > profit organization to have their own resources on a project > > > > > (This might fit into the Apache philosophy considering this > > > > > organization as an contributing institution). I think this is > > > > > necessary because there is already a lot of business > > > > > happening around OpenOffice, but most of these businesses are > > > > > just to small or have not the right expertise to execute on > > > > > the "meritocracy" principle. So what the OOo project missed > > > > > most was to have a path to get product feature or tasks done > > > > > (or just 4th level support) with the help of money offered. > > > > > > > > > > So my proposal is continue project decisions the Apache Style > > > > > but also to find a framework to make product decisions in a > > > > > manner that also the concerns of Users, local communities, > > > > > QA, business partners, etc. get honored. This framework also > > > > > should enable to collect money so that development > > > > > (committer) resources can be found to get the issues > > > > > addressed in an equitable process. > > > > > > > > > > We already have thousands of feature requests and > > > > > enhancements in the queue, we are putting a new bunch of > > > > > requirements on top of it through the current transition to > > > > > Apache, I think we should seek the power of _all_ OOo > > > > > communities, users and businesses to achieve significant > > > > > growth to make OOo a better and successful product. And I did > > > > > not even included wishes like ODF Viewers, mobile and Cloud > > > > > services around OOo. > > > > > > > > > > My offer is to develop (with all concerned parties) a new > > > > > charter for all the groups mentioned above (as a successor of > > > > > the Community Council Charter) and enable the project to have > > > > > own development resources. The non profit organization Team > > > > > OpenOffice.org e.V. played in the past just the role of being > > > > > the cash box of the CC in a quite defensive way > > > > > (http://download.openoffice.org/contribute.html, will you find > > > > > the path to donate ??), now Team OOo is preparing to offer a > > > > > link between business, communities, users and developers to > > > > > enable growth on the new futile ground we are now moving on. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand well your proposal concerns as well the > > > > LibreOffice project. The principles you have outlined above are > > > > very much the same ones the Document Foundation has been > > > > advocating and implementing. > > > > > > > > In this respect we would welcome working with Team OOo (and > > > > other NGOs) You are also right to stress on the need to work on > > > > a charter for all the NGOs, > > > > > > Hi Charles, > > > > > > I did not read that in his remarks. > > > > I sort of read that actually , but I might be mistaken, I'd welcome > > some clarification here indeed. > > > > > > > > > and this is somewhere on our task list here. > > > > > > People in other countries are capable of directing their own > > > affairs, I would think. Unless you are thinking of creating > > > franchises, is that your goal? > > > > oh I was certainly not suggesting otherwise; but I have specific > > requests from local NGOs asking for a more formal document and > > relations with TDF, hence the term "charter". > > Hi Charles, > > Alright that makes a bit more sense to me, so it isn't a charter for > them but guidelines for us that you are discussing? er... I don't know. Let's skip the word charter, because it might be meaning one word in my language (french) and another one -or a nuance of it- in English. Let's use the word: agreement instead. What several NGOs had told us is that they would like to have a formal agreement/understanding in order to carry out specific operations locally, on our behalf, and others that would also collect or reverse funds for TDF and themselves. Do you understand a bit better what I mean? best, Charles. > > Best wishes, > > Drew > > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
