On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Graham Lauder <g.a.lau...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Graham Lauder <y...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On 5/30/12 3:10 PM, Graham Lauder wrote: > > > > >> Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Hi Juergen, > > > > > > Please don't see this as a criticism directed at you, this is simply a > > > constructive critique of the content and suggestions for future > > > interactions. > > > Thanks is due for doing the presentation in any case. > > > > > > > > Please excuse if this seems a little abrupt, but I want to the > > > > > message > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > be precise. > > > > > > > > > >> last week I gave a talk about OpenOffice on the LinuxTag > conference > > > > >> in Berlin. > > > > >> > > > > >> The attendance was moderate and I got the bad first slot in the > > > > > > morning > > > > > > > >> 10:00am after the LinuxTag party on Thursday ;-) It was an > > > > >> interesting interruption of my vacation. > > > > >> > > > > >> My main goal was to express that OpenOffice was never dead and the > > > > >> project have found a new home at Apache. I highlighted our > > > > > > achievements > > > > > > > >> and of course our release as important milestone. Presenting our > > > > >> nice download numbers was also a pleasure for me ;-) > > > > > > > > > > We should stop apologising for being who we are. > > > > > > > > nobody apologized for that and I simply pointed out the facts as I > see > > > > > > it. > > > > > > My apologies, after burbling about being precise I use a metaphorical > > > statement. :/ > > > > > > The point that I tried to make (badly) is that every time we consume > our > > > time > > > and energy discussing our relationship with LO we reinforce a view that > > > we exist only as an adjunct to LO. The subtext in any such conversation > > > is "Sorry, but............" > > > > > > Anyway ignore > > > > > > > > We should not use any speaking opportunity allowed us to talk > about / > > > > > > put > > > > > > > > down / argue about LO. > > > > > > > > I don't have argued against LibreOffice, I respect it and pointed out > > > > that the user will decide in the long term. > > > > > > But you were talking about it. That's wasted energy, let's confine > > > ourselves > > > to speaking about AOO > > > > > > > > We do not need to mention the rumours of the project's demise, our > > > > > actions give lie to that, mentioning it merely gives the rumour > > > > > recognition that it does not deserve. > > > > > > > > well the abstract of my talk was submitted several month ago and I > made > > > > clear that I will clarify some misunderstandings. > > > > > > > > I haven't put too much pressure on this topic and simply highlighted > > > > more the success of AOO. > > > > > > > > I was definitly the first and the last time where I have expressed > the > > > > difference between both from my point of view. > > > > > > Excellent > > > > > > > > We have had a release! Even to the most nontechy folk that is > proof > > > > > of life. > > > > > > > > agree and I have highlighted this a lot ;-) > > > > > > > > > Let's not mention it ever again. > > > > > > > > > >> I also expressed my view that > > > > >> > > > > >> OpenOffice.org = Apache OpenOffice > > > > >> go-oo = LibreOffice > > > > >> > > > > >> based on the facts that we own all rights on the name and the > > > > >> domains, the source code. And we have reserved and migrated the > > > > >> whole infra structure... And on www.go-oo.org you can see the > > > > >> relation to LibreOffice. > > > > >> > > > > >> And that not the complete community have moved to LibreOffice. > > > > >> > > > > >> But I have pointed out that it is my personal view ;-) > > > > >> > > > > >> I also pointed out that we don't want to compete with LibreOffice > > > > > > (also > > > > > > > >> my personal opinion) and that our main focus and goal is to > provide > > > > >> a good, stable, high quality, free and intuitive office > > > > >> application. > > > > >> > > > > >> A further point was that I tried to express that our users will > > > > >> decide in the future which office they will prefer and that we > will > > > > >> focus on our users and their real demand. > > > > >> > > > > >> Based on the discussion after my talk it is clear that many people > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > >> understand the split anymore and would appreciate if both projects > > > > > > would > > > > > > > >> work together. But that is a political question that can't be > > > > >> answered easily. I think with the Apache license we provide a > > > > >> possible basement but the license question is much more complicate > > > > >> for some people. > > > > > > > > > > The main reason that the post discussion revolved around the LO/AOO > > > > > relationship is because it sounds like that was what your talk was > > > > > > about. > > > > > > > I don't think so but I think it is natural that this discussion comes > > > > up again and again. And I haven't said that I have discussed the > > > > details on this topic with anybody. > > > > > > > > > If asked then the answer short and to the point: "We have different > > > > > licenses and we wish them well!" That's it... no more. We > should > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > be discussing the detail. If people need to know, both licenses > are > > > > > published and discussed on a million places on the web. People can > > > > > research it there. > > > > > > > > > > We have different names now, neither project is the original, Sun > is > > > > > gone! LO is no more a SUSE project than AOO is an IBM project. > Both > > > > > projects have corporate members. That's all. > > > > > > > > well that is your personal opinion but not mine. For me it is clear > > > > that AOO = OpenOffice.org. The fact that the project moved to Apache > > > > doesn't change it. And we still download the product from the same > > > > website as before, install it in the same directory, the visible name > > > > change is currently a mix and we support both. > > > > > > > > If a project decides to rename it's name it is still the same > project, > > > > isn't it? > > > > > > The original project was funded by SUN, we don't have that any more. > The > > > old > > > project would never have IBM contributing. No matter how you look at > it, > > > it > > > is a different beast entirely, argument could be made, and is > constantly, > > > that > > > LO is closer to the spirit of the original OOo because it retains the > > > LGPL. The point I'm making is that even bringing up LO in any > > > conversation is giving > > > that argument credence. > > > > Yes, it's time to move forward. With over 2M downloads now, nobody in our > > new user community cares a whit about what happened or didn't happen in > the > > past. > > They want quality software that delivers value for the public good. We > must > > serve these users to our best ability. The past is no longer relevant > > here....IMHO. > > > > Let's look forward. > > Yep, down our own road, nobody else's. > > Cheers > GL > > KG01 Indeed. In media relations and communications always keep ahead of the story. drive the news cycle and always stay on message. Kevin > > > > > The ownership of the original source code owned by SUN/Oracle was > granted > > > to > > > this project along with the trademarks and so on. Of that there is no > > > argument. > > > > > > The merits or otherwise of this can be debated over a few beers and > > > probably > > > will be for years to come, but it should not be part of the greater > > > conversation. It doesn't need to be and we simply demonstrate our own > > > insecurities by going back to it. > > > > > > > > We need to move the conversation away from this nonproductive > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > People need to know: > > > > > > > > > > The AOO community is growing and highly active > > > > > > > > I have expressed this a lot > > > > > > > > > We have had our first release > > > > > > > > I have highlighted this > > > > > > > > > Yes our downloads are lower than historical but we did that with > > > > > virtually zero publicity > > > > > > > > but not bad and I highlighted this as well > > > > > > > > > We are very close to graduation to being an Apache Top Level > Project > > > > > We now have Symphony code moved over > > > > > > > > I talked about this as well ;-) > > > > > > > > > We will probably have a couple more incremental releases before 4.0 > > > > > > > > > > We have sourceforge onside and other distribution channels are > being > > > > > looked at. > > > > > > > > > > 4.0 will be killer! > > > > > > > > > > Those are the messages we need to go out. > > > > > > > > > > We do not define this project by LO. We can be a little grateful > to > > > > > LO for keeping OOo and ODF out there in the public eye and > > > > > maintaining our brand recognition, but that does not extend to > > > > > allowing their brand to intrude into our conversation. > > > > > > > > nobody or better I don't do it, I simply pointed out my based on > facts. > > > > And again it was the first time that I did it public in talk and it > was > > > > of course the last time. > > > > > > > > > No more please. We need to be on message > > > > > > > > I am interested to hear from you how you spread the message, where > and > > > > when. > > > > > > Me? I would like to share the message at a Microsoft Partners > conference, > > > at a > > > Government procurement agencies conference, at any Educators > conference, > > > local > > > Chambers of Commerce, Any Corporate Board Room and so on. > > > Linux Tag is interesting and I will advocate at next years LCA in > > > Canberra, but this market impact is reflected in the present proportion > > > of downloads. Yes, these are great sources for developer recruitment > but > > > the debate then is > > > not about brands but AL2 vs GPL, > > > > > > My target is endusers and enduser organisations including enterprise > > > users. > > > > > > Either way the message needs to be consistent and never about anyone > > > else. > > > > > > Right now it's muddled and that is acceptable because the project is > > > still finding it's feet. I don't however, want to have a fixed > > > presentation that is > > > the only one that can be used. What I'd like to see is people using > > > something > > > like the above headlines that have been agreed to by consensus with > their > > > own > > > personal style but with a totally AOO focus. > > > > > > We carefully vet and worry about press releases and interviews but > people > > > can > > > do a presentation anywhere to any audience without review. One gets > > > asked or > > > is provided with a slot, to speak about AOO because one has a standing > in > > > the > > > project. The view that is then presented no matter what we say about > > > "Personal View Only", becomes an AOO view. > > > > > > So care is needed not to let discussion/debate on LO pollute the > > > conversation. > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > GL >
