Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Telesto]

As there is a project for new front page (at least I perceived that way),
I personally would op for two different doors (in the long term)

A page directed to non-commercial entity's | A page directed to 
commercial entity's (and non-profits). More or less Cor his message
Or even more split out as OnlyOffice does with "Built for everyone" 
page/slide (third page when scrolling down from front page)


So redirecting commercial entity's from the start. And send/communicate 
they 'proper' message.


---
Ow, and I made up my mind :-). Community Edition after all.

Regards,
Telesto


Op 24-10-2020 om 14:27 schreef Cor Nouws:

Hi,

Telesto wrote on 24/10/2020 10:49:


...
And to make 'LTS' bit more attractive.. drop the whole stable/still
edition at TDF.
People using LibreOffice should be on 'rolling'. If they dislike that
they can dig in they archive reprository to find some older version.
Also, users don't have to upgrade. But TDF doesn't need to have serve
barely supported 'still'. Which being a kind of LTS light.

So or they contribute by being in the 'rolling' - permanent
improving/regressing testing version. Or opt for the more reliable,
older and paid LTS.

That's an interesting thought. And apart from what label to chose, one
could extend that. For example to show a clear distinction/direction on
the website. Simply say what it is. E.g.:

---
|  LibreOffice Download
|
|  Home/Private |  Business/Organization
|  V|V
---

---
|  LibreOffice Home/Private
|  Download
|  (part of Current page)
---

---
| LibreOffice Business/Organization
| Download
|  V
|| TDF Ecosystem partners provide
|| various products and services
|| Please find them here, get the best
|| out of LibreOffice and support the
|| development of our and we hope
|| also your product  >>>
|
|
|  You can also chose to
| download unsupported version here   >>>
|
---


etc.


Cheers,
Cor




--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Telesto]

@Cor: Good proposal; I think

There are few catches though:
Not sure how far TDF is willing to go. Business/Organizations are not 
prohibited using use
LibreOffice 'rolling'. While a distinction between Home/Private & 
Business/Organizations

might suggesting otherwise.

Visa versa is rolling release not always adequate for Home/Private. I 
think. The might consider LTS.
So they story get it for free with some risk of running into something 
(and contribute by reporting it),

and/or accept 'issues' as is. Where the mission isn't being fully stable.
Or opt for LTS as more of a save harbor for a small license fee.
With also they alternative to keep waiting for say they .5 release or 
even .7 or .8 (and manually upgrade)
From security perspective preferably LTS of course. So using sticking 
with older unsupported version not advised.


With with the rolling release they 'free beer' topic being of the table 
too.

Or kind of public tester, or paying to getting more stable.

Thinking about it bit longer: the distinction between Home/Private & 
Business/Organizations should be made.
Where pages for Home users are suggesting rolling primarily  (with they 
option to use LTS)
Where they narrative at Business/Organization is primary LTS with 
rolling as alternative.


How it's presented is up to communication department. Story must be such 
that Home Users feel confident enough using LibreOffice Rolling,
whereas it's scary enough for Business/Organizations. And the business 
pages must also promoting advantages of LTS (incremental updates);

distribution templates or whatever used in enterprise setting.
Also special topic for Educational institutions to get LibreOffice LTS 
for free similar to they competition;

but that's up to eco-system partners.

Somewhat off-topic here: has LibreOffice/ Collabora Online (in 
combination with a partner) an actual  competitor against Office 365 
Personal with 1TB subscription.
Quite of number off people seeing it as a nice deal especially at Black 
Friday. Even replacing Dropbox and such.
Couldn't find competitive product at Nextcloud providers. It must be 
possible. There is also cloud storage not connected to 
Amazon/Google/Microsoft.

Something like Stack[1] combined with NextCloud.
[1] https://www.transip.nl/stack/ (apparently only Dutch services only; 
not able to find the same product at www.transip.eu)


And even that 'promoted' preferably at LibreOffice.org. Instead of jump 
through all kinds of hoops searching for a host. Jumping from 
LibreOffice to Nextcloud to hosting provider etc.
Exclusive for LibreOffice. Instead of competition being around too. At 
Nextcloud Collabora and OnlyOffice are equally placed.
Not saying the partner should only host LibreOffice Online.. but at 
least the 'special page' dedicated to LibreOffice only product with 
storage.
They TransIP stack site makes pretty clear why to use them instead of 
they major players.


Lots of people want something out of the box; not a do it yourself 
product. It fits the open source mentality but not the mass market, IMHO


Regards,
Telesto


Op 24-10-2020 om 14:27 schreef Cor Nouws:


Hi,

Telesto wrote on 24/10/2020 10:49:


...
And to make 'LTS' bit more attractive.. drop the whole stable/still
edition at TDF.
People using LibreOffice should be on 'rolling'. If they dislike that
they can dig in they archive reprository to find some older version.
Also, users don't have to upgrade. But TDF doesn't need to have serve
barely supported 'still'. Which being a kind of LTS light.

So or they contribute by being in the 'rolling' - permanent
improving/regressing testing version. Or opt for the more reliable,
older and paid LTS.

That's an interesting thought. And apart from what label to chose, one
could extend that. For example to show a clear distinction/direction on
the website. Simply say what it is. E.g.:

---
|  LibreOffice Download
|
|  Home/Private |  Business/Organization
|  V|V
---

---
|  LibreOffice Home/Private
|  Download
|  (part of Current page)
---

---
| LibreOffice Business/Organization
| Download
|  V
|| TDF Ecosystem partners provide
|| various products and services
|| Please find them here, get the best
|| out of LibreOffice and support the
|| development of our and we hope
|| also your product  >>>
|
|
|  You can also chose to
| download unsupported version here   >>>
|
---


etc.


Cheers,
Cor




--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: 

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Michael Meeks]

Hi Telesto,

Thanks for engaging and sparking discussion here. There is much that is
interesting but this:

On 24/10/2020 09:49, Telesto wrote:
> And I assume there are some difference between CIB <-> Collabora (except
> the name), but I'm surely not knowing what that should be. I mean it, I really
> don't know! Between LibreOffice and Powered Editions I can get it.
> But even that - LibreOffice by partners being more mature (or older)
> editions - not that obvious.
> Is CIB better compared to Collabora? Or visa versa? Is there no
> difference, but why two versions? I'm still confused here> As a user I would 
> think, did I buy the right one. [Looking at it regular
> user perspective; as they Editions being sold in app stores to general
> public too]

is a brilliant description of the fundamental problems of sub-brand
differentiation. If there is a shared commodity enterprise brand:

LibreOffice Enterprise powered by DidYouGetThisFar ?
vs.
LibreOffice Enterprise powered by EllipsizedAgesAgo

we create confusion, we don't allow strong vendor brands, and we
inevitably create just another FLOSS commodity: LibreOffice Enterprise
for which the price tends to zero. I think any ingredient brand has to
go in the other direction eg. "Foo Office powered by LibreOffice
technology" So Foo can be known, and differentiate from Baa - that's my
2 cents.

As for the other comments in the thread about avoiding tags that make
users think something is missing if they're deploying LibreOffice
en-masse outside eg. a personal use setting.

Surely this is entirely the point.

TDF's purpose is not per-se to build a valuable product brand.

The purpose of the proposed tag is moral suasion: to encourage the vast
number of people who use the software without contributing to contribute
either financially or directly themselves. This is not a message aimed
at people who read this list =)

And of course, anyone competent can drop a file somewhere that changes
the splash / about or whatever if they're annoyed as now.

At least that was what I thought the idea of the marketing plan is/was.
There are of course other ways of achieving similar goals.

The tags I've seen sequentially suggested were:

'unsupported' -> 'home' -> 'personal' -> 'community' -> ''

ATB,

Michael.

-- 
michael.me...@collabora.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity
Hangout: mejme...@gmail.com, Skype: mmeeks
(M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Telesto]

[Editted version of the one I posted on the Board mailing list by 
accident; thanks for reminders :-]


Official Edition is really confusing. Which suggests there is also a 
Unofficial edition.
A copycat fork? Or are those LTS releases powered by clones, trying to 
make a profit from TDF LibreOffice


I also find it hard to differentiate between 'branch' and 'edition'
LibreOffice by TDF build base ond they 'latest' branch. While LTS being 
somewhat more 'conventional'.
Whereas Edition being mostly about variants of the same thing. So 
Standard and Professional Edition.
Both look the same, but Professional has more features. OK, there are 
some marketing stunts,
where same stuff gets sold with different labels (thinking about 
fertilizers) with different prices.

But that's they exception and feels like deception.

Sometimes I tend to 'drop' the explicit mentioning of 'Edition'.
Does it really need explicit 'Edition' to be called edition when 
materially an edition?


So the website/wiki etc LibreOffice is promoted as Latest supplied/ made 
available by TDF.
LibreOffice simply called LibreOffice. Prominently being presented as 
based on a 'rolling' release model/framework which might be more unstable,
with a 'fixed' snapshot schedule. So we tag it 7.0.2 for differentiation 
purposes (bug tracking/communication). But snapshot 'of rolling'
Without explicitly guaranteeing 7.0.3 to be better compared to 7.0.2. It 
often is, but not all they time.

Take current 7.0.2 bit a of a calculation disaster compared to 7.0.1
So would advocate a more or less Debian Development model. Rolling model 
with Cycles (smaller incremental) large major updates.
Where LibreOffice LTS powered by being framed a still/stable editions 
for more 'conventional usage'


Note also they distinction by 'powered' and 'supplied' or 'made 
available' which more passive, compared to
powered. TDF simply builds the 'latest' branch, doesn't do much 
development by itself.


And to make 'LTS' bit more attractive.. drop the whole stable/still 
edition at TDF.
People using LibreOffice should be on 'rolling'. If they dislike that 
they can dig in they archive reprository to find some older version.
Also, users don't have to upgrade. But TDF doesn't need to have serve 
barely supported 'still'. Which being a kind of LTS light.


Where as the still branch never had a proper reputation (at least in my 
world). I mostly pick fresh (or even master).


Replace that with a 'LTS story' powered by.. It cheap enough to be 
bought by regular users.
So or they contribute by being in the 'rolling' - permanent 
improving/regressing testing version. Or opt for the more reliable, 
older and paid LTS.
And we could put a note how to dig up they last release in a cycle. 
However not to be communicated actively as 'stable'.


LibreOffice Rolling (made available by TDF) and LibreOffice LTS powered 
by XX

With same additional text in about box they Rolling release about LTS
And communication about they rolling release cycle concept

Maybe is made available or distributed by TDF better compared to supplied.
As it points out TDF not being directly responsible for the code itself,
or at least that there is something more to it.

What I personally conceive is a mess if of course 'powered by'. There 
are two or more LTS versions :-(
And I assume there are some difference between CIB <-> Collabora (except 
the name),
but I'm surely not knowing what that should be. I mean it, I really 
don't know! Between LibreOffice and Powered Editions I can get it.
But even that - LibreOffice by partners being more mature (or older) 
editions - not that obvious.
Is CIB better compared to Collabora? Or visa versa? Is there no 
difference, but why two versions? I'm still confused here.
As a user I would think, did I buy the right one. [Looking at it regular 
user perspective; as they Editions being sold in app stores to general 
public too]


Regards,
Telesto

Some other editions I made up in a brainstorming session (some are awful)
LibreOffice Regular Edition by TDF
LibreOffice Common Edition
LibreOffice Fresh Edition
LibreOffice Feature-rich Edition
LibreOffice Innovation Edition
LibreOffice Innovative Edition
LibreOffice Novel Edition
LibreOffice State of the Art Edition
LibreOffice Progress Edition
LibreOffice Progressive Edition
LibreOffice Advancement Edition
LibreOffice Latest Edition [problem older editions 'show' latests.. 
which isn't the case]

LibreOffice Active Edition
LibreOffice Modern Edition
LibreOffice Snapshot edition
LibreOffice Rolling Edition
LibreOffice Advancing

Op 23-10-2020 om 18:43 schreef Simon Phipps:

It certainly (correctly) indicates there are unofficial editions in
circulation. I see that as a helpful differentiator. I would not jump to
the conclusion they are untrustworthy; however, the use of a validated
"Libreoffice technology" signifier as Italo has proposed would fix that if
it were a problem for other editions to confirm they too are approved by
TDF.

The 

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Cor Nouws]

Hi,

Telesto wrote on 24/10/2020 10:49:

> ... 
> And to make 'LTS' bit more attractive.. drop the whole stable/still
> edition at TDF.
> People using LibreOffice should be on 'rolling'. If they dislike that
> they can dig in they archive reprository to find some older version.
> Also, users don't have to upgrade. But TDF doesn't need to have serve
> barely supported 'still'. Which being a kind of LTS light.
> 
> So or they contribute by being in the 'rolling' - permanent
> improving/regressing testing version. Or opt for the more reliable,
> older and paid LTS.

That's an interesting thought. And apart from what label to chose, one
could extend that. For example to show a clear distinction/direction on
the website. Simply say what it is. E.g.:

---
|  LibreOffice Download
|
|  Home/Private |  Business/Organization
|  V|V
---

---
|  LibreOffice Home/Private
|  Download
|  (part of Current page)
---

---
| LibreOffice Business/Organization
| Download
|  V
|| TDF Ecosystem partners provide
|| various products and services
|| Please find them here, get the best
|| out of LibreOffice and support the
|| development of our and we hope
|| also your product  >>>
|
|
|  You can also chose to
| download unsupported version here   >>>
|
---


etc.


Cheers,
Cor

-- 
Cor Nouws
GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28  A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6
- vrijwilliger https://nl.libreoffice.org
- volunteer https://www.libreoffice.org
- Member Board The Document Foundation
- marketing @CollaboraOffice
- ceo www.nouenoff.nl
- initiator www.mijncloudoffice.nl

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Simon Phipps]

It certainly (correctly) indicates there are unofficial editions in
circulation. I see that as a helpful differentiator. I would not jump to
the conclusion they are untrustworthy; however, the use of a validated
"Libreoffice technology" signifier as Italo has proposed would fix that if
it were a problem for other editions to confirm they too are approved by
TDF.

The term "Community Edition" is very commonly used to differentiate
feature-limited versions so if I had to choose, I would rather our version
was considered strong because we use an "Official Edition" tag rather than
the software produced by others being considered stronger because we use a
"Community Edition" tag.

Cheers,

Simon

On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 3:16 PM Nigel Verity 
wrote:

> Doesn't this imply there are some unofficial and, thereby, untrustworthy
> editions in circulation?
>
> Nige
>
> > On 23 Oct 2020, at 06:44, Simon Phipps  wrote:
> >
> > Taking on board all the concerns about not giving the impression of a
> > weaker version, and if "no label" is really not an option, how about
> > calling TDF's package "official edition"?
> >
>
>

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Nigel Verity]

Doesn't this imply there are some unofficial and, thereby, untrustworthy 
editions in circulation?

Nige

> On 23 Oct 2020, at 06:44, Simon Phipps  wrote:
> 
> Taking on board all the concerns about not giving the impression of a
> weaker version, and if "no label" is really not an option, how about
> calling TDF's package "official edition"?
> 
> S.
> 
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2020, 14:31 Marc Paré,  wrote:
>> 
>> Perhaps Italo could chime in and inform us if having "no label is not an
>> option". We have to be consistent in a marketing plan, whether short or
>> long-term.
>> 
>> But, for me, the preference would be to continue with no label if this
>> is an option, however, if a label is needed, "Community Edition" is what
>> I would prefer. From my perspective, there is no negative connotation,
>> the public will get exactly what it is, a version of LibreOffice built
>> by members of the volunteer community and used by the members of the
>> TDF/LibreOffice. I don't believe that new-comers to LibreOffice site
>> will see the "LibreOffice Community Edition" as a negative, as long as
>> our website messaging is clear on the TDF and LibreOffice Mission
>> Statements.
>> 
>> As for any commercial versions of LibreOffice, then "Powered by" is
>> still my preferred, regardless of any community label.
>> 
>> But, really, Italo should chime in and set us straight, again, and
>> inform us if going with no label is an option. There is nothing wrong
>> with going back on a marketing plan, but as long as we are being
>> consistent in our planning discussions. More members need to chime in on
>> this important discussion ... I am surprised that non of the board
>> members nor any of the implicated commercially-connected members are not
>> participating in this discussion that was called by Italo. Especially
>> when Italo has set a deadline date for the discussion and then
>> membership vote. More members need to be informed that this discussion
>> is taking place; just so that the membership all get to have their say.
>> 
>> Marc
>> 
>>> Le 2020-10-23 à 07 h 40, Justin Luth a écrit :
>>> +1 to what Uwe and Michael and Telesto have been saying.
>>> 
>>> Personal / Community are not accurate labels because they imply
>>> missing features. LibreOffice as we currently know it is full
>>> featured. By introducing these labels, you are signaling an intent to
>>> "dumb down" LibreOffice.
>>> 
>>> The current real distinction is around support.  So, using Linux
>>> terminology, a more accurate label would be LibreOffice Rolling verses
>>> LibreOffice LTS.  But that is geeky terminology, so for that reason it
>>> probably isn't appropriate.
>>> 
>>> Therefore since none of the suggested labels properly convey meaning,
>>> I too prefer the supposedly unavailable "no label" solution for TDF
>>> builds.
>>> 
>>> Justin
>>> 
>>> 
 On 10/21/20 11:52 AM, Uwe Altmann wrote:
 Hi
 
> Am 20.10.20 um 10:50 schrieb Michael Weghorn:
> 
> If "no label is not an option" (as stated by Italo), I'd currently
> prefer something like "TDF Edition" over "Personal Edition" or
> "Community Edition" as well, given the negative/misleading connotations
> the latter may result in.
 "no label is not an option" is Italos and some others - professional
 as I have to admit - option. But "no label" also still is an option -
 no decision made yet.
 
 And imho no label is the preferred option (as stated in past).
 Uwe Altmann
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Marc Paré
>> m...@marcpare.com
>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.parentreprise.com%2Fdata=04%7C01%7C%7C9f6b42654f164356111908d87759d3c7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637390574974336407%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=EtMLvTjpe9e7FKAGYTbzeamR4KpjVEBQNSR4ZTNdv3Y%3Dreserved=0
>> parEntreprise.com Supports OpenDocument Formats (ODF)
>> parEntreprise.com Supports 
>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libreoffice.org%2Fdata=04%7C01%7C%7C9f6b42654f164356111908d87759d3c7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637390574974346401%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=eaAk5FHyJGrGoLdzVekvUkDZbeiDxm1mzOWluyGaA14%3Dreserved=0
>> LibreOffice Office Suite - 200 million users and growing!
>> Over 1,000 project developers with impeccable help from its user base.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
>> Problems?
>> 

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Simon Phipps]

Taking on board all the concerns about not giving the impression of a
weaker version, and if "no label" is really not an option, how about
calling TDF's package "official edition"?

S.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020, 14:31 Marc Paré,  wrote:

> Perhaps Italo could chime in and inform us if having "no label is not an
> option". We have to be consistent in a marketing plan, whether short or
> long-term.
>
> But, for me, the preference would be to continue with no label if this
> is an option, however, if a label is needed, "Community Edition" is what
> I would prefer. From my perspective, there is no negative connotation,
> the public will get exactly what it is, a version of LibreOffice built
> by members of the volunteer community and used by the members of the
> TDF/LibreOffice. I don't believe that new-comers to LibreOffice site
> will see the "LibreOffice Community Edition" as a negative, as long as
> our website messaging is clear on the TDF and LibreOffice Mission
> Statements.
>
> As for any commercial versions of LibreOffice, then "Powered by" is
> still my preferred, regardless of any community label.
>
> But, really, Italo should chime in and set us straight, again, and
> inform us if going with no label is an option. There is nothing wrong
> with going back on a marketing plan, but as long as we are being
> consistent in our planning discussions. More members need to chime in on
> this important discussion ... I am surprised that non of the board
> members nor any of the implicated commercially-connected members are not
> participating in this discussion that was called by Italo. Especially
> when Italo has set a deadline date for the discussion and then
> membership vote. More members need to be informed that this discussion
> is taking place; just so that the membership all get to have their say.
>
> Marc
>
> Le 2020-10-23 à 07 h 40, Justin Luth a écrit :
> > +1 to what Uwe and Michael and Telesto have been saying.
> >
> > Personal / Community are not accurate labels because they imply
> > missing features. LibreOffice as we currently know it is full
> > featured. By introducing these labels, you are signaling an intent to
> > "dumb down" LibreOffice.
> >
> > The current real distinction is around support.  So, using Linux
> > terminology, a more accurate label would be LibreOffice Rolling verses
> > LibreOffice LTS.  But that is geeky terminology, so for that reason it
> > probably isn't appropriate.
> >
> > Therefore since none of the suggested labels properly convey meaning,
> > I too prefer the supposedly unavailable "no label" solution for TDF
> > builds.
> >
> > Justin
> >
> >
> > On 10/21/20 11:52 AM, Uwe Altmann wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Am 20.10.20 um 10:50 schrieb Michael Weghorn:
> >>
> >>> If "no label is not an option" (as stated by Italo), I'd currently
> >>> prefer something like "TDF Edition" over "Personal Edition" or
> >>> "Community Edition" as well, given the negative/misleading connotations
> >>> the latter may result in.
> >> "no label is not an option" is Italos and some others - professional
> >> as I have to admit - option. But "no label" also still is an option -
> >> no decision made yet.
> >>
> >> And imho no label is the preferred option (as stated in past).
> >> Uwe Altmann
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Marc Paré
> m...@marcpare.com
> https://www.parEntreprise.com
> parEntreprise.com Supports OpenDocument Formats (ODF)
> parEntreprise.com Supports http://www.LibreOffice.org
> LibreOffice Office Suite - 200 million users and growing!
> Over 1,000 project developers with impeccable help from its user base.
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
> Problems?
> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
> Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
>

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Marc Paré]

Perhaps Italo could chime in and inform us if having "no label is not an
option". We have to be consistent in a marketing plan, whether short or
long-term.

But, for me, the preference would be to continue with no label if this
is an option, however, if a label is needed, "Community Edition" is what
I would prefer. From my perspective, there is no negative connotation,
the public will get exactly what it is, a version of LibreOffice built
by members of the volunteer community and used by the members of the
TDF/LibreOffice. I don't believe that new-comers to LibreOffice site
will see the "LibreOffice Community Edition" as a negative, as long as
our website messaging is clear on the TDF and LibreOffice Mission
Statements.

As for any commercial versions of LibreOffice, then "Powered by" is
still my preferred, regardless of any community label.

But, really, Italo should chime in and set us straight, again, and
inform us if going with no label is an option. There is nothing wrong
with going back on a marketing plan, but as long as we are being
consistent in our planning discussions. More members need to chime in on
this important discussion ... I am surprised that non of the board
members nor any of the implicated commercially-connected members are not
participating in this discussion that was called by Italo. Especially
when Italo has set a deadline date for the discussion and then
membership vote. More members need to be informed that this discussion
is taking place; just so that the membership all get to have their say.

Marc

Le 2020-10-23 à 07 h 40, Justin Luth a écrit :
> +1 to what Uwe and Michael and Telesto have been saying.
>
> Personal / Community are not accurate labels because they imply
> missing features. LibreOffice as we currently know it is full
> featured. By introducing these labels, you are signaling an intent to
> "dumb down" LibreOffice.
>
> The current real distinction is around support.  So, using Linux
> terminology, a more accurate label would be LibreOffice Rolling verses
> LibreOffice LTS.  But that is geeky terminology, so for that reason it
> probably isn't appropriate.
>
> Therefore since none of the suggested labels properly convey meaning,
> I too prefer the supposedly unavailable "no label" solution for TDF
> builds.
>
> Justin
>
>
> On 10/21/20 11:52 AM, Uwe Altmann wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Am 20.10.20 um 10:50 schrieb Michael Weghorn:
>>
>>> If "no label is not an option" (as stated by Italo), I'd currently
>>> prefer something like "TDF Edition" over "Personal Edition" or
>>> "Community Edition" as well, given the negative/misleading connotations
>>> the latter may result in.
>> "no label is not an option" is Italos and some others - professional
>> as I have to admit - option. But "no label" also still is an option -
>> no decision made yet.
>>
>> And imho no label is the preferred option (as stated in past).
>> Uwe Altmann
>>
>


-- 
Marc Paré
m...@marcpare.com
https://www.parEntreprise.com
parEntreprise.com Supports OpenDocument Formats (ODF)
parEntreprise.com Supports http://www.LibreOffice.org
LibreOffice Office Suite - 200 million users and growing!
Over 1,000 project developers with impeccable help from its user base.



-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Justin Luth]

+1 to what Uwe and Michael and Telesto have been saying.

Personal / Community are not accurate labels because they imply missing 
features. LibreOffice as we currently know it is full featured. By 
introducing these labels, you are signaling an intent to "dumb down" 
LibreOffice.


The current real distinction is around support.  So, using Linux 
terminology, a more accurate label would be LibreOffice Rolling verses 
LibreOffice LTS.  But that is geeky terminology, so for that reason it 
probably isn't appropriate.


Therefore since none of the suggested labels properly convey meaning, I 
too prefer the supposedly unavailable "no label" solution for TDF builds.


Justin


On 10/21/20 11:52 AM, Uwe Altmann wrote:

Hi

Am 20.10.20 um 10:50 schrieb Michael Weghorn:


If "no label is not an option" (as stated by Italo), I'd currently
prefer something like "TDF Edition" over "Personal Edition" or
"Community Edition" as well, given the negative/misleading connotations
the latter may result in.

"no label is not an option" is Italos and some others - professional as I have to admit - 
option. But "no label" also still is an option - no decision made yet.

And imho no label is the preferred option (as stated in past).
Uwe Altmann



--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Uwe Altmann]

Hi

Am 20.10.20 um 10:50 schrieb Michael Weghorn:

> If "no label is not an option" (as stated by Italo), I'd currently
> prefer something like "TDF Edition" over "Personal Edition" or
> "Community Edition" as well, given the negative/misleading connotations
> the latter may result in.

"no label is not an option" is Italos and some others - professional as I have 
to admit - option. But "no label" also still is an option - no decision made 
yet. 

And imho no label is the preferred option (as stated in past). So my solution 
would be:

> LibreOffice
for all the (vanilla) binaries delivered by the TDF. 

Downstream products using the LibreOffice-trademark have to add an descriptor 
like:
> LibreOffice Enterprise by CIB
> LibreOffice Enterprise by Collabora
> LibreOffice Enterprise by ...
or
LibeOfficeOnline by Collabora...

The "LibreOffice Technology" may be used voluntary in a way like "Collabora 
Office using LibreOffice Technology".

This is voluntary because our license allows something like "Collabora Office" 
even if 99% of the code is LibreOffice.
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Uwe Altmann

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Uwe Altmann]

Hi

Am 20.10.20 um 10:50 schrieb Michael Weghorn:

> If "no label is not an option" (as stated by Italo), I'd currently
> prefer something like "TDF Edition" over "Personal Edition" or
> "Community Edition" as well, given the negative/misleading connotations
> the latter may result in.

"no label is not an option" is Italos and some others persons working on this 
(professional as I have to admit) opinion. But cof ourse "no label" is still an 
option - no decision made yet. 
IMHO no label is the preferred option (as stated in past). So my solution would 
be:

> LibreOffice
for the (vanilla) binaries delivered by the TDF. 

Downstream products using the Trademark have to add an qualifier like:
> LibreOffice Enterprise by CIB
> LibreOffice Enterprise by Collabora
> LibreOffice Enterprise by ...
or:
LibeOfficeOnline by Collabora...

or may use the "LibreOffice Technology"-Label like
Collabora Office for Android - using LibreOffice Technology

The latter one beeing voluntary because our license allows something like 
"Collabora Office" even if 99% of the code is LibreOffice.
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Uwe Altmann

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[kainz.a]

LibreOffice Community Project
LibreOffice Enterprise by CIB
LibreOffice Enterprise by Collabora
LibreOffice Enterprise by ...

Personal Edition has the feeling of, not allowed somewhere (in the office)
Community vs Enterprise Edition has the feeling of, Enterprise is better
Community Project gives me the feeling that you can join. What should be
the idea behind LibO and TDF. There was also this discussion about Project
vs. Product which is more clear.

It would be glad if ReadHat as they support the development work of LibO
can ship a edition like:
LibreOffice Enterprise by ReadHat


Am Di., 20. Okt. 2020 um 10:52 Uhr schrieb Michael Weghorn <
m.wegh...@posteo.de>:

> On 12/10/2020 23:30, Telesto wrote:
>
> > Some attempts:
> > LibreOffice shipped by TDF.
> > LibreOffice TDF release.
> > LibreOffice distributed/compiled by TDF.
> > LibreOffice made possible by TDF.
> >
>
> If "no label is not an option" (as stated by Italo), I'd currently
> prefer something like "TDF Edition" over "Personal Edition" or
> "Community Edition" as well, given the negative/misleading connotations
> the latter may result in.
> More meaningful suggestions welcome, of course. :-)
>
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 09:57:25 +0200, Mike Saunders wrote:
> >
> > The logo already has "The Document Foundation" underneath, so I don't
> > think this really adds anything. And just leads people to wonder what
> > that actually means. I think a word like "Community" makes it more clear
> > that it's not an enterprise product.
> >
> > Just my 2C...
>
> An accompanying note in the About dialog that professional support or
> Enterprise editions are available might clarify this.
> Whether such a note would be enough or the "TDF Edition" label would
> still add much to that is actually unclear to me as well, though.
>
> Michael
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
> Problems?
> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
> Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
>

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Michael Weghorn]

On 12/10/2020 23:30, Telesto wrote:

> Some attempts:
> LibreOffice shipped by TDF.
> LibreOffice TDF release.
> LibreOffice distributed/compiled by TDF.
> LibreOffice made possible by TDF.
> 

If "no label is not an option" (as stated by Italo), I'd currently
prefer something like "TDF Edition" over "Personal Edition" or
"Community Edition" as well, given the negative/misleading connotations
the latter may result in.
More meaningful suggestions welcome, of course. :-)

On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 09:57:25 +0200, Mike Saunders wrote:
> 
> The logo already has "The Document Foundation" underneath, so I don't
> think this really adds anything. And just leads people to wonder what
> that actually means. I think a word like "Community" makes it more clear
> that it's not an enterprise product.
> 
> Just my 2C...

An accompanying note in the About dialog that professional support or
Enterprise editions are available might clarify this.
Whether such a note would be enough or the "TDF Edition" label would
still add much to that is actually unclear to me as well, though.

Michael

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Telesto]

Op 14-10-2020 om 15:52 schreef Marc Paré:

Hi Telesto,

Thanks for the large reply, of which, from what I gather is that you are
saying that the definition of "Community" can be viewed from many
perspectives.


True. And one of those is Commercial Company's sharing a limited version 
under
the label "Community Edition". They obvious example being Visual Studio 
Community Edition.

Not sure how many more examples there are.

The other problem is that's bit of empty shell. Not sure what community 
edition should represent.
What edition part entails. Editions point to difference. A common 
approach is to see community edition as

functional limited edition (look at VS Community).

Also they community is largely, formed by same people who build the 
Enterprise Edition.
The Enterprise Edition is more or less they Community Edition. So they 
edition is actually a LTS variant with some extra's (and professional 
support)
So they core difference isn't they edition, but the support and area for 
deployment (Enterprises environments versus home environments)


Another issue I have is that I don't see a actual (coherent, cohesive, 
harmonic) community. It are lots of lose fractions (decentralized).
They developers are a pretty tight group of people (with few of QA). And 
maybe the key figures at Infra/Marketing/UX.
Lets call it the core family. GSoC students, QA members are simply bunch 
of people scrambled together (maybe the same at Ask)
Coming, going, doing whatever they want. So they community is build out 
of core and number of people floating around.
There are no 'common' values or something like that within the 
community(if you ask me). There a quite a number of vision about what 
LibreOffice by TDF represents.


Everybody has it's own reason for contributing. And even their own 
vision what LibreOffice is :-).
From the perspective of they eco-system partners TDF might be 
intermediary between different contributors (to share code. And an 
giving a testing user base.
Other group of members at TDF sees LibrOffice as independent project, 
with it's own purpose. So TDF board could disagree with eco-system partners.
There is a group who approaches it from FLOSS perspective.  They might 
object against edition and say marketing eco-system partners inside 
FLOSS product.


There is discussion about LibreOffice being a project or product. For 
they eco-systems partners it's certainly also a product (you have to buy 
a license).
They have customers, customer wants a tool. They product delivers they 
tool they want. The code changes also flow into LibreOffice TDF edition.


I - personally - see mission/ purpose (partly) in serving need of users. 
So delivering a (free) market standard open source Office Suite.
From my perspective it's even possible to have QA committee at TDF body 
in an attempt focus more on bugs ruining the user experience. And that 
LibreOffice includes listing to 'the people'

To make LibreOffice a nice product to use.

Not only a 'project' which - say - only developers enjoy.  And TDF - as 
a body - should be able to 'complain' at eco-system partners introducing 
to many new bugs, without carrying enough to solve them.
Currently eco-system partners 'care only about bugs their customers care 
about' so every flaw they introduce but outside that scope while likely 
linger around.
Of course is this a 'simplification' and put harshly. The reality is 
more defuse, multilayered and complex. If somebody introduces QR 
feature, rendered as SVG. And it doesn't export well to DOCX.
Who did it? SVG broken by someone else (or never worked before). Is the 
company supposed to fix that on their budget? Even if this isn't a need 
for the customer who liked they QR feature?
If LibreOffice at TDF simply a pipe for code flow across. No problem. If 
LibreOffice at TDF also stands for quality product, this might tends to 
an issue. And maybe even TDF should (financially contribute)
to solve it? Of should we wait until a customer appears at who needs QR 
codes at DOCX export? This would imply a fresh supply of money, instead 
of consuming TDF or company budget.

And the dilemma's are born :-).
Result is LibreOffice at TDF riddled with bugs waiting for a customer to 
be paid for :-). Instead of eco-system partners investing upfront (and 
asking a higher price for their product; as more feature complete)
They actually can't do that, because the don't get a proper return on 
investment. Because there work is immediately also found in LibreOffice 
at TDF (which can be downloaded for free). And has the same stuff :-(
So TDF has to invest, is in principle possible. Now the problem moves to 
TDF. How can TDF by financial self sufficient over the long term? They 
donations are nice, but likely not enough.


The community appears to be 'working' - being in silent agreement - 
until a topic is on the table which hurts the balance. The cracks in 
burst within the "community" become visible.
It keeps surprising me how people 

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Marc Paré]

Hi Telesto,

Thanks for the large reply, of which, from what I gather is that you are
saying that the definition of "Community" can be viewed from many
perspectives. My comment to this is, this is where the TDF/LibreOffice
needs to message in a clearer way on the website as to its definition of
"community", just to make it crystal clear. We all come from different
cultures, I am Canadian, and in particular French-Canadian, so, my
interpretation of "community" will be nuanced by my cultural background.
However, if a clear definition on the TDF and LibreOffice offers a clear
message of the definition of "community" then it can be treated as our
reference-guide.

As for giving credit to the coding enterprises that makes in large part
what LibreOffice is, sure, I am on side with this. However, let's not
forget that others have committed resources to the project. One example
of such is the group of national domain holders who provide LibreOffice
brand legal cover in various countries. For example, www.LibreOffice.ca
is owned and supported by a Canadian individual who supports this cover
(as well as other .ca domains), as well as potential liability. This
hidden group is never spoken of, and, never credited for giving help to
the project. There are many non-TDF-members on the docs team who also
support through great effort and also some who base their doc support
through their business who are also part of this large hidden group. And
this is just the tip of some of the hidden groups who are generally left
with no credit for their efforts.

So, essentially, we should credit all who contribute to the project.
But, sure, I completely agree, that the project should acknowledge in
particular the ecosystem-partners as a strategy of moving the project on
in the for-profit ecosystem, we should definitely consider this
acknowledgement. But, with the hopes that the ecosystem-partners also
realize the nature of the LibreOffice project's mission and vision is
the heartbeat of the organization.

As for your comments on timely re-evaluations, and the potential mess it
may/does create. This is just part of the process. Membership talk is
healthy, whether negative or positive. Learning how to work in a project
with some give-and-take is healthy. We should all embrace any kind of
conversation. We all come from different backgrounds, culture and knowledge.

Cheers,

Marc

-- 
Marc Paré
m...@marcpare.com
https://www.parEntreprise.com
parEntreprise.com Supports OpenDocument Formats (ODF)
parEntreprise.com Supports http://www.LibreOffice.org
LibreOffice Office Suite - 220 million users and growing!
Over 1,000 project developers with impeccable help from its user base.



-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Marc Paré]

Le 2020-10-13 à 14 h 48, Nigel Verity a écrit :
> Hi Mike
>
> Although I cannot think of a suitable alternative I have slight reservations 
> about the use of the term "community". It may be just a British thing but in 
> the UK the term is slightly nuanced to mean "good but not the very best", e.g 
> The community hall is often the venue for amateur entertainment, run by a 
> panel of well-intentioned but usually inexperienced untrained volunteers.
>
> With that background I feel that to many ears the "community edition" of 
> LibreOffice may be judged to be a slightly inferior version - a bit like the 
> difference between MS Office Home Edition and MS Office Professional.
>
> Regards
>
> Nige
>
>  LibreOffice - Free and open source office suite: LibreOffice 
> Website
>  Respects your privacy, and gives you back control over your data
>
>
Hi Nige,

However, if you Google-search on the terms "Community Edition", you will
find an abundance of opensource "Community Editions" out there, some of
which are large projects. If this particular label is adopted, the
TDF/LibreOffice should be clear on defining the meaning of the terms of
"LibreOffice Community Edition". Clear messaging is important on large
projects as many different cultures are served and different combination
of terms may or may not bring on multiple connotations. So, the
TDF/LibreOffice should be clear in stating its reasons for adopting any
labels, product names etc. on the LibreOffice and TDF websites.

BTW ... I like your signature! Great!

Cheers,

Marc

-- 
Marc Paré
m...@marcpare.com
https://www.parEntreprise.com
parEntreprise.com Supports OpenDocument Formats (ODF)
parEntreprise.com Supports http://www.LibreOffice.org
LibreOffice Office Suite - 220 million users and growing!
Over 1,000 project developers with impeccable help from its user base.



-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Cor Nouws]

Hi Telesto,

Let me confess that I only read a part of the discussions - I'm simply
not able to keep up with all.
But I am interested in opinions and reasons for ideas. So I have a question:

Telesto wrote on 13/10/2020 18:26:

> 

(skipping may lines with IMO logic ideas/POVs - thanks for describing
those.)

> Visa versa bring in the commercial perspective into TDF; which of course
> reasonable. Except this sometimes ends in a kind of COI matter where TDF
> and business vision not totally align.

I'm triggered by the "Except this sometimes ..." reading it as that is
'not reasonable'.
Can you pls explain that a bit more?
To explain why I wonder: I think for sure it is not always practical or
easy, to have to work with conflicts of interest. But isn't it
unavoidable if you have foundation that hosts an open source community
where all kind of contributors are active (like you so clearly
explained). And also of course, there are more and other personal
interest of people in LibreOffice/TDF than just the fact that they earn
(part of) the living with it.

Maybe I missed some other part of your text, not sure ;0

Thanks,
Cor


-- 
Cor Nouws
GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28  A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6
- vrijwilliger https://nl.libreoffice.org
- volunteer https://www.libreoffice.org
- Member Board The Document Foundation
- marketing @CollaboraOffice
- ceo www.nouenoff.nl
- initiator www.mijncloudoffice.nl

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Telesto]

So, for me, "Community Edition" is fine. We would also need to decide on
the commercial label at the same time, of which, I prefer "Powered by ...".

Related to the 'Community Edition' I point to page 54 of
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/qPMWRFsxwQ6QFpK#pdfviewer
Which is summery of the discussion at BoD mailing list . Which gives a 
taste what can go wrong :-)
Prefer the avoid the confusion in advance. So I tend to opt for 
something else.
However if the majority -or should we opt for qualitative majority 
instead of simple majority,
recalling narrow majority on the Brexit vote - wants this, fine. I will 
back down


I'm also having some issues to get to the a clear picture a (single) 
"Community".
I see it more as decentralized community's, compared to a single 
'coherent' TDF LibreOffice community/family.
You can divide it linguistically There is the France community, German 
community, Spanish community.
Or maybe task based: developers community. A QA community :-). 
Translation community.
Or maybe you can draw a line between company community and unassociated 
people.
It are more or less in depend groups working together, under umbrella of 
a community.


And at a centralized TDF community there is a vision. Maybe even a 
independent group for coordination stuff like Quality Assurance.
Not the 'current' actual QA work, but actually Assurance. So trying to 
bring LibreOffice to a higher level.
However this centralized coordination isn't present. And not really 
wanted either. TDF code repro is more a container.
Where (privately written created code) is dropped and pulled by others. 
And visa versa. There is no coordination at TDF.
TDF is in some sense more or less a conduit where code passes through, 
without any influence.
The Quality Control is done at eco-system partner company level. And 
flows into TDF. However it's uncoordinated process.
Everybody is only rudimentally awareness of what people are doing of 
preparing to do. There is no plan, no roadmaps, vision,
of what LibreOffice should be in 1, 2 or 5 years. No quality improvement 
initiatives strategy or something similar coming from TDF.


So pretty lose bunch of people.

Eco-systems partners (and their employees, mostly developers), are big 
(and essential) part of the community.

Professionally as personally. So it's not a community of equals.

There is also a topic how much the 'Community Edition' diverges from 
'Enterprise' Edition.
As Community Edition suggests a 'material' product difference between 
Enterprise Edition (or this the common expectation).
And Community Supported edition would make clear it's only related to 
support, not software as such.
However they eco-system partners playing a big part in they community. 
However they don't deliver actual community support.
They bug fixing they are doing is primarily done in their own interest 
from my perspective


So LibreOffice Libre Edition. And Edition free of connotations. And 
being free. You can spin write whatever story you want around it :-).

I'm fan of story telling :-).

You could even say: LibreOffice powered by the (LibreOffice) 
community/volunteers/TDF without the  'Edition label'

Or LibreOffice powered by volunteers.

Next topic. I would suggest to also include some additional line in the 
about box below the edition
Largely made possible by contributions of CIB; Collabora; RedHat and 
others (with reference the LibreOffice site).
This edition isn't professionally supported. Learn more about 
professional support, click here"


This of course they gray area of blending advertising/'branding' with 
free product.
However it's they truth those are large contributors and the should have 
some credits all the work they are doing.
Except of the hairy area of phrasing a proper sentence, without 
disrespecting they contribution of others.
It should be possible to get some objective criteria (rules) about who 
are shown in the about box.
I see it as a thank you for the all the code sharing they are doing 
:-).  They deserve credit for the work (and investments).


However someone will likely object :-). Because doesn't match the core 
values ideals of FLOSS or open source etc etc.
Or LibreOffice being 'free' project/product without company involvement. 
Or the contributions of everybody being equal to their power.
The reality is however that LibreOffice at TDF is made possible/ backed 
by the contributions of major (commercial) partners.
You can argue this should be the case, or simply a incident. However, 
where in they history of LibreOffice/OpenOffice/StarOffice did it go 
without
a commercial company backing the development? [Hope I remember enough; 
didn't verify my statement]
They desire that LibreOffice being developed by independent people 
without financial interest sounds like an utopia to me.


I would like a more pragmatic approach. Which is more in line with 
reality/ factual setting.
Instead of pretending as the community is based work only done 

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Nigel Verity]

Hi Mike

Although I cannot think of a suitable alternative I have slight reservations 
about the use of the term "community". It may be just a British thing but in 
the UK the term is slightly nuanced to mean "good but not the very best", e.g 
The community hall is often the venue for amateur entertainment, run by a panel 
of well-intentioned but usually inexperienced untrained volunteers.

With that background I feel that to many ears the "community edition" of 
LibreOffice may be judged to be a slightly inferior version - a bit like the 
difference between MS Office Home Edition and MS Office Professional.

Regards

Nige

 LibreOffice - Free and open source office suite: LibreOffice 
Website<https://www.libreoffice.org>
 Respects your privacy, and gives you back control over your data


From: Italo Vignoli 
Sent: 13 October 2020 16:56
To: marketing@global.libreoffice.org 
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

The commercial label is Enterprise, while "powered by..." can be part of
the product name. We should remember that we are discussing a label and
not a product name, which does not change and is LibreOffice.

The label is an attribute, with the objective of adding information to
the product name.

On 10/13/20 3:17 PM, Marc Paré wrote:
>
> I suggest we try to keep it as honest as possible. The membership should
> speak out on this item re: "edition".
>
> IMO, "Community Edition" is fine, and agree that this could be modified
> at a future date when the membership would review the edition labels;
> perhaps reviewed every 4-5 years or something of the like.
>
> We profess how we are a community and collective of many different
> language groups working on the project, whether it be coders, designers,
> translation, docs, etc. So, in my mind "community" is the exact
> description. It does not bring up the idea of setting any commercial
> ties, etc. If members outside of the community, users, decide to adopt
> LibreOffice, then they do so and enjoy the fruits of the wonderful
> software solution that LibreOffice brings to them.
>
> As for any commercial versions of LibreOffice, they (the people behind
> "commercializing" LibreOffice) should also be made to abide by a
> membership-decided label. I like the idea of "Powered by ..." label, not
> sure if this would infringe on any trademarks.
>
> But, by and large, should any organization wish to use the LibreOffice
> suite as we know, coming from the community, then no problem. Just that,
> at this point, no commercial support is built into the community project
> for such a beast, Having a robust list of commercial businesses,
> advertised on the LibreOffice website, that can help install LibreOffice
> for commercial usage, IMO, is pretty well an accepted solution to most
> who run businesses and search for commercial application solutions. In
> this day of age, most businesses are used to seeing a community
> opensource version of software with an alternate commercial version of
> the same for a price.
>
> So, for me, "Community Edition" is fine. We would also need to decide on
> the commercial label at the same time, of which, I prefer "Powered by ...".
>
> Cheers,
>
> Marc
>

--
Italo Vignoli - LibreOffice Marketing & PR
mobile/signal +39.348.5653829 - email it...@libreoffice.org
hangout/jabber italo.vign...@gmail.com - skype italovignoli
GPG Key ID - 0xAAB8D5C0
DB75 1534 3FD0 EA5F 56B5 FDA6 DE82 934C AAB8 D5C0

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? 
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.libreoffice.org%2Fget-help%2Fmailing-lists%2Fhow-to-unsubscribe%2Fdata=02%7C01%7C%7C6f40dddcbb7047fc200d08d86f90b668%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637382014607352298sdata=tnK961Aty%2B8HedGm%2BcTmGMDwqnFAE1VWLxMLnIjuwjE%3Dreserved=0
Posting guidelines + more: 
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.documentfoundation.org%2FNetiquettedata=02%7C01%7C%7C6f40dddcbb7047fc200d08d86f90b668%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637382014607357287sdata=Sozxk%2Bt8AoJvqVnuMdgO1lw9iEZSeJMdYAhhvGJo4Qo%3Dreserved=0
List archive: 
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistarchives.libreoffice.org%2Fglobal%2Fmarketing%2Fdata=02%7C01%7C%7C6f40dddcbb7047fc200d08d86f90b668%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637382014607357287sdata=QIIfnORIkN2CfGUviT6exWOWCXUpxEb3ZYkPUUUxXJI%3Dreserved=0
Privacy Policy: 
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.documentfoundation.org%2Fprivacydata=02%7C01%7C%7C6f40dddcbb7047fc200d08d86f90b668%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637382014607357287sdata=fdVHOAegS

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Italo Vignoli]

The commercial label is Enterprise, while "powered by..." can be part of
the product name. We should remember that we are discussing a label and
not a product name, which does not change and is LibreOffice.

The label is an attribute, with the objective of adding information to
the product name.

On 10/13/20 3:17 PM, Marc Paré wrote:
> 
> I suggest we try to keep it as honest as possible. The membership should
> speak out on this item re: "edition".
> 
> IMO, "Community Edition" is fine, and agree that this could be modified
> at a future date when the membership would review the edition labels;
> perhaps reviewed every 4-5 years or something of the like.
> 
> We profess how we are a community and collective of many different
> language groups working on the project, whether it be coders, designers,
> translation, docs, etc. So, in my mind "community" is the exact
> description. It does not bring up the idea of setting any commercial
> ties, etc. If members outside of the community, users, decide to adopt
> LibreOffice, then they do so and enjoy the fruits of the wonderful
> software solution that LibreOffice brings to them.
> 
> As for any commercial versions of LibreOffice, they (the people behind
> "commercializing" LibreOffice) should also be made to abide by a
> membership-decided label. I like the idea of "Powered by ..." label, not
> sure if this would infringe on any trademarks.
> 
> But, by and large, should any organization wish to use the LibreOffice
> suite as we know, coming from the community, then no problem. Just that,
> at this point, no commercial support is built into the community project
> for such a beast, Having a robust list of commercial businesses,
> advertised on the LibreOffice website, that can help install LibreOffice
> for commercial usage, IMO, is pretty well an accepted solution to most
> who run businesses and search for commercial application solutions. In
> this day of age, most businesses are used to seeing a community
> opensource version of software with an alternate commercial version of
> the same for a price.
> 
> So, for me, "Community Edition" is fine. We would also need to decide on
> the commercial label at the same time, of which, I prefer "Powered by ...".
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Marc
> 

-- 
Italo Vignoli - LibreOffice Marketing & PR
mobile/signal +39.348.5653829 - email it...@libreoffice.org
hangout/jabber italo.vign...@gmail.com - skype italovignoli
GPG Key ID - 0xAAB8D5C0
DB75 1534 3FD0 EA5F 56B5 FDA6 DE82 934C AAB8 D5C0

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Marc Paré]

I suggest we try to keep it as honest as possible. The membership should
speak out on this item re: "edition".

IMO, "Community Edition" is fine, and agree that this could be modified
at a future date when the membership would review the edition labels;
perhaps reviewed every 4-5 years or something of the like.

We profess how we are a community and collective of many different
language groups working on the project, whether it be coders, designers,
translation, docs, etc. So, in my mind "community" is the exact
description. It does not bring up the idea of setting any commercial
ties, etc. If members outside of the community, users, decide to adopt
LibreOffice, then they do so and enjoy the fruits of the wonderful
software solution that LibreOffice brings to them.

As for any commercial versions of LibreOffice, they (the people behind
"commercializing" LibreOffice) should also be made to abide by a
membership-decided label. I like the idea of "Powered by ..." label, not
sure if this would infringe on any trademarks.

But, by and large, should any organization wish to use the LibreOffice
suite as we know, coming from the community, then no problem. Just that,
at this point, no commercial support is built into the community project
for such a beast, Having a robust list of commercial businesses,
advertised on the LibreOffice website, that can help install LibreOffice
for commercial usage, IMO, is pretty well an accepted solution to most
who run businesses and search for commercial application solutions. In
this day of age, most businesses are used to seeing a community
opensource version of software with an alternate commercial version of
the same for a price.

So, for me, "Community Edition" is fine. We would also need to decide on
the commercial label at the same time, of which, I prefer "Powered by ...".

Cheers,

Marc

-- 
Marc Paré
m...@marcpare.com
https://www.parEntreprise.com
parEntreprise.com Supports OpenDocument Formats (ODF)
parEntreprise.com Supports http://www.LibreOffice.org
LibreOffice Office Suite - 220 million users and growing!
Over 1,000 project developers with impeccable help from its user base.



-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Telesto]

Hey Telesto,

On 12/10/2020 23:30, Telesto wrote:

Some attempts:
LibreOffice shipped by TDF.
LibreOffice TDF release.
LibreOffice distributed/compiled by TDF.
LibreOffice made possible by TDF.

The logo already has "The Document Foundation" underneath, so I don't
think this really adds anything. And just leads people to wonder what
that actually means. I think a word like "Community" makes it more clear
that it's not an enterprise product.
Valid objection against using TDF. I would even say, using TDF makes 
TDFt a software vendor.
Which isn't ideal. FWIW: they where only some proposals out of 
brainstorming mode :-)


However I expect Community Edition to be misinterpreted rather often.
It might be a trimmed down version. Or to be used by the Community (so 
not for not-community members)
So 'simply' community edition is a no go. So if you want to go for 
Community , I should be "Community supported edition, or something similar.



In general. I'm happy with 'critics' on my suggestions.  However I would 
like people to split up their opinion (in steps).
Makes it easier keeping track on positions taken. Else everything is 
mixed together and makes it hard to distill positions out the arguments 
made.


1) Supported of rejecting the 'Edition' topic (which technically of the 
table, but supports of that are probably still to be found)
2) Agreeing or disagreeing about Community/ Personal carrying 
connotations (loaded terminology)
3) Assessment if the 'connotation' topic can be overcome. Say be 
explaining the meaning in the current context. I personally don't think 
you can ever 'solve' the connotation issue
4) If you agree with 2-3, proposals how this suggestions can be avoided 
(or expressing support of already offered options).


FWIW:W And offering support to a proposal doesn't mean you bound by it 
definitively. This is work in progress, so may change of mind because 
the follow up comments etc.

Nothing bad/evil about that.
I assume the final say will be a vote of some kind (with closed 
questions). Even with a clear outcome here.. Not sure if everybody wants 
to participate in the discussion (or having the time to do so).


For the record, people who are against any Edition branding, simply say so.
Don't go into sabotaging/abuse mode. So acknowledging problem with 
editions, seeing as a problem,
and followed by bluntly rejecting everything on the table. To simply to 
frustrate the process. In the hope of creating an impasse of some kind.

We want to be constructive.

So at point 4, if you reject all the suggestions on the table, please 
give at least one (reasonable) alternative.
It's more constructive compared to say I dislike everything (which can 
be true opinion or sabotaging)
Rejecting something pretty easy, thinking about an alternative could be 
'hard'.


Regards,
Telesto



--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter

[Mike Saunders]

Hey Telesto,

On 12/10/2020 23:30, Telesto wrote:
> 
> Some attempts:
> LibreOffice shipped by TDF.
> LibreOffice TDF release.
> LibreOffice distributed/compiled by TDF.
> LibreOffice made possible by TDF.

The logo already has "The Document Foundation" underneath, so I don't
think this really adds anything. And just leads people to wonder what
that actually means. I think a word like "Community" makes it more clear
that it's not an enterprise product.

Just my 2C...

Mike

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy