Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi Michael, :-) On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 05:36, Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com wrote: a clear decision about the management of the libreoffice.org website. It's an important tool for marketing. I have plenty of ideas about how to market with it Here is my clear idea: since you are doing the work - you get to own it, lead it, and those that don't like what you do get to gripe at you, and everyone else gets to back you up :-) [ if only to keep you motivated, happy and productive ;-]. I get the idea, but I'm not sure if it is really viable as a form of management. For instance, me, I want to do *work* for the project. But I don't want to spend more time writing to lists arguing with people, etc, than actually doing useful work. My experience to date has been 90% debating by e-mail and 10% actual work... And I certainly didn't feel too much back up until the last few days... So I probably won't be tempted to carry on the work past my original goal of seeing the LibreOffice community with a website. At the moment, spending more time with my guitar sounds more inviting! ;-) and I would like to get a clear remit to work on that with you. Please can you read my post [1] on the SC list and contribute your thoughts on it? I read it - it had about five new formal roles in it - so I didn't like it. I'd much prefer that you were the leader by dint of actually doing all the hard work (like you are now) :-) I do see what you mean, but working on the website for the project has not been a good experience so far... A whole lot of criticism, very little useful support, very little practical help from anyone... (personally) I am not a big believer in lots of formal access control - but in social pressure and consensus building: you created some nice content - how can we help you stop other people mangling it ? I don't really know, Michael... You tell me? :-D If you allow the site to be run in a chaotic, uncontrolled manner, I think you'll lose a lot of the benefit it could otherwise bring the foundation. True, so I wonder how we can help coax people into producing and editing in a tasteful and restrained way ? how can we build good taste, and/or asking-when-they-don't-know-the-answer into the community of editors ? Well, again, this is apparently the SC's laisse-faire / anarchical style of community governance... or non-governance... so you tell me the answers to those questions... ;-) It's a system that might work when you're dealing with just people of goodwill and good intent... but we all know that there are always some people with negative behaviors and attitudes... How is one supposed to cope with them? In practice, this anarchical management style did not build you a website. When left to organize the work by themselves, the website team did not build you any kind of website at all. It took nearly 3 months before LibreOffice got a website. And that was due, in large part, to the bloody-minded obstinacy of one person. My humble 2 cents is that the SC's social experiment has proved a failure. And if you count on the same methods for the future management of your website, I think you'll reap either more failure or - at best - a mediocre result. I think I'd like to start a larger debate about where TDF is going when i finished the work on the website and hand it back to you to manage however you feel best. ;-) Does that help ? :-) Well, it gives me an idea of you guys' position... Thanks for that... But so far it doesn't actually help as such, no... :-D In any case, thanks for your input. ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] next phone conference on Thursday
Hello, our next SC confcall will be on Thursday. We'll hear each other Thursday, January 13th 1700 UTC For your local date and time, see http://www.doodle.com/svqmnnrw8hv6dsbp The dial-in details are available at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Steering_Committee_Meetings#Dial-in_Details The conference room number is 53 71 38. The PIN will be 281. Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
On 1/7/11 4:12 PM, David Nelson wrote: To do that job, I would ask - for a period of 4 months, subsequently renewable on condition of the SC's approval - for complete authority and final veto on all content on the libreoffice.org website. I want to be considered *the boss* of the libreoffice.org website, and my decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members. Anything short of that, my decision wins. Hi David, I am totally against such a decision. You have done a very good job for the progress of the web site, but I do not think that anyone inside the project deserves the title of boss of a specific project. TDF is a community project, and we must respect the community way of doing things. Consensus is key for the progress of the project, and for the progress of sub projects within the main project. Forced consensus, even if backed by the SC, is not going to work. This would give me the necessary authority to try some imaginative and ambitious plans that I will put to Marketing. You are invited and welcome to share your ambitious plans with the community of volunteers interested in marketing TDF and LibreOffice. Any marketing plan must be shared and agreed before being put into practice. I would ask for the title of Executive editor of the libreoffice.org website. The only reason I have for asking for this title is that it gives me a handle to use in relations with outside parties, such as the press. David, this is puzzling and worrying me at the same time. Why should you talk to the press outside TDF communication activities, which are coordinated by the SC and have already four official spokespersons? If it is appropriate for you to talk with the press on behalf of TDF, we will be more than happy to put you forward after having been media trained (the entire SC has been media trained). If you feel able to grant me this trust, you can be sure that I will act responsibly and wisely, and that my sole aim will be to advance and protect the interests of the LibreOffice project and community. I am just one out of eight the SC members, but I will strongly disapprove any decision in the direction requested by your message. I believe in teamwork and community-building. I would be keen to listen to and to learn from others, and to take the smartest decisions possible. I would seek to leave behind a positive contribution. David, so far, you have been a good community member, and you have done a lot for the project. In my opinion, though, your request is not a demonstration of respect for teamwork and community building. Even if we are used to work in a corporate environment, we must accept that the community environment is a different one, and even if we hate lengthy discussions we need to cope with them using different weapons from traditional corporate hierarchy. You have already got something unusual, i.e. a few days of extraordinary empowerment - and I am sure that you have used them to the advantage of the project - but this, in my opinion, does not qualify for another request of the same kind, and for a longer span of time. So said, I am keen to listen to the opinion of the other members of the SC. Ciao, Italo -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813 Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi David, *, On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:33 AM, David Nelson comme...@traduction.biz wrote: I'd like to suggest that there should be an editing team officially appointed: An editing team is a good idea, however - one *English NL* executive editor (with publishing/admin powers), one is not enough, as one might be ill/on vacation, etc. Also it doesn't quite fit in the community idea - Charles Schulz, Florian Effenberger and Italo Vignoli as managing editors (with publishing/admin powers). I'd rather have more of managing editors - not sure whether there needs to be a dedicate executive editor position, but rather a couple of managing editors But same as above, the list is too short, esp. as those people are heavily involved in other areas. To kick-start it, it might be enough, but it should quickly be expanded to include other people who have contributed in a reasonable fashion/have proven that they are capable of the task. - one person from Design, Christoph Noack, with author powers, to consult with about buttons and images. I don't otherwise see the Design team playing much of a role in the running of the website, beyond ensuring compliance with the graphic charter (which is principally imposed by the theme). -1 Especially in terms of design, artworkt, etc. you cannot have enough contributors. Having one peer contact: Yes, this is desireable (i.e. one who forwards the requests of the website team and reports back the results of the design team). As it is hard enough to get artwork to put up on the site, you shouldn't artificially limit the amount of possible contributors by only having one person with powers. - one or two technical administrators: Christian Lohmaier and Erich Christian (with admin powers). My suggestion would be that they do limit themselves to *technical* administration alone, without any interest in the content side (this is what they currently do with the other NL sites). This should be no problem, as at least we two have other areas to work with as well :-) However I surely have an interest in the content part, since the content in the end determines what features to add to the site, etc. Focus surely is on the technical part. - one contributors team, principally of English NL speakers (each member with author powers). Yes, success or failure all depends on the contributors. IMHO, if you organize things like this, you will have a tool that is efficiently run and that will provide TDF with the most-effective marketing platform. If you allow the site to be run in a chaotic, uncontrolled manner, I think you'll lose a lot of the benefit it could otherwise bring the foundation. Well, I somewhat disagree here. I guess the biggest problem wrt the english site is/was that there has not been an english native-lang project within the OOo-project, thus there was no group like for example in the french and german NL-projects that were already familiar with working together on website content and familiar with collaborating in an opensource project. English content on the OOo website has been created by lots of different people, none being in an english project, over a rather long period of time. The OOo website redesign was a lengthy process, but involved a lot of people (which was a good thing). I think it is worth to get back to that working style, although it sometimes introduces unnecessary delays or lengthy discussions - we won't have the time pressure anymore. In any case, may I encourage you to take some clear decisions about this over the next few days? +1 for having a dedicated Publisher/Reviewer group for proofreading the submissions, dealing as contact-point for new contributors, but -1 for limiting that group to such a small group of people, esp. you definitely need to involve design/artwork more. ciao Christian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi David, *, On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:12 PM, David Nelson comme...@traduction.biz wrote: To do that job, I would ask - for a period of 4 months, subsequently renewable on condition of the SC's approval - for complete authority and final veto on all content on the libreoffice.org website. I have to agree with the others that I don't like this way of handling the situation. I'm rather with Michael: Whose who do the work have the say anyway. I want to be considered *the boss* of the libreoffice.org website, and my decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members. Anything short of that, my decision wins. I'd rather prefer if that would not be needed in the first place - being the boss because one is the person who does the work gives me a better feeling than I'm the boss because that's written on my nametag This would give me the necessary authority to try some imaginative and ambitious plans that I will put to Marketing. Well - in that case I even more have to say -1 If you're the only one to think your plans are great (and in only this case you'd need to have Boss-powers), then I'd rather not follow that plan. If other people agree, then you're the boss because you're driving things forward. I would ask for the title of Executive editor of the libreoffice.org website. The only reason I have for asking for this title is that it gives me a handle to use in relations with outside parties, such as the press. Regarding representing the TDF/the project to the press, others have responded already. [...] What do you say, guys? ;-) Can we try this experiment and see what it produces? I'd say now (but I'm no SC member) - the goals of the TDF are to drive community collaboration in the end, not one party can do as they please. Experience, and actual contribution/work done should weigh more than a title. That is nothing wrong with giving you a title Executive editor - but the I can veto whatever I want part is what I don't agree with. I'm sure you wouldn't abuse that power, but is the message it signals to the outside, the principle behind it that doesn't please me. The community should be ruled based on rationale decisions, on discussions where people can provide input, etc (and that quality of the opinion/person behind it weighs more than just quantity of votes). Having a mini-dictatorship is OK for special cases, but is not a long-term situation. ciao Christian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi Christian, David, all, I'm not a SC member, but I'd like to support Christian's proposals: Christian Lohmaier schrieb: Hi David, *, On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:33 AM, David Nelsoncomme...@traduction.biz wrote: I'd like to suggest that there should be an editing team officially appointed: An editing team is a good idea, however We definitely need people feeling responsible for their specific area of expertize / interest. By using the SilverStripe features to create pages and let them be reviewed before final publishing we will be able to keep the website quality high while increasing the website team (when people have shown their dedication and skills). - one *English NL* executive editor (with publishing/admin powers), one is not enough, as one might be ill/on vacation, etc. +1 I think native lang contributors are important, but not necessarily the only ones to finally approve every content. Also it doesn't quite fit in the community idea - Charles Schulz, Florian Effenberger and Italo Vignoli as managing editors (with publishing/admin powers). I'd rather have more of managing editors - not sure whether there needs to be a dedicate executive editor position, but rather a couple of managing editors But same as above, the list is too short, esp. as those people are heavily involved in other areas. I don't understand what these managing editors should do :-( Should they decide which content is allowed to be placed on the website, while the executive editor takes only care of the right wording? If so, these three people are way too heavily involved in other important tasks to be consulted with any new paragraph, news item or press release. To kick-start it, it might be enough, but it should quickly be expanded to include other people who have contributed in a reasonable fashion/have proven that they are capable of the task. +1 - one person from Design, Christoph Noack, with author powers, to consult with about buttons and images. I don't otherwise see the Design team playing much of a role in the running of the website, beyond ensuring compliance with the graphic charter (which is principally imposed by the theme). -1 Especially in terms of design, artworkt, etc. you cannot have enough contributors. We need a consistent theming / visual design for the website. But this doesn't mean that every image, screenshot or button has to be created or approved by Christoph. Christoph is our most recognized UX expert, so his word is important in theming and visual structure too. Having one peer contact: Yes, this is desireable (i.e. one who forwards the requests of the website team and reports back the results of the design team). Here I'd like to see two at least like you mentioned above... As it is hard enough to get artwork to put up on the site, you shouldn't artificially limit the amount of possible contributors by only having one person with powers. I don't think that David wants to reduce the number of contributors: A contact person (or two) is good in several cases, as you already stated above, but contributions should be able by all designers (I don't think they need to upload their artwork on their own - a dedicated area in the wiki would help the website authors too). - one or two technical administrators: Christian Lohmaier and Erich Christian (with admin powers). My suggestion would be that they do limit themselves to *technical* administration alone, without any interest in the content side (this is what they currently do with the other NL sites). This should be no problem, as at least we two have other areas to work with as well :-) However I surely have an interest in the content part, since the content in the end determines what features to add to the site, etc. Focus surely is on the technical part. I don't see any reason to restrict any contribution by anybody - especially Christian and Erich have been working on website content for years at OOo. Why shouldn't they be allowed to work here too? - one contributors team, principally of English NL speakers (each member with author powers). Yes, success or failure all depends on the contributors. And this means contributor with different mother language too. Native speakers can serve as proof-readers, as this would lower the barrier for others and reduce the work load for the native speakers. IMHO, if you organize things like this, you will have a tool that is efficiently run and that will provide TDF with the most-effective marketing platform. If you allow the site to be run in a chaotic, uncontrolled manner, I think you'll lose a lot of the benefit it could otherwise bring the foundation. You describe two extreme positions - I think the truth lies in between: We need a team of people feeling responsible for the different areas of work inside the website team. These people should be mentioned as contacts for their area of expertise on the wiki - I don't think
Re: [tdf-discuss] Mac App Store
Am 07.01.11 04:57, schrieb todd rme: - It is not packaged and submitted using Apple’s packaging technologies included in Xcode – No third party installers are allowed (I thought this was a major goal of LibO) It /is/ packaged and submitted using Apple’s packaging technologies as far as the Mac Version of OOo is concerned - it's a *.dmg file containing an *.app folder, which his a common way of installing programs on a Mac. NeoOffice is listed since years in the download area of apple.com so this can not be that problematic. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Uwe Altmann OpenOffice.org - auch auf dem Mac! -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Mac App Store
Would we do something with LO, or would there be GPL licensing issues? On 01/07/2011 10:04 AM, Uwe Altmann wrote: Am 07.01.11 04:57, schrieb todd rme: - It is not packaged and submitted using Apple’s packaging technologies included in Xcode – No third party installers are allowed (I thought this was a major goal of LibO) It /is/ packaged and submitted using Apple’s packaging technologies as far as the Mac Version of OOo is concerned - it's a *.dmg file containing an *.app folder, which his a common way of installing programs on a Mac. NeoOffice is listed since years in the download area of apple.com so this can not be that problematic. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Mac App Store
Jonathan, I believe there are some specific legal issues that are related to FOSS licences, but we do need to investigate some more (help is welcome). Best, Charles. Le Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:41:52 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com a écrit : Would we do something with LO, or would there be GPL licensing issues? On 01/07/2011 10:04 AM, Uwe Altmann wrote: Am 07.01.11 04:57, schrieb todd rme: - It is not packaged and submitted using Apple’s packaging technologies included in Xcode – No third party installers are allowed (I thought this was a major goal of LibO) It /is/ packaged and submitted using Apple’s packaging technologies as far as the Mac Version of OOo is concerned - it's a *.dmg file containing an *.app folder, which his a common way of installing programs on a Mac. NeoOffice is listed since years in the download area of apple.com so this can not be that problematic. -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Mac App Store
On 11-01-06 10:57 PM, todd rme wrote: On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Nguyen Vu Hung vuhung16p...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Benjamin Horst bho...@mac.com wrote: Does anyone know the technical requirements needed to get into the Mac App Store? Are there any developers here who'd like to get involved in this process? Here is the guidelines for submission to App Store http://www.everythingicafe.com/apple-releases-mac-app-store-guidelines-and-devs-respond/2010/10/21/ And for iOS (iPhone and the like, FYI) http://developer.apple.com/news/ios/appstoretips/ Technically, I would say LibO meets all (most?) the requirements needed. I don't think it meets these: - It duplicates apps already in the App Store, particularly if there are many of them (iWork) - It creates a store inside itself for selling or distributing other software (extensions) - It is not packaged and submitted using Apple’s packaging technologies included in Xcode – No third party installers are allowed (I thought this was a major goal of LibO) And I don't know whether it meets this one: - It has metadata that mentions the name of any other computer platform I do find it bizarre that people are so up in arms about OOXML but seem to have no complaints with Apple's blatant attempts to have total control over the software you are allowed to install on your own computer. -Todd Define People ? :) The FSF has several ongoing campaigns educating about the problems such restrictions bring. Some posts on their blog provide an example for free software subsmissions to their App Store: http://www.fsf.org/search?SearchableText=app%20store Before technical requirements, there are legal requirements. I know the App Store terms have changed a few times in the past months, add that to the check list. In the event that LibreOffice would pass all technical legal requirements I'd suggest charging (more than $1) for the convenience. Anyone else will know where to find it outside of the store. I presented on exactly this topic (business models for free software distribution on an app store) for the Android Marketplace yesterday, I'll gladly provide some pointers when/if it's deemed appropriate. I hardly an expert but I have an idea or two. Cheers, Fabian -- LibreOffice questions ? Des questions sur LibreOffice ? Preguntas acerca de LibreOffice ? Ask LibreOffice: http://libreoffice.shapado.com/ ~ Fabián Rodríguez http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:MagicFab -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Mac App Store
Anecdotal evidence of the impact of being listed in the app store--yesterday, Evernote tweeted their installation rate increased 1,800% from the day before the Mac App Store launched. Ben Sent from my iPhone On Jan 7, 2011, at 6:01 AM, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Jonathan, I believe there are some specific legal issues that are related to FOSS licences, but we do need to investigate some more (help is welcome). Best, Charles. Le Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:41:52 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com a écrit : Would we do something with LO, or would there be GPL licensing issues? On 01/07/2011 10:04 AM, Uwe Altmann wrote: Am 07.01.11 04:57, schrieb todd rme: - It is not packaged and submitted using Apple’s packaging technologies included in Xcode – No third party installers are allowed (I thought this was a major goal of LibO) It /is/ packaged and submitted using Apple’s packaging technologies as far as the Mac Version of OOo is concerned - it's a *.dmg file containing an *.app folder, which his a common way of installing programs on a Mac. NeoOffice is listed since years in the download area of apple.com so this can not be that problematic. -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] A better idea for a download package.
Il 06/01/2011 17:01, Christophe Strobbe ha scritto: At 21:03 30/11/2010, Charles Marcus wrote: (...) The current size problem as compared to OOo is because all of the language packs are included... and this situation is only temporary until storage is no longer an issue... After all the negative comments on the download size in this old thread, I would like to say something positive: as a developer of LibreOffice/OpenOffice.org extensions, I find the availability of language packs in the download excellent: it enables me to switch between interface languages in LibreOffice without the need to install several language versions of the same office suite. This is great if you want to check localised versions of extensions. However, I realise this is only a minority use case. Best regards, Christophe +1, I think the size isn't a problem at all, is better toi have every language in the same package of libo and the ability to switch between languages is great :-) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store
On 11-01-06 11:16 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote: On 2011/01/06 9:57 PM todd rme wrote: I do find it bizarre that people are so up in arms about OOXML but seem to have no complaints with Apple's blatant attempts to have total control over the software you are allowed to install on your own computer. Apple does not control what software I install on my computer. Quit spreading such BS. Larry You're right, at least for now. Apple controls its OS and its updates, which effectively can control which apps go on your computer (or not). IMO, it's only a matter of time before such restrictions happen, just like iPhone and iPad (which *for now* are bypassed with Cydia..). For all the effort this may take, at some point Apple may well decide to remove LibreOffice or break it as part of a security upgrade. I am not going into that discussion as even passing the App Store requirements is almost guaranteed to fail. Back to the initial suggestion of adding LibreOffice to the AppStore, just look at NeoOffice's take on it: http://trinity.neooffice.org/modules.php?name=Forumsfile=viewtopict=8290start=0postdays=0postorder=aschighlight= Not much point in wasting any more time on this (again, IMO). Cheers, Fabian -- LibreOffice questions ? Des questions sur LibreOffice ? Preguntas acerca de LibreOffice ? Ask LibreOffice: http://libreoffice.shapado.com/ ~ Fabián Rodríguez http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:MagicFab -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hello David, See my comments inline. Le Fri, 7 Jan 2011 23:12:29 +0800, David Nelson comme...@traduction.biz a écrit : Hi guys, :-) I would like to make a proposal. I consider that the libreoffice.org website is a resource that can be of strategic importance to TDF and the community. I have a bunch of ideas for further developing it and using it to further the project's aims and interests. To do that job, I would ask - for a period of 4 months, subsequently renewable on condition of the SC's approval - for complete authority and final veto on all content on the libreoffice.org website. I want to be considered *the boss* of the libreoffice.org website, and my decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members. Anything short of that, my decision wins. I would not go for that, but as I and others say, we would like to have the leadership on the website. This would give me the necessary authority to try some imaginative and ambitious plans that I will put to Marketing. I would ask for the title of Executive editor of the libreoffice.org website. The only reason I have for asking for this title is that it gives me a handle to use in relations with outside parties, such as the press. If you feel able to grant me this trust, you can be sure that I will act responsibly and wisely, and that my sole aim will be to advance and protect the interests of the LibreOffice project and community. I believe in teamwork and community-building. I would be keen to listen to and to learn from others, and to take the smartest decisions possible. I would seek to leave behind a positive contribution. Your decision would be sealed by an official vote at the next SC meeting. What do you say, guys? ;-) Can we try this experiment and see what it produces? I'm not really comfortable with this extraordinary powers over that period and I would rather favour you driving a team (-an official team that is-) . However, this is the Steering Discuss list, which means that you have written an official and public request to the SC and we are bound to discuss it at the next SC call, which we will do. Best, Charles. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store
On 2011/01/07 9:38 AM Fabián Rodríguez wrote: You're right, at least for now. Apple controls its OS and its updates, which effectively can control which apps go on your computer (or not). IMO, it's only a matter of time before such restrictions happen, just like iPhone and iPad (which*for now* are bypassed with Cydia..). Your unsubstantiated idle speculation is pure FUD. Larry -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
RE : [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store
Larry, Let me remind you that we expect courtesy on our lists. Thank you, Charles. Le 7 janv. 2011, 6:55 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com a écrit : On 2011/01/07 9:38 AM Fabián Rodríguez wrote: You're right, at least for now. Apple controls i... Your unsubstantiated idle speculation is pure FUD. Larry -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website... Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.orgArchive: http://listarchives... -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store
2011/1/7 Fabián Rodríguez magic...@member.fsf.org On 11-01-06 11:16 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote: On 2011/01/06 9:57 PM todd rme wrote: I do find it bizarre that people are so up in arms about OOXML but seem to have no complaints with Apple's blatant attempts to have total control over the software you are allowed to install on your own computer. Apple does not control what software I install on my computer. Quit spreading such BS. Larry You're right, at least for now. Apple controls its OS and its updates, which effectively can control which apps go on your computer (or not). IMO, it's only a matter of time before such restrictions happen, just like iPhone and iPad (which *for now* are bypassed with Cydia..). For all the effort this may take, at some point Apple may well decide to remove LibreOffice or break it as part of a security upgrade. I am not going into that discussion as even passing the App Store requirements is almost guaranteed to fail. Back to the initial suggestion of adding LibreOffice to the AppStore, just look at NeoOffice's take on it: http://trinity.neooffice.org/modules.php?name=Forumsfile=viewtopict=8290start=0postdays=0postorder=aschighlight= Not much point in wasting any more time on this (again, IMO). Cheers, Fabian To be honest I too have found it really strange that so many FOSS advocates are Apple advocates. Let's face it if Apple had established the monopoly that Wintel had it would have been worse. Systems more closed and even all the hardware would have been locked into Apple. Ok, all big commercial interests are going to be self-serving but at least let's be consistent with the attitudes :-) -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: RE : [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 07:22:21PM +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Larry, Let me remind you that we expect courtesy on our lists. What was posted was in no way discourteous. You're interpreting bluntness as discourtesy. -- Bob Holtzman Key ID: 8D549279 If you think you're getting free lunch, check the price of the beer -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Co-working with Moz, etc
2011/1/6 Jaime R. Garza gar...@gmail.com Nobody told me, that's the problem, i have been asking a lot about that, and nobody seems to be interested, nor knows anything. So that's why I'm wondering why. I think that is the future, there will be less and less fat client apps, and more and more browser based apps. The main reason is interoperabilty and platform independence. With ann HTML5 Office suite, you just need a browser, and you can even install it locally. Now LO develops several versionsfor different platforms, which cost more resources. Nobody wants to start building a HUGE NEW PROJECT like it would mean to start a HTML5 before we get a consistent, fairly bug free client to work on ... Remember LiO is only in RC stage right now Now for installing the Writer / Calc / Draw / Impress separate, it is not how the Ooo works, the program starts, and THEN it goes on to see what files it is opening, so it actually is ONE BIG program that after start-up modularizes itself, that's one of the reasons it is faster than the competition. Rogerio -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: RE : [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store
Ok that's it last message I read on this thread My impression JAVA = NO APP STORE LIBREOFFICE = JAVA therefore (for the near future) LIBREOFFICE = NO APP STORE Thanks guys , I really hoped this would happen, but, alas life is tough ;) Rogerio 2011/1/7 Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 07:22:21PM +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Larry, Let me remind you that we expect courtesy on our lists. What was posted was in no way discourteous. You're interpreting bluntness as discourtesy. -- Bob Holtzman Key ID: 8D549279 If you think you're getting free lunch, check the price of the beer -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store
I was told there is an issue with mac and the GPL and LGPL licensing. not sure what exactly though. On 1/7/11 8:26 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote: On 2011/01/07 12:57 AM Jonathan Aquilina wrote: Someone also mentioned there are issues with GPL licensing that Apple doesn't seem to like :-/ And the license has nothing to do with an application installing on a Mac computer. I have several GPL and LGPL licensed applications installed. Larry -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store
On Jan 7, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: I was told there is an issue with mac and the GPL and LGPL licensing. not sure what exactly though. Some quick reading shows the issue is not at all clear. For example, the Wesnoth community has debated this in depth, but the ultimate result is that Wesnoth is currently available in the App Store (for iOS), and even charges a small fee. (Just as Fabian Rodriguez suggested earlier in this thread.) An article on their community discussion is here: http://lwn.net/Articles/396535/ If you have iTunes, you can see the app store page for Wesnoth here: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/battle-for-wesnoth/id340691963?mt=8 Thus, it does not appear that Apple would block LibO because of our LGPL license (Wesnoth is GPL v2). The FSF is very unhappy with the App Store, but this does not appear to be a dealbreaker if we wish to go ahead with it. -Ben Benjamin Horst bho...@mac.com 646-464-2314 (Eastern) www.solidoffice.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
