Re: [board-discuss] Information about successful resolving of a VAT audit’s outcome
Thanks to the heroes who silently battled bureaucracy to settle this effectively! Having experienced similar contradictory VAT rules and advice in Germany, and not withstanding TDF's excellent local counsel, I would consider this as one good reason to incorporate any future legal TDF entities in countries with more straightfoward tax laws. Sam. On 02/12/2020 17:36, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Dear members, dear community, > > this e-mail is to inform you about the successful resolving of a VAT > audit’s outcome, and a successful recovering of the losses incurred. > > We can only now make the details of this settlement public, as the > negotitation phase was confidential for obvious reasons, and > stretched out longer than we had anticipated. > > On the details: > > In autumn 2017, while talking to the Free Software Foundation Europe > (FSFE), I’ve discovered an issue with the way we handled VAT > payments. TDF as a not for profit is tax-exempt on company income > tax, but has to pay VAT. > > Next to the nonprofit part, TDF also has a small business part. While > previously, tax authorities put the focus on the nonprofit part, > treating mixed entities as ours like end-users (“B2C”), the > regulations have changed in the meantime, in a way that these have to > be handled as businesses (“B2B”). > > The consequence of this is that cross-border transactions are subject > of “reverse charge”. Our service providers so far had issued invoices > with the respective local VAT, while actually a payment by us to the > German tax office would have been correct. > > In other words: While we did pay the VAT, we paid it in the wrong > country. > > Upon discovering the issue, we acted immediately and also notified > the tax office. It turned out that the situation is not as easy to > understand as it may appear in this summary, with various tax > advisors asked returning different opinions, and some presumed > contradicting tax rules issued in between. > > In 2018, the tax office then conducted a VAT audit for the previous > year, resulting in several VAT positions that had to be paid in > Germany by us, instead of being due in foreign countries by the > respective service providers. > > We have always met our requirements in due course, correcting all > previous years back to 2014, paying all the due VAT, interest and > late payment fees. > > While in theory, as also assumed by the tax office, a VAT correction > is possible, it turned out that the regulations within the European > Union are very much different and only partially harmonized, if at > all. > > In other words: The payment obligation with the German tax office was > in force, independent of VAT being paid already, and no matter if a > correction in the foreign countries was possible or not. While in > theory, a “double taxation” is not allowed, that rule here was > unfortunately not applicable. > > While some foreign tax offices refunded quickly to the respective > service providers, who paid back to us, others were refusing a refund > for one reason or the other, and others did not react at all. > > With TDF being active internationally, with connections to various > countries, the process was a very tedious and time-consuming one, > reviewing lots of invoices, approaching service providers and > interacting with foreign tax offices. Several of us, including > Thorsten, Lothar and myself, spent countless hours over the last > three years on this. > > Several rounds of objections and discussions followed, until it > became evident that a situation like this is not really foreseen in > the system, and we had to pay VAT (again) on several invoices. > > With these damages on the table, negotiations with the tax advise > liability insurance started, to remedy the damages caused. > > I’m very happy to report that in autumn 2020, we were compensated for > the damages and other associated costs, totaling to a payment of > 90.000 €, with which this case is settled. The alternative, going to > court, spending further months or years, with possible expensive > expert assessments on the various countries, would not have been a > good use of time and money. In the end the TDF incurs almost no > damage at all, so it would not have been worthwile. > > I’d like to especially thank our legal counsel, Michael (Mike) > Schinagl, for guiding and advising us on this very complicated topic > over the course of the last three years and on the excellent result > he achieved – without him, this in the end positive outcome would not > have been possible. Thanks truly also to Thorsten and Lothar for > their support in this very time-consuming and energy draining matter. > Thanks a lot to FSF
Re: [board-discuss] FLOSS software money ecosystem, in general [was Personal: and software freedom.]
On 17/07/2020 01:10, Lionel Élie Mamane wrote: > [...] I must admit I haven't seen a working (for > "small guys"), "pooling" way to get fixes and enhancements outside of > the "single developer" model... Out of interest: I have used the concept of co-funding successfully at other projects (phpList, Open Initiative), which is like crowdfunding, but with fewer backers, each sharing a higher percentage of the costs. This can work where there are several SMEs who need a feature, that feature is desirable for a larger userbase also (not an edge-case), and it the shared needs of the SMEs matches closely. It saves on the considerable cost of a stereotypical crowdfunding campaign, which involves significant marketing investment before, during and after. Co-funding is more efficient in requiring direct management of only a handful of stakeholders, eg via a few telephone calls, if suitable SMEs can first easily be identified. Sam. OpenPGP_0xD5B47522D8FB6105.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Big organisations not contributing
This thread seems to be conflating separate things: On 14/07/2020 11:15, Michael Meeks wrote: > On 13/07/2020 22:07, Leo Moons wrote: >> It strikes me that there's a lot of talk about large organizations, >> that don't contribute to the community. Meaning that: 1) large orgs should donate to TDF? 2) large orgs should buy services from ecosystem companies? 3) both? These are largely different problems with different solutions. > [...] For > example when C'bra first went into business - we sunk Eur 100k+ into > a full-time sales & marketing person mostly focused on governments > for over a year. They were backed by great enthusiasm and a political > push from central government in the UK, net result: around zero > contribution. This speaks to problem 2, which is first and foremost the responsibility of ecosystem companies to solve, with secondary support from TDF [1]. Some interests are shared between TDF and companies, and some interests conflict, and that's right and healthy in my view. For the sake of constructive debate let's keep clear who is being recommended to do what. Brainstorming potential ecosystem company strategy case-by-case could be a useful exercise, but I'm frustrated when the problems and goals interchange and merge. Thanks, Sam. 1. Disclosure: I worked in the aforementioned marketing team as some of you know, and experienced many challenges marketing LO products and services in that role signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Involvement of the board in the Marketing Plan
On 26/06/2020 18:50, Michael Meeks wrote: > Interestingly the slides were also posted here a week ago, and > discussed in a public board meeting last week too (IIRC). [...] That's great; I must have missed it, though I am subscribed. First five rounds of drafting with the board, the final check with the marketing team, is that how it went? ;) > Clearly, we're soliciting feedback and eager to get input from the > whole community. See my comments to Daniel on opportunities for hearing vs acting >> I do not take it for granted that this information was shared with >> the team prior to adoption (though to gain support from the team >> it seems like a sensible move). > > [...] =) this has been quite widely shared; but we can always do more > to communicate better; clearly. Sorry I was unclear -- I meant that it's fine if strategic / policy drafts aren't always shared, in my view. I see little point in sharing something so contentious that the community can't change it, and I recognise the difficulty in handling such topics even internally. Sometimes private drafting is necessary, as I think most NGO board members in other sectors would agree. >> The strain on this coordination is plainly visible in the plan >> itself, on the "preface" slides explaining eg the LibreOffice >> Online situation. It's a problem when a staff member is forced to >> hint that some topics are out of bounds in this way because they >> are stuck between "a rock and hard place" and must resort to such >> things to discourage input on controversial issues which can have >> no effect. > > Hmm? I don't know that anyone is forced to hint anything. And your > input is welcome of course on all related topics. Slide 41 contains several hints in my view. No concrete risks, such as a fork, are stated. CIB and Collabora are not named anywhere in the document. > The problem space here is a large & really complex one where > Marketing plays a vital role - many people coming fresh to the > problem-space badly need a primer to help understand the > interlocking opportunities & pitfalls, so it seems sensible to have a > detailed proposal to kick around; of course improving it, or > presenting another proposal is perfectly possible. Instead of trying to do everything in one document, why not break it into strategy statements on the separate issues addressed, then pass those to the marketers as policy directions from the board, so that they can be pursued in purely marketing terms? That's the beginning of an idea at least; I'm sure we could improve on it together. >> The current draft plan is broad in scope, covering community >> management, branding, and touching on ecosystem design. Tough >> topics could be split into other sections, or strategy documents >> if necessary, freeing the marketing team with more room to >> influence the narrower, purely marketing topics which remain. > > We can come up with a better process of course; but I'm more > interested in your (and other) concrete suggestions / or new > proposals to make things better - so things can be improved. Concrete suggestions but again, it seems obvious to me that there are ares of the strategy draft which are not open to influence from volunteers, which in itself is no problem, but makes a request for input, in parts, meaningless. I shared some ideas on the marketing list in response to the first draft. I would have shared several more if they had a hope of having a positive effect. But they don't, so they would merely constitute more hot air. > You had some good ideas around KPIs AFAIR, which I imagine will turn > up in the next iteration; but I'm personally eager for more. Thank you for your encouragement! Sam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Involvement of the board in the Marketing Plan
Hi Daniel, On 26/06/2020 23:16, Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote: > Given the importance of adopting a medium-term plan such as the one > under discussion, in my role as a Board Member I recognize that it is > extremely important to hear different voices. Me too. Hearing voices serves no purpose in its own right however -- it's the reaction (or inaction) that follows which matters. The extent to which a reaction is possible is determined by other factors like process, which I drew attention to at the start of this thread. > In fact, I would have > liked yesterday's meeting to have been attended by more than 11 > people. Community participation levels are closely related to "agency" -- communicating to volunteers what is being sought from them, and what they can influence and how. If you pursue more attendees in the calls then that's worth considering. > However, in relation to the latter, language should not be a barrier > for anyone. We are not all native English speakers in fact and it is > important to stress that TDF has usual channels of communication to > keep up with the news or participate. Agreed. Sam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Involvement of the board in the Marketing Plan
Thanks everyone for your replies. Replying message by message, starting with Franklin. On 26/06/2020 19:50, Franklin Weng wrote: > I have regularly attended the marketing meeting, no matter the > heated ones like yesterday, or small ones with only three people > including me. That's great to hear. It seems like the reason boad members were not vocal in the meeting was then that their discussions had been exhausted internally or the board lists, so there was nothing left for debate in marketing-specific channels. > Before this marketing meeting, there has been some discussion / > debate / even argue around some related topics in the Board. Of > course we would like to make some concrete plan but unfortunately > some volunteer board members who would like to push these things > forward were criticized as poor options for doing so, so eventually > we decide to ask for Italo's expert to write the draft of this > marketing plan and publicly discuss it with the members. That's useful context for understanding the process to date, thank you. Delegating to staff, given that context, was not a way of escaping those contentious issues however -- it just deferred them. The scope of the plan is so broad, touching so many core strategy questions, that no staff could act independently in deciding content. Drafting a 5 year marketing plan following indecisiveness from the board is a job for a diplomat, not a marketer. Guessing and compromising the needs of board members is a recipe for /strategy by exclusion/ -- "exclude anything contentious". "Exclude anything that will cause delay". As it stands the Marketing Plan seems more like a political project serving primarily internal needs of alignment of board members, with TDF staff serving the role of peacemaker. I can understand that such a project is extremely important in its own right. Hence I propose separating that part from the purely marketing related components. Becuase the thing is: marketing is also important, and a 5 year marketing plan will outlive this board, and hopefully these divisions. Fundamentally marketing is about value: creating and delivering value for LibreOffice users. This is core to TDF's mission. And its bloody hard. So trying to plan 5 years in a way which stands a hope of delivering more than the miniumum amount of value to the world from the incredible technical and community resources which TDF posesses will be hard enough even if we are all aligned (board, teams, volunteers), focused, and invested. In my view, right now, we are none of these things. If the process and document cannot be redirected in the short term, as may be the case for various reasons, then at least let's not continue pretending that the Plan, as it stands, is primarily about marketing, or for LibreOffice marketers. Let's call it what it is: an internal alignment document for the board, commissioned by the board, because they could not agree on it by themselves. When the board wants the focus to really be on marketing, then they can say what is in scope and what is outside of it - if what remains is very narrow, then so be it. At least the marketing decisions can be pursued with a clear and undistracted focus. As a member of the marketing team, for me this would be a more motiviating and frankly fairer proposition. > [...] That is one important reason why we make the board meeting > more public [...] The only thing I insist when trying to make as many > people as possible to show their opinions is that everyone should > respect other people, and their different thoughts and comments. > [...] I'm happy to see that more community members showed their > comments and thoughts. Me too, though there was very little input from the marketing team on the marketing list, and achieving more requires more than just transparency, though that's an important foundation. > The Board's responsibility is to make it a workable and concrete plan > so maybe not all the thoughts from the community will be taken; but > at least I hope that the community members can see the changes of the > board we're doing hard -- the board is trying to be more open, > friendly, and get closer to our community friends. Those are admirable and necessary goals, and I respect your pursuit of them. There is no conflict between achieving those goals, and also improving the process and output of the marketing plan under discussion, and future plans like it. And so I shall continue pushing for that, and not view the pursuit of other reforms in as an excuse for desisting. Governance is hard; I hope this is helping. Sam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[board-discuss] Involvement of the board in the Marketing Plan
Hi All, thanks to yesterday's marketing call, marketing team members had an opportunity to discuss the 5 year Marketing plan currently being drafted by Italo. It seems like only one member of the current Board of Directors was present in that meeting (though there may have been some who stayed silent; please correct me). A 5 year marketing plan, on the 10th anniversary of a project, will be a great step forward, and a critical piece of strategy for the future of the organisation. No doubt the Board has been deeply involved in putting the drafts together. I appreciate this has taken considerable energy. Nevertheless, the absence of more Board representatives in the Marketing meeting, which may be the only meeting of the marketing team about the plan before it's adopted, raises some interesting questions for we marketers: - If the Board's involvement was already completed privately, to what extent is the marketing team intended to participate in its drafting? - If the Board's involvement is ongoing, then how do they intend to interact with the marketing team? With one representative in a single meeting? - If TDF Marketing staff are intended to be the messengers between Board and marketing team, what is the intended process or workflow of that? If input into the plan from the marketing team is desirable to the Board, then we as marketing team members need a clearer understanding of how that should be provided. I do not take it for granted that this information was shared with the team prior to adoption (though to gain support from the team it seems like a sensible move). But coordinating such a plan as this between Board, staff, and voluntary team takes more than passing on a largely inflexible document to a team of experts towards the end of the process. Product Managers call it "throwing it over the wall" when opportunities for meaningful input ended before handover. The strain on this coordination is plainly visible in the plan itself, on the "preface" slides explaining eg the LibreOffice Online situation. It's a problem when a staff member is forced to hint that some topics are out of bounds in this way because they are stuck between "a rock and hard place" and must resort to such things to discourage input on controversial issues which can have no effect. This is a question of leadership for the board, not for TDF staff in my view, as it is fundamentally a question of how much control over the marketing plan should be given to the marketing team, and what parts it is desirable for them to contribute to, and how that should be communicated to them. This is a matter of the social contract between the Foundation and volunteers -- not just marketing. There are many options here, to suit the Board's needs, and doing things differently need not make finding consensus on already hard topics, more difficult. The current draft plan is broad in scope, covering community management, branding, and touching on ecosystem design. Tough topics could be split into other sections, or strategy documents if necessary, freeing the marketing team with more room to influence the narrower, purely marketing topics which remain. With some brainstorming or reference to other Open Source projects, additional means of cooperating with the team could no doubt be found. Sam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Draft Marketing Plan 2020-2025
FYI this link currently gives a "white screen of death" (eg shows nothing): > The draft presentation is available online at the following address: > https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/y7SXTdamdB28GGG Sam.
Re: [board-discuss] UPDATED Draft Marketing Plan 2020-2025
On 18/06/2020 11:25, Italo Vignoli wrote: > The draft presentation is available online on TDF Nextcloud: > https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/jzryGw7XDkJadmo Many thanks for putting this together and sharing it, Italo. It's a exciting document and opportunity for 7.0 and there are many new and interesting ideas contained. ## Summary of comments: - For the purposes of this plan we should compare LO to gratis office suites, not only FOSS ones, in order to be realistic and competitive - The plan lacks details of market segmentation -- information about the targeted audiences and why they were chosen - In some parts the plan's scope is too wide in my view -- marketing can't solve all TDF's problems (eg community and vendor agreement issues) - The brand is about to be updated and redefined: I think we can afford to be more bold and expressive in the new names before they are finalised ## Comments slide by slide (actual, not printed, slide numbers used): Slide 18, 26: Only viable FOSS alternative to Microsoft Office - should compare ourselves to free suites not just foss. Business models have changed allowing free (beer) forever proprietary suites to be comprehensive competitors. Slide 19 and 20 lack title and clarity of purpose Is slide 22 about marketing? Sounds like community management not specific to marketing Slide 28: the best free office suite ever - free as in beer? This claim is too broad to be meaningful. For effective marketing we need to be specific about audiences - LO is not the best gratis office suite for some market segments. If we start off by assuming we are already or still the best for everyone then all marketing that follows will be misguided. Slide 29: why are these the most important segments? By userbase / community size / historical visibility / desirability? Slide 32: LibreOffice Engine: great initiative to communicate the family of products. I'm not a fan of "Engine" as it has unnecessarily technical connotations, however achieving consensus is hard to I'll refrain from further comment here. Slide 33: Separation like this should make marketing considerably easier. "LibreOffice Personal" could be more distinctive, inspiring, and reflective of LO's unique vision and history, however again I'll postpone further comment to prioritise consensus. Slide 36: .biz domains lack credibility in my view, even compared to some newer unknown domains. Personally I associate them with unscrupulous salesmen, probably because of how "biz" is often used as an abbreviation in american English. Consider alternatives like .pro, .enterprises, .services. I strongly support investment in building a community on LinkedIn -- this is an ideal place for showcasing the strength of the larger LO business community, both to encourage business users, and to attract technical talent to experiment and apply for jobs. Slide 40: no comments on the LOOL situation except to agree that a win-win seems highly achievable with some creative thinking, and also critical. Slide 44 and 47: "XXX announces XXX Mobile, based on the LibreOfficeEngine technology" -- how would this be enforced? For various commercial reasons it will be attractive to deviate from this for some companies in future (eg future entrants to the LO ecosystem). Is it desirable to legally enforce it? If it's not enforcable, is it worth adopting at all? Slide 52: "We could develop a specific program, backed by a specific certification, for these NGOs, to educate them about open source software" -- An agreement between LO vendors to offer consistently discounted prices to NGOs would simplify the marketing of these efforts and likely increase impact. However the strategic benefit of such a programme to the companies would need to be assessed, ideally by TDF, in my view. Slide 58: "which should bethe final marketing plan for the next five years" -- it's a huge win that we will have a plan like this going forward, and I recommend that it is updated at intervals within the 5 year time frame to keep it in line with market developments. Hope that helps, Sam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] LOOL user experience
On 23/05/2020 19:04, Daniel Armando Rodriguez wrote: > * Shall enterprises (and even individuals) can deploy their own LOOL to have > a cloud based collaborative office suite? > + Yes > + No > + Other (explain) Rather than asking what people think /should/ happen, it's better to ask them about their past behaviour, because that is a more reliable indicator of their needs. For example (based on questions proposed so far): - Have you edited documents in a web browser within the last month? - Which of the following software deployment systems have you used to succesfully install software? - When was the last time you hired professional help to setup self-hosted software? This approach is common in US product development research. Sam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Board of Directors Meeting 2020-04-24
Florian, Lothar: that's encouraging progress - thanks for highlighting Sam. On 14 May 2020 16:39:45 CEST, "Lothar K. Becker" wrote: >Thanks Sam, Uwe, Florian, >indeed, as Florian said, this process was bespoken exactly these days, >no need to be ashamed. So we clarified that process, we publicly >discussed it >last Friday, got a few good ideas even from you Uwe (*publishing topics >of private part of board meetings and give a reason for privateness, >both if >possible and if not in the nature of itself). So now, thanks Sam, we as >the board should now pinning some time frames at the steps of this >process, so >that there is an expectation management with it. >Hope, this helps here further and give the impression, that all want to >get better and better. > >Thanks again, Lothar > >Am 14.05.2020 um 16:21 schrieb Florian Effenberger: >> Hi Sam, >> >> Sam Tuke wrote: >>> Board: To phrase Uwe's question differently: can we on this list >expect swifter and more comprehensive minutes in future? Could >inexpensive process >>> changes be made to enable that? >> >> on the topic on when to publish the minutes, we were indeed >discussing how to optimize and speed up the process (cf. see item #3 >from the last board >> call), so I assume publication to happen faster in the future. >> >> Florian >> >-- >Lothar Becker - CoChair of the LibreOffice TDF Certification Committee >email lothar.bec...@libreoffice.org >hangout lothar.bec...@riess-app.de - skype lothar.becker (Karlsruhe)
Re: [board-discuss] Board of Directors Meeting 2020-04-24
Uwe: it's a shame that your tone is aggressive, and that you assume bad faith, because it undermines the point you're making, which I believe is a good one. Board: To phrase Uwe's question differently: can we on this list expect swifter and more comprehensive minutes in future? Could inexpensive process changes be made to enable that? Thanks, Sam. On 14 May 2020 13:55:11 GMT+02:00, Uwe Altmann wrote: >Hi > >Am 13.05.20 um 11:54 schrieb Stephan Ficht: >> The meeting commences at 13:05 >> ... >> ends 13:09 Berlin time. > >...and the minutes then need two an a half weeks to be published? And at time >there was really nothing worth working on it? Or reporting to the community? > >Ain't you ashamed of this document of obvious idleness? There are open issues >which damage the Foundation and the community as long they are not solved and >you dare to just do nothing? Or at least to tell us nothing about what has >been discussed and/or done? > >Just to remind item 4 of the last TDF board meeting: "4. Discuss: one of the >highest Ranking in budget vote: ...what to do in general...(Lothar, All 5 >minutes, if needed shifted to the private part)" >I' afraid 5 minutes will be not good enough by half. And besides that: A shift >to the private part is not welcome at all. >-- >Mit freundlichen Grüßen >Uwe Altmann > >-- >To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.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.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ >Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy >
Re: [board-discuss] Preliminary Results of 2019 Elections for next TDF Board of Directors
Congratulations to the newly announced Board! And thank you to Gabriele for efficient operation, as usual, thus far. Sam. On 13 December 2019 15:54:04 EET, Gabriele Ponzo wrote: > Dear members, > >This is the announcement of the preliminary results of the voting for >the >next Board of Directors. >First of all: many thanks to all people who ran for elections! >The number of members who voted is 140, so 64 members did not. >In fact the total amount of eligible voters was 204, therefore 68.6% >have >voted. > >I'd also like to say thanks to all the voters. >Elections are the most significant moment for a member, what let them >differ from anyone else in our community. > >With the preliminary results, elected as member of the Board of >Directors >are the candidates, in this preference order: >01. Michael Meeks >02. Thorsten Behrens >03. Franklin Weng >04. Daniel Armando Rodriguez >05. Cor Nouws >06. Lothar Becker >07. Jan Holešovský > >08. Emiliano Vavassori >09. Nicolas Christener >10. Paolo Vecchi > >These results were calculated using the same tooling and rules as >usual: >OpenSTV (http://www.OpenSTV.org/ - >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_single_transferable_votes#Meek). > >The above preliminary results are in conflict with § 8 IV of our >statutes ( >https://www.documentfoundation.org/statutes.pdf), as three candidates - >Michael Meeks, Cor Nouws and Jan Holešovský - have the same >affiliation. >The membership committee will discuss with the elected candidates the >options to resolve this conflict, which will likely affect the final >results. We will update the members and the general public on this >soon. > >Before these results can be final, we have the challenging phase from >2019-12-14, 00:00 CET/UTC+1 (beginning of 14 - tomorrow) until >2019-12-19, >24:00 CET/UTC+1 (end of day 19). >As member you are invited to check your votes as explained after the >voting, and with the anonymous token given at that time. It's only you >who >have that token. The results, for all members who voted to verify, are >here >https://elections.documentfoundation.org/votes.php?election_id=12 > >In case you think there is any irregularity or if there are other >questions, please contact the Membership Committee as soon as possible, >and >anyway no later than 2019-12-19, 24:00 CET/UTC+1 (end of 19), through >electi...@documentfoundation.org > >For reference, details of the whole election process are in the first >announcement, to be found here: >https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/msg04342.html > >As Chairman of the Membership Committee, as soon as this conflict will >be >resolved, I will ask all elected candidates to officially accept their >election. > >I'll send a link to download my output from STV algorithm computation, >together with an infographic I've made to ease its understanding. >I hope to have done a useful job, stay tuned. >--- >Gabriele Ponzo, Chairman of the Membership Committee >The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin >Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts >Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
Re: [board-discuss] Self-nomination for next Board
Andreas: it'd be worth checking if Paolo is a member of this list first. Sam. On Sat, 7 Dec, 2019 at 10:15, Andreas Mantke wrote: Hi, Am 27.11.19 um 18:42 schrieb Andreas Mantke: Hello Paolo, Am 26.11.19 um 15:53 schrieb Paolo Vecchi: Self-nomination for next Board (...) Full Name: Paolo Vecchi E-mail: pa...@omnis-systems.com <mailto:pa...@omnis-systems.com> and pa...@omniscloud.eu <mailto:pa...@omniscloud.eu> Affiliation: Omnis Systems Ltd and Omnis Cloud Sarl I want only to ask a short question. I looked on the Omnis Systems website and wonder, if you are providing NextCloud and Koprano with text editing as a service, aren't you? because there is no answer to my question, I assume the answer would disclose an affiliation to one company with a lot of candidates (including partners) in this voting. Kind regards, Andreas -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org <mailto:board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.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.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/> Privacy Policy: <https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy>
Re: [board-discuss] Diversity Is Key?
Thanks Thorsten; that's very helpful context. The 48% chance you referenced does indicate that the issue is still larger than this particular election. It's also worth noting that Gabriele, Italo, and others did a great job of reminding us of the opportunity to stand, and the deadlines. As the election has a strict timetable, it seems that a procedural change would now be necessary in order to avoid a board devoid of women. Were procedural changes possible, they could include extending the nomination phase, or keeping one or more seats open explicitly for a female board member in future. If such changes are impossible, then those ideas could be explored by the next board. Thoughts from other Board members or Trustees? This might be the most direct stimulus to this subject for another two years. Thanks, Sam. On Sat, 30 Nov, 2019 at 15:14, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Hi Sam, Sam Tuke wrote: This is a problem which past Boards and Membership Committees have no doubt worked on; perhaps those people can say more about their efforts and challenges. Right - it's been a topic for board and MC discussions at the very least since 2015 (if my memory serves me). That year saw the formation of LibreLadies, had a number of diversity talks at the conference, and the board started working on a code of conduct. Also (but perhaps Sophie can fill in with more details), IIRC the year before we started to try & balance conference travel bursaries a bit better, to ensure participants from far-away places get a chance to attend the conference. I understand that contributors with non-technical backgrounds make up a minority percentage of the Foundation's members. I'm not sure about that. Additionally my impression is, the membership committee does a good job encouraging contributors to become members of the Foundation, so I believe that body is ~representative of our community (whether diversity among _contributors_ could be improved is a different, but equally important question). Because that's relatively easy to derive from the members list: I currently count at least 15 female members, which constitutes a bit more than 7% of our membership. That's more than the average opensource female developer ratio (good news, but probably due to our mix of also non-developer members), but much less than I would expect from industry averages in the professions that would likely be found among our contributors. Sticking that into the helpful diversity calculator (<http://aanandprasad.com/diversity-calculator/?groupName=women=10=7>), the situation we find ourselves in for this board election, and that started this thread, has a probability of 48%. Which is a problem, because for increasing diversity, you want representation. Beyond that, there's the obvious negative signalling effect. The upcoming board will thus be the first since 2011 without a female member. :/ In conclusion, I'm decidedly unhappy about the current situation (while other aspects of the candidate list are encouraging), believe that we must do better here, and said so in my candidacy statement. What's additionally sad, is that past attempts to move the needle where so frustrating for some participants, that they gave up, or simply left. All the best, -- Thorsten
Re: [board-discuss] Diversity Is Key?
Hi Andreas, thanks for highlighting the lack of gender diversity. This is a problem which past Boards and Membership Committees have no doubt worked on; perhaps those people can say more about their efforts and challenges. I understand that contributors with non-technical backgrounds make up a minority percentage of the Foundation's members. Considering that candidates from the Board come from this group, doing more to encourage new members to join from our existing non-technical teams seems like a one good approach. A more diverse Membership makes possible more diverse Board candidates. Regarding affiliation and your comments about my statement: I hilighted my independence because affiliation is a critical issue for many Members in this election, and also for statutory compliance. To clarify the links which you posted and address your suspicion: from 2014 to 2015 I worked for 13 months as Consultant Marketing Manager for Collabora Productivity. Four intervening years working in a different sector have passed, during which time Collabora and I have communicated only on TDF lists, and briefly at LibreOffice conferences. During these years I've been an independent TDF member and supported the TDF Marketing Team as best I could. I believe my experience marketing LibreOffice, both professionally and voluntarily, would be valuable to the Board. Happy to answer other questions in this vein which you or others may have. Sam. On 28 November 2019 20:45:35 GMT+01:00, Andreas Mantke wrote: >Hello, > >there is the view that diversity is key for a successful community, >leading body etc. This counts for open source communities and their >(leading) bodies too. > >I had a look into the applications for the next TDF board and found >there the narration 'while our user base is amazingly diverse, and so >is >our community (...)'. > >This makes me curious and I tried to find out, if the applications >reflects this narration. > >First I had a look at gender of the candidates and thought that among >them would be more women than among the members of the German federal >parliament (Deutscher Bundestag): >https://www.bundestag.de/abgeordnete/biografien/mdb_zahlen_19/frauen_maenner-529508 >709 members, 221 women and 488 men; about 31 % female members. >TDF board candidates: 12 candidates, 0 women, 12 men; accurate 0 % >women. >Thus the prediction about the gender relation of the next TDF board is >not that difficult. There will not be any gender diversity. > >The newspapers and news pages in Germany talk about a Swedish study >today that women are the better leaders, because of their soft skills. > >I looked further around for amazingly diversity among the candidates. >But I don't get the information that among them is someone who is not >working inside the IT business. Is this an effigy of the current TDF >community? > >Let's have a look at the affiliation of the candidates. One of them >declared him 'an independent candidate', something that alerted me and >made me suspicious. And I found this: >http://samtuke.com/tag/collabora/ >and >http://samtuke.com/2015/12/goodbye-collabora-hello-phplist/ > >But the message of the declaration 'an independent candidate' could >read >as: I'm the only independent candidate. > >Let's have a look on the affiliation of the candidates: five or more >(?) >of the twelf candidates have an affiliation with one company: about >41%. > >It seemed this overcompensate the missing balance between female and >male board candidates ;-) > >Kind regards, >Andreas > > > >-- >To unsubscribe e-mail to: >board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.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.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ >Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
[board-discuss] Candidacy for the Board of Directors: Sam Tuke
## Personal details Full name: Samuel John Wilson Tuke Email: m...@samtuke.com Corporate affiliation: None ## 74 words statement The Document Foundation has proven that independent, community-centric organisations can thrive. However LibreOffice faces significant challenges regarding product competitiveness, commercial investment, and ecosystem diversity. If elected, I will use my influence to increase the variety and competitiveness of LibreOffice businesses, encouraging jobs and new products, to better serve our community’s needs. I bring experience and qualifications in business, marketing, and product management, 16 years in Free Software, and have led for and non-profit organisations. ## Full statement As § 2 of its statutes say, The Document Foundation’s goals are achieved first by providing software. This software faces new competition on every platform, from both Free and non-Free alternatives. Through generous donations from the community, the Foundation is able to sponsor feature development a few times each year. But to be competitive, a thriving ecosystem of LibreOffice companies and products need to be cooperatively investing in improving the applications we know and love. I believe that more can be done to harness the benefits of such an ecosystem for LibreOffice users current and future, and if elected I shall work to that end. Simultaneously I will encourage additional support of communities which are of strategic significance to LibreOffice, in particular relating to quality assurance, localisation, and documentation, all of which contribute work which is critical for reaching new LibreOffice users. Finally, as an independent candidate in this election, not involved with any LibreOffice company or the upcoming Document Collective (TDC), I am well positioned to represent long term community interests, mediate between parties, and pursue sustainable strategic goals. ## Personal background Four years ago I ceased marketing LibreOffice products full time and took over management of phpList -- a Free Software marketing automation company. Since then I have remained a contributor to the LibreOffice marketing team, and occasionally delivered LibreOffice talks at events. I have experience leading my own firms, as well as having previously supported the board of the Free Software Foundation Europe, and served on the board of the OpenSpace Cooperative in England. Berlin has been my home since 2010, where I live with my girlfriend (we met at the Open Source Albania conference in Tirana in 2016). I'm also a startup mentor to entrepreneurs in Ghana, Nigera, and Egypt, and graduated last year with an MBA as Entrepreneurial scholar at the European School of Management and Technology in Berlin. Thanks! Sam.
Re: [board-discuss] creation of The Document Collective (TDC)
On 15/09/2019 15:02, Thomas Meyer wrote: > could there be a Conflict of Interest (CoI)?: > > https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10026175/officers > > and maybe an issue with self-dealing? And what about good governance > /compliance? Good governance is crucial and takes some effort, so thanks for posing questions. Conflict of interest is a concern for every organisation; can you be more specific about the risks you see here? On 17/09/2019 18:33, Thomas Meyer wrote: > So it could be regarded as a letterbox company. FWIW my company phpList is also a permanent 'letterbox company' by this definition, but there's nothing problematic about that (at least not in the UK). Sam. > -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: > board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.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.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ > Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: May I suggest we call time[1] on this discussion please? +1 S. [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Time%20Gentlemen%20Please - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Triple licensing?
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Sigrid Carrera sigrid.carr...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi, On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:37:15 -0400 Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 14:04, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 14 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Greg Stein wrote: For a larger body of work, these kinds of (non-CLA) contributions become less clear. And without clear provenance, then Apache may not be able to take it.[1] can someone enlighten me please? What is ICLA or a non-CLA? I have no idea and would like to know, what you're talking about. Here is the ASF's ICLA: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt Note: this is *not* a copyright assignment. People who contribute code, documentation, or other changes to the ASF retain full copyright of their work. All this ICLA does is establish clearly that the contributor grants to the ASF has all necessary rights (within their ability to do so) to distribute this Work. Thanks, Sigrid - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] FYI: Apache Incubator is now voting
On 06/12/2011 04:17 AM, André Schnabel wrote: Am 11.06.2011 16:24, schrieb Norbert Thiebaud: Such 'tradition' (like the non-biding vote at Apache for example), is a matter of collective culture, something that evolve organically by tacit consensus... over time. You may have noticed that there is no 'biding -'1 in the current vote so far (unless I missed one) I currently count 2. But am no expert for Apache procedures either. I count three. Decisions such as this one are by majority rule. Overview of the process here: http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg29185.html A full detail of the results of the vote will posted in about 27 hours. André - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Interesting observation wrt donations
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hello, there's an interesting thing with regards to donations: Since the latest announcements on OpenOffice.org, we're getting nearly three times as many donations as usual. Thanks, folks, for the ongoing support! EXCELLENT! - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
2011/6/5 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net: In your questionary, the questions to me seem to be of two kinds: 1) questions that are targeted to individuals actions (sign Apache CLA, contribute code to Apache as well as to TDF ...) 2) fundamental questions on TDF (join Apache and consolidate there, choose a name for the product ...) The ASF is not a consortium. There is no mechanism for a foundation to participate as an entity, only individuals. I agree that naming is an important discussion. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Laurence Jeloudev ljelou...@gmail.com wrote: So oracle won't make new licensing agreements with any one else except apache which could see no contribution to the project unless your part of ASF. It is not clear to me what you are seeking from Oracle. While it is true that the ASF will only release the code that was granted to us under the Apache License, Version 2.0, and furthermore that we will only accept changes to this code base under terms that allows us to release those changes under the same license; absolutely none of this prevents you from taking this code and: 1) integrating your own changes, and releasing the result under AGPLv3. 2) integrating your own changes, and releasing the result under MPL2. 3) doing the above with numerous other licenses and furthermore either dual licensing or even tri-licensing the code 4) integrating your own changes and releasing the result under a non-open source license (as long as you comply with the generous terms of the Apache License) What perhaps is more important than what you can do with this code is the fact that you do not need to ask anybody's permission to do so. You don't need to ask the ASF's permission. You do not need to ask Oracle's position. The Apache License, Version 2.0 gives you the expressed permission to do any or all of the above. Furthermore, there is no time limit. And this not only applies to the initial donation, but also to any and all enhancement made to this base under the auspices of the ASF. From my perspective, everything is totally symmetric. I am equally OK with somebody saying I realize that the original code was made by a for-profit corporation, but I won't release my changes under terms that allow it to be reintegrated into a proprietary product as I am with a statement that I realize that the code is open source, but I won't release my changes under open source terms. I will be totally transparent as to what my preference however is. It is my fond hope that all of the participants will identify subsections of the code that they are willing to share the burden of maintenance with the larger community. Direct participation in the development of that pool ensures that you can harvest that code back quickly and easily as there is no need to merge it with other changes that you held back. Furthermore the extension points you need for your value add will be in the base. Part of this vision is also that participants don't block one another. If IBM, for example, has a proprietary value add they should not be able to block somebody else from contributing substantially similar functionality to the ASF under a more liberal license. Similarly, if LO has some CopyLeft value add, they should not be able to block others from contributing substantially similar functionality to the ASF under a more liberal license. Again, fully symmetrical. It is also not clear to me what you mean by part of the ASF. In order to contribute small patches, you simply need to mail them to the mailing list or enter them in the bug tracker for the project. In order to submit larger changes, an ICLA and possibly a CCLA is required. To submit a pre-existing and released component to the ASF, you fill out a Grant. That's the extent of your involvement. Do this enough times and we may vote you in as a committer in order to lighten up our load in integrating your patches, and this will give you more of a direct say in the future direction of the product; and show an interest in the overall health of the product and we may even pull you into the Project Management Committee; but none of this is required in order to participate. Furthermore, submitting a patch of any size does not obligate you further. You don't need to maintain it. You aren't required to contribute anything further, related or unrelated to this original patch. Ever. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com wrote: What can the Apache Foundation provide to OpenOffice? Worst case: a code base that you can cleanly relicense to your choice of license without any requirement to give anything back. This provides an opportunity to free yourself of constraints made by historical choices. AGPLv3 and MPL are both possibilities, as well as a number of others Ian Lynch described the best case here: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06533.html - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 4 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Sam Ruby wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: I should think there is probably broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable. Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was neither necessary nor required. What was required was a standard Software Grant. Once that was provided neither side has pursued it any further. Can you also clarify the disposition of the trademarks please, Sam? Incomplete at this time. I will have more to say when I have something concrete to report. S. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: So back to the constructive point: what are the best, most uniting proposals we can come up with for ASF and LibreOffice to co-operate? I've outlined two here: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg06542.html I will also note that these options are not mutually exclusive. There could be a small core of close cooperation and a large amount of code which could be the basis for the relicensing aspirations that I have heard expressed numereous times on this list. S. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Hello! ... and lurking :-)
will be a part of making it happen. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Topics on this list
On 06/04/2011 07:45 AM, Volker Merschmann wrote: Hi all! As some of the recent discussion got cc'ed to diverse lists I'd like to remind all to keep the steering-discuss clean. It is dedicated to discussions of the members of the steering committee. You can be ensured that they are also reading other lists and channels. The lists and their themes can be found on http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/#lists and/or As someone new to this list, as one who has responded to others who have posted here, and one who has followed up on a suggestion by Simon Phipps to post here, and as someone who is very interested in licensing discussions, can I ask for recommendations as to where discussions as to licensing should go? Thank you Volker - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Hello! ... and lurking :-)
On 06/04/2011 08:34 AM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Sam Rubyru...@intertwingly.net wrote: Let me start with a request. If we are going to have a productive discussion, it would be best if it were done using respectful terms. If, however, as described below it is the intent of TDF [...] we can start by working under the predicat that, unless specified otherwise, any comments are the author's own and not representing anybody else? I accept that predicate, but will not that it is orthogonal to my request, which I will make again: if we are to have a productive conversation please try to do so respectfully. OpenOffice.org is not uniformly licensed. [..] If is licensed to many under one license, and LibreOffice has continued with that license. It is licensed to others under a different license. I thought we were talking about FLOSS here... not about what proprietary forks may or may not have done. The Apache License was explicitly designed to support Free and proprietary use alike. Note that while many use the term proprietary in a pejorative sense, I won't shy away from using that term as it is accurate. I believe that the key phrase in that comment is objections to contributing code to be used in proprietary apps. A fundamental goal of the Apache license is to satisfy the needs of those that wish to include the code in Free and proprietary software alike. Yes, I am aware of that 'feature'. I just happen to consider it a bug. We clearly disagree on this point. That's entirely OK and honest. I believe that if we want to attract everyone alike to contributing to a common code base -- wherever it resides -- then we need to establish this as a common goal. How exactly encouraging proprietary fork will attract contribution ? you are relying on the ethic and moral sens of corporation ? If only we had real life examples to give us clues on how realistic that is... humm... The ASF is full of successful examples of this. IBM WebSphere and Apache httpd is one such example. There are countless others based on different combinations of companies and products. If we do this, clearly there is much work that would need to be done. It will involve getting the consent of those that participate in this foundation and LibreOffice to relicense their work. It won't be easy, but I will be a part of making it happen. The very reason I decided to show-up was because 1/ the license was copy-left and 2/ TDF dropped the copyright assignment. (of course I found many other reasons to stay... but that's another topic :-) ) So I'd say... yes it won't be easy indeed, but I guess it won't be harder than to convince AF not to cater to proprietary sink-hole... No one is suggesting catering. We either find common ground (as you outline in your following paragraph) or we go our separate ways, hopefully parting as friends. But there is another solution, one that has happened in the past: convince the company with a proprietary fork that if they are truly interested in community support and contributions, they should join that community under terms that protect both our interest, not just its interests. And I believe that you have just precisely captured why the Apache License, Version 2.0 is the most appropriate choice. It is fully compatible not only with GPLv3 and LGPLv3, but also with use in 100% proprietary software. Norbert - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Hello! ... and lurking :-)
On 06/04/2011 09:40 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Hello Sam, (emptying interesting bits of discussion for clarity). I think it goes without saying that everybody should be respectful to each other. Thanks! And I appreciate both the content and tone of this entire message. Let me try to rephrase the general terms of this discussion from the broad perspective of TDF (I'm not trying to suggest that this is an official message from the Steering Committee of TDF, but... you get the point). TDF started the LibreOffice eight months ago, and has so far released software, deployed infrastructure and other resources, defined and implemented processes while elaborating governance methods and structure (that's still a work in progress). TDF has had the ambition of being the future of the OpenOffice.org community and after 8 months it is very safe to assume that it has largely succeeded in being so. Granted, not everyone from OpenOffice.org has jumped to TDF; existing Oracle employees have not joined the LibreOffice project (obviously), and a few -but very few- people and teams have chosen either not to choose, or to reject TDF mostly on personal grounds. Oracle has ended up dropping the OpenOffice project as well as its commercial offerings around it as this line of business and project were not complying to their own internal criteria for profitability, and thus Oracle ended up dumping the IPR assets to the Apache Foundation. I'm delighted to read from Andrew Rist that Oracle will still support the existing OpenOffice infrastructure throughout the transition. The announcement from Oracle came in 8 months after the birth of the LibreOffice project. You will understand that any argument framing the discussion along the lines that now that OpenOffice is being transferred to the Apache Foundation we should all turn towards this project sounds weird, chronologically anachronistic, and probably counterproductive in our view. But this is not a reason for TDF and the Apache Foundation to stop discussing the matter at hand. Going back to the OpenOffice project, I think it's safe to assume four key elements in our discussion. Some of these are issues, but some others are just factors to be considered. - Oracle will not provide its existing OpenOffice engineers to continue the OpenOffice project. - Unless IBM pours engineers on it, it is likely that there will be a very small community of developers working on OpenOffice This point is not clear to me. What is clear to me is that if it turns out that this (not yet accepted, and therefore only potential) incubating project never establishes a diverse set of contributors that could survive the exit of any one of them, including IBM that the ASF would undoubtedly conclude that incubation was unsuccessful and terminate the incubation unsuccessfully. - IBM does have business and operational requirements that make the transfer of OpenOffice to an Apache environment desirable and appealing. - TDF and ASF have very different views on licensing. Simon Phipps made some very interesting proposals yesterday on the Apache list, and I'm glad to see that one of the many threads around this debate on the Apache mailing list is furthering this discussion; namely, that the OpenOffice project at Apache be not so much considered as an end to itself, but rather as an engineering project catering to specific needs of IBM while also helping the LibreOffice project in specific areas. The point on the OpenOffice project not providing binaries is going in that direction. I thus think that there is room for TDF and ASF to cooperate even if the two will not change their stance on licensing easily. This being said, many of us here at TDF still question the whole relevance of an OpenOffice project *anywhere* but inactive now that LibreOffice exists, runs and has been releases several versions of stable software. I hope this helps you understand more about our perception. Acknowledged. That being said, different people will come to different conclusions as to what is relevant to their particular interests, and I will say that choice of license is a factor in that decision. best, Charles-H. Schulz. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Topics on this list
On 06/04/2011 10:51 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote: Hi, Volker Merschmann wrote on 2011-06-04 16.38: Sorry, I did not see that it has really been recommended. So much mails these days...;-) I thinkdisc...@documentfoundation.org will reach all interested people who are involved at TDF. same for me, it's hard to follow-up on all those e-mails. So, first of all a very warm welcome, it's good to have you here, and the open style of communicating is very much appreciated! I try to reply to the other messages soon. Indeed, I propose we stick to the disc...@documentfoundation.org mailing list for discussions. Just in case, here are the details: OK, I'm now subscribed there. Sorry for the noise/confusion. - Sam Ruby disc...@documentfoundation.org Subscription: discuss+subscr...@documentfoundation.org Digest subscription: discuss+subscribe-dig...@documentfoundation.org Archives: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ Mail-Archive.com: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/ GMANE: http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.discuss It is also available via Nabble at http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Discuss-f1621725.html So, again, thanks for being with us, and looking forward to a good discussion! Florian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: I should think there is probably broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable. Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was neither necessary nor required. What was required was a standard Software Grant. Once that was provided neither side has pursued it any further. As the Apache model is intentionally not based on Copyright Assignment, a grant of the copyright would quickly become irrelevant over time as people make contributions based on the terms specified in the Individual Contributor License Agreement and in the Apache License, Version 2.0 itself. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+ooofut...@googlemail.com wrote: As far as I know, there is only the intent of Oracle to donate it unter the Apache License, but no clear statement has been made as to what exact sourcecode this will cover. The ASF has a signed software grant with a specific list of source files. It's not even clear whether it will be the current codebase or some older version IBM is basing their version on. It is the codebase on openoffice.org. The intent is to move the full version history. The mechanics of this have yet to be worked out. - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hello, I hope you don't mind if I jump in to the discussion. The views shared here are not any official TDF statement, but rather solely my own ones, acting as a volunteer who has been contributing to the OpenOffice.org project, and now the LibreOffice project, since 2004, investing lots of my private time and heart into the community. My hope is that you've appreciated the ample welcome that was provided for your input at on the ASF mailing lists. It has been suggested that we return the favor. I don't have a lot to say, but I will be watching this list and will respond to questions. While this too is not an official ASF statement, as VP of Legal Affairs for the ASF, I do have a particular focus on license issues. With that in mind: To bring this to an end: I seriously doubt that having a separate project, even as incubator, within the Apache Foundation, would bring benefit for anyone. The Document Foundation has been working for months not only on shaping a project, but also on shaping solid grounds to work on, providing the legal framework, and our open, meritocratic and transparent approach ensures that anyone -- individuals, organizations and businesses -- can contribute to the future. I do believe that a choice in license affects this statement. To be clear there is no license that satisfies the above statement. Nor am I going to ask anyone to change their choice in licenses. However I will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is an appropriate choice: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html - Sam Ruby -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Thninking about a user focused web forum - and user support in general
In other web forums in which I am active there is an option to display all questions to which there have been no replies. I find this useful as I tend to respond to simpler questions but over quite a wide range of topics, rather than answering complex questions in more specialised fields. The option I describe lets me more easily find things to which I can contribute. Please, if it's possible ... Hello Harold, Yes, this is possible on LibreOfficeForum.org. I just now updated the site theme and layout, and I think it's much nicer now. The front page now has a list of recent posts, which can be filtered by language. They can also be sorted by number of replies by clicking on the Replies column header. The same goes for the forum itself, you can sort the whole list by clicking on Replies. Please let me know if you have any other ideas. Thanks! Sincerely, Sam @ http://LibreOfficeForum.org -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Thninking about a user focused web forum - and user support in general
Sam, Not Harold but have a question, is there a way to mark spam? Need to nip it in the bud. Andy Very true. I've been manually deleting it so far, but we need a collaborative method. I'm not sure if I should use a heuristic spam filter, or allow all users to flag as spam and have it be automatically deleted if a certain number of users flag it, or if only moderators should delete spam? Any suggestions or preferences in this regard? Thanks a lot! -- Unsubscribe information: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
[tdf-discuss] Thninking about a user focused web forum - and user support in general
Hello everyone, These message threads are getting very...thready. :-) Sorry, I'm not very handy with mailing lists. There have been some requests for features and some nice suggestions for LibreOfficeForum.org. So here's a brief summary of the recent changes: 1. The entire site theme is new. 2. The Adsense blocks can be disabled in the user's profile preferences. 2. Currently supported languages: English, German, Spanish, each in their own subdomain with identical forum categories translated into the target language. I would be glad to admit more new languages if moderators are available in those languages. 3. The frontpage is all new. It shows a list of recent posts in ALL forum categories in the user's selected language. This list can be sorted by clicking on the Replies column to see posts with 0 replies. The individual forum categories can also be sorted by number of replies in the same way. 4. E-mail notifications and bookmarked (watched) posts are enabled. 5. Attachments are enabled. 6. WYSIWYG post editor is enabled. 7. Private messaging is enabled. 8. openID logins are enabled. That's about all. Regards, Sam @ http://LibreOfficeForum.org -- Unsubscribe information: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Thninking about a user focused web forum - and user support in general
Hi everyone, And hi Drew, thanks for adding LibreOfficeForum to the list. I could implement some of the features that todd rme mentioned if anyone would find it useful. Drupal is very flexible for this sort of thing. Yesterday I changed the front page so that it direct users to the proper language subdomain. We're currently supporting English, Spanish, and German on equal footing with the same categories across the board, and hopefully more languages to come. I'm still open to suggestions if I can make LibreOfficeForum more useful to anyone. Best regards, Sam @ http://LibreOfficeForum.org -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: Welcome to the community ( was Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOfficeForum.org is now functioning )
Hello again, Thanks very much, Drew, for your balanced, friendly response. And thanks for the welcome, I'm glad to be here. I didn't mean to sound angry or pushy in my last message, sorry if it came across that way. I'm just keeping an eye on these developments and responding to objections or questions as they arise. Meanwhile I'm content to wait for the consensus of the community and take suggestions. At any rate, the LibreOffice forum is available for anyone who wants to use it, but nobody is forced to do so, of course. I'll be here to help as much as I can. Thanks again for helping to deal with all these needs of so many people. Take care, Sam Hi Sam, Not sure anyone has said this, so I will: Welcome to our community. A couple of quick thoughts: It gets a bit raucous at times. There are lots of things needing doing right now. Somewhere in the conversation about forums it came up that it costs money to run one - it does. The beauty of a community however is that you are not alone. The downside of a community is, at times, that you are not alone, and getting consensus from a group of individuals takes time. Some of your ideas are already being discussed by the volunteer group at the community forums, and there are additional web resources that are going to need building over the next few months, beyond just forums. There is room, there is always room, for someone interested and motivated to help. Sincerely, Drew -- To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted. List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOfficeForum.org is now functioning
Hi Sidestepping the question of one grand forum with NL sub-forums for a moment. I just want to remind folks that the community already has a number of web forums at it's disposable. These are all independent volunteer, community, owned and run. http://Oooforum.org - English only Hi everyone, The quote above basically expresses my thoughts. I essentially based LibreOfficeForum.org on the idea of oooforum.org, which is an independent forum operated by a community member that is helping a huge number of OOo users. In fact I think it existed for many years before user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum. I like the idea of one site with common usernames that puts all the languages under one umbrella. So with the Drupal system that I'm using it's drop-dead easy to add all the language subdomains that we need, and the system allows for translation of the forum categories while preserving the same structure for all languages and common usernames for those who want to participate in more than one language. So we now have en.libreoffice.org , es.libreoffice.org , and de.libreofficeforum.org. I only speak English and Spanish, but as long as there is a moderator available to help out and translate the forum category names, I can quickly add any other language with little effort. Regards, Sam @ http://libreofficeforum.org -- To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted. List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
