openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Lauder <>
Subject Re: Another introduction
Date Mon, 04 Jul 2011 09:29:17 GMT
On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 12:59 +0800, Peter Junge wrote:
> Hi Graham,
> nice meeting you here gain.
> Peter

As always, it's an absolute pleasure to see you around Peter.  There are
at least a few of us marketing types here thank heavens.  :)


> On 03.07.2011 10:44, Graham Lauder wrote:
> > Greetings all,
> >
> > My name is Graham Lauder AKA Yorick or Yo.  I've been involved with OOo
> > for a number of years mainly in the marketing project but also in the
> > website project.  I am somewhat responsible (some would say to blame)
> > for the look of the present front page, (although I was just responsible
> > for the conceptual elements, Maarten, Kay, Ivan and others did the real
> > work and improved vastly on my original idea).
> >
> > I am MarCon (Marketing Contact) for New Zealand
> > and have been since 2004
> > or so, (I'm not good with specific dates).
> >
> > I am a software trainer to Enterprise specialising in OOo and OSS on the
> > desktop for Front Office End Users   I would like to be able to say that
> > this keeps me fully occupied but unfortunately that would be a
> > garnishing of the truth that would stand little scrutiny and so one must
> > whore oneself at other less meaningful work in order to do the real work
> > when the opportunity arises.
> >
> > Previous to OOo I was CEO/MD of my own company for 15 years, retiring in
> > 2003. (I should add: a retirement which only managed to last 4 years!)
> >
> > I was ambivalent at the beginning of the the Oracle gift to Apache
> > process.  I remained with OOo post the LibreOffice fork because I
> > believe that the fork in the initial stages was done more for control
> > than anything else and that was born out of frustration in the community
> > and a distrust of Oracle's motives with regard to the future of OOo.
> > Distrust that would at first, seem to have a reasonable basis given
> > later actions and statements.  Then reinforced with the gift in concert
> > with IBM. I also didn't think that all the avenues within the existing
> > project had been exhausted sufficiently to warrant dividing the
> > community.  Having said that I was not involved at the heart of the
> > decision making process that led to LO so I may be incorrect in my
> > assumptions and it is true that now the LO community feels they are the
> > authors of their own destiny, something that they have never felt in the
> > past, even under Suns time.
> >
> > However I am committed to the long term existence of OOo, thus the
> > reason I put my hand up early here.
> >
> > My hope is that the reasons that the LibreOffice fork happened don't
> > rear their ugly heads here.  I noted an earlier email exchange with Rob
> > Weir where he was denying IBM corporate power in the project.  I would
> > point out that this is a meritocracy and the currency in a meritocracy
> > is time.  If IBM (or any Corporate) allows employees to contribute on
> > company time then that, in a meritocracy, gifts power to the corporate
> > employees and therefore to that corporate because they are unlikely to
> > step off the corporate line on Company time and certainly are not going
> > to do anything that could be construed as against the companies
> > interests.
> >
> > So the question is: Will decisions be made at IBM that will translate
> > into fait accompli in OOo simply because the IBM members of the
> > community have been given the time to contribute to Apache, above and
> > beyond those of us who can afford only a number of hours outside of work
> > time?
> >
> > Time equals power in a meritocracy.
> >
> > Now having said all that, Corporate contribution is the reason I
> > remained with OOo.  I have always held the belief that a project the
> > size of OOo is best held in a corporate/community partnership.  SUN's
> > stewardship wasn't perfect but it had a hell of a lot going for it and I
> > believe it was developing further and further to more community based
> > decision-making, so it's good to see the old SUN name's popping up on
> > the lists.
> >
> > For the future I would like to see a reconnection with the LO people.
> > LibreOffice however, will continue to grow because the community feels
> > it has control and there are trust issues with IBM.  As someone remarked
> > on an LO maillist:  Who stands to benefit the most from an OOo with an
> > Apache License, and who stood up first waving a carefully crafted press
> > release. (They took previously, under the old SISSL and contributed
> > nothing back.).... so I can understand the suspicion.
> >
> > We in the OOo community have swallowed the bitter pill where a
> > benevolent organisation is corrupted by a corporate to their own ends,
> > all within that organisations rules. I hope it doesn't happen here.
> >
> > However I view the future with a positive outlook and I look forward to
> > this new iteration of OOo and will do everything possible to aid in it's
> > growth.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > GL

Graham Lauder, MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ Migration and training Consultant.

View raw message