openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jürgen Schmidt <>
Subject Re: A question about existing practices
Date Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:04:37 GMT
On 3/18/13 1:49 PM, Jörg Schmidt wrote:
>> From: Rob Weir [] 
>> A promise to do what?   
> The opinion of the user to be taken seriously because you have asked him to speak his
>> But a feature request?  
> This is an opinion of our users. It should be important to us.
>> I see zero obligation, legal, [...], social,
>> or otherwise, for us to do anything other than say, "Thank you for the
>> suggestion".
> Yes, this is formally correct, but you do not notice it much here depends on the tone
of voice?
> ("the tone of voice" --> in german i mean: es kommt auf den Tonfall an mit dem wir
öffentlich etwas sagen)
>> moral
> I think so.
> It's about respect for what we bring to our users, because it is a fundamental difference
between what we need to do and what we should do so voluntarily.
>>> It is not the problem of the user in evaluating old Votes 
>> Votes unlike new, because we have no contract with the user, 
>> but it's about credibility, our credibility.
>> We need to set the right expectations.  If we set expectations that we
>> are all supermen and can write C++ code in our sleep, and our cats can
>> write Java code while playing with balls of yarn, then yes we will
>> lose credibility.  But a different kind of credibility is the kind
>> that attracts developers, which is saying that developers on the
>> project work on the features that are important to them, and the
>> direction of the project is determined by the collective priorities of
>> those who are doing the actual work.  That kind of credibility is a
>> very important kind, since that is what helps us recruit developers.
> Once again: this is not controversial.
> Dispute seems to me that we should find right words to our users if we justify that.
> There is (imho) a great difference whether we say we can not, or whether we say the user
would have no right.
> An example of what I mean:
> If I had a business and sell something, it may be I've just not all at the warehouse
thing a customer, the customer then I will _ask for understanding_, but I will _not tell him
he had no right_ to buy a certain product immediately .
> In AOO we do not sell product, but we are still committed to our credibility, and even
a little for the credibility of free software.
> This is my opinion.
>> Of course, if we don't make a product that users want, then we become
>> irrelevant.  
> Yes, that's the point.
>> But a look at our popularity via download numbers shows
>> that we are highly relevant, 
> And how do we evaluate, for example, that one of the biggest public users of OpenOffice,
the city of Munich, has declared to want to switch to LibreOffice?
> (see:

this can happened at any time and it depends on the decision makers of
the related project. In this case the decision was probably made when
the future of OpenOffice was not so clear as it is at the moment. And
Munich paid for some development work to improve the OOXML support via
the OSBA initiative. We all know that these work is not available in AOO.

> This is (imho) a big loss for AOO.

if we make the better product in the long term they will potentially
switch back. For now we have no complete story for OOXML and on the
other hand LO can pick all the nice improvements that we will introduce.
And I am sure they will, they mirror our repo on a regular basis and do
cherry picking. They will probably continue to deny this or at least not
mention it in public but that is a different issue that don't help open
source in general.


> Greetings,
> Jörg
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message