openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: A question about existing practices
Date Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:12:44 GMT
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 8:49 AM, 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.

The title of the tread is "A question about existing practices".  I
think the facts are quite clear.  If we have many 10 year old
untouched BZ issues then fixing these issues is not part of our
existing practice, whether you define that as mandatory, voluntary or
whatever.  "Practice" is what we do, not what we talk about doing.  If
you want to argue that we talk a lot about fixing old issues, and say
many solemn things about how important they are, then I would agree
with you 100%.  But we don't actually do anything about them.

>> > 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.

I'd say, "Thanks for the suggestion.  We take all suggestions
seriously, and user suggestions are often the source of ideas that
make it into the product.  Thank you for using AOO."

> 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 is (imho) a big loss for AOO.

But I hope you would agree that what we did or did not do to 10-year
old Bugzilla issues was irrelevant to their decision.


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

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

View raw message