openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
Date Fri, 20 Jan 2017 21:56:49 GMT
Hi -

Read to the bottom. Don't mistake my opposition to the following statement as opposition to
a way forward to funding of a third party.

> and one more note:
> Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal to the ASF and the OpenOffice
project.
> If, however, there are single points that are contentious, then the PMC must first represent
the interests of OpenOffice.

Not true. I am a Member of the Apache Software Foundation. That is just like a shareholder.
For me that comes first. Then come PMC memberships and AOO is but one of mine.

In all this discussion please keep in mind that the ASF is a nonprofit and must not play favorites
with anyone whether individual or corporation.

The ASF will protect its trademarks and expects that PMC does so.

If by negotiation there was some way the AOO project proposed funding for third parties to
the ASF many questions would need to be answered including keeping the arrangement open to
others, allocation of funds, auditing etc. This would be expensive. So, you can see that it
just does not happen.

A clear separation between the third party and the ASF and the project MUST be kept.

I am ALL for a third party. Any developers and other employees/volunteers from that group
who demonstrate merit here would have my support for committer status.

A third party might have a distribution powered by Apache OpenOffice. That could solicit.
The project could decide to use a Powered By verification as a way to validate the downstream.

Something like that could work. It is close to the status quo.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 20, 2017, at 3:38 AM, Jörg Schmidt <joesch@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
> 
> 
>> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:leginee@gmail.com] 
> 
>> But in my eyes we need a way to ensure project health and 
>> turn towards 
>> the community we have. We were last year at the edge of project 
>> retirement. We are slowly fighting our way out by pure 
>> voluntary work of 
>> people that belive in the market name Open Office.
> 
> +1
> 
>> I think LibreOffice are to a certain degree correct. The ASF is not 
>> capable to do the Project Open Office at this Point. The structure of 
>> Libre Office is a much more healthy one for the kind of Project 
>> Libre/Open Office is.
> 
> Yes, unfortunately, the relevant criticism of LO is correct.
> 
> But one thing should be quite clear:
> The solution is not to join LO, but the solution is: we need to improve ourselves.
> 
>> However I think we can build a similar powerfull structure if 
>> not more 
>> powerfull. At the same time we must walk in Sync with the ASF.
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> Peter has said a lot about what I find right.
> 
> Likewise, I believe that it is necessary to use time to clarify these things, even if
this time is initially missing for the programming.
> The point is, the better structures will improve our efficiency in the long run.
> 
> 
> and one more note:
> Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal to the ASF and the OpenOffice
project.
> If, however, there are single points that are contentious, then the PMC must first represent
the interests of OpenOffice.
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> Jörg
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> 

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, 7-Bit, 0 bytes)
View raw message