You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Graham Lauder <yo...@openoffice.org> on 2011/07/03 04:44:39 UTC
Another introduction
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
http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html 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,
OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ
http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html
OpenOffice.org Migration and training Consultant.
.
Re: Another introduction
Posted by Graham Lauder <yo...@openoffice.org>.
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. :)
Cheers
GL
>
> 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
> > http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html 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,
OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ
http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html
OpenOffice.org Migration and training Consultant.
Re: Another introduction
Posted by Peter Junge <pe...@gmx.org>.
Hi Graham,
nice meeting you here gain.
Peter
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
> http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html 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
Re: Another introduction
Posted by Graham Lauder <yo...@openoffice.org>.
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 22:37 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> Actually, none of this can affect the project unless the project
> accepts the work we do. We have a PPMC of what? 50? 60? 70 members?
> And how many IBM employees on it? Maybe 6? 7? 8? All we can do is
> offer contributions. Remember, even a project Committer does not have
> absolute ability to make changes at whim. Changes are reviewed and
> can be rejected by other Committers.
>
> If you are saying that IBM engineers collectively have the ability to
> make contributions that could be accepted by the project and by being
> accepted would affect the project, then I thank you for the
> compliment. But I don't see a problem here. Honestly, we're getting
> pretty equal criticism from people suggesting we're not going to
> contribute enough as there are people concerned that we're going to
> contribute too much.
Thanks Rob for taking the time to allay any fears. One thing I would
like to see in OOo that is in Symphony is the tabbed documents
interface, that would be a welcome addition to OOo for mine.
Cheers
GL
--
Graham Lauder,
OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ
http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html
OpenOffice.org Migration and training Consultant.
Re: Another introduction
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Graham Lauder <yo...@openoffice.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 09:21 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Graham Lauder <yo...@openoffice.org> 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).
>> >
>>
>>
>> Welcome aboard, Graham!
>
> Glad to be here.
>
>
>>
>> I'd compare the situation with OOo under Sun/Oracle, where there the
>> copyright was assigned to Sun, where there were reserved seats on the
>> Committee Council for Sun staff, where the project leads on the dev
>> side were almost all Sun employees. You will not see things like this
>> in Apache. Apache projects are run by a meritocracy, not by a
>> corporate-dominated hierarchy. We're not going to have "leads" who
>> control the destiny of a component by power that has been assigned to
>> them by a central authority. Power is not centralized.
>>
>> Yes, time + merit does give a form of power. But time comes in many
>> ways. By employment, but also by retirement or by avocation. I know
>> we have some retired engineers contributing to the project as well.
>> Should we deny them the ability to do so because they have a luxury of
>> time that we don't all have? I don't think so. There is competition
>> for an open source developer's time and attention as fierce as any
>> other competition in the marketplace. I think we should be grateful
>> for any contribution of time we receive, big or small.
>
> Fair comment
>
>
>>
>> > 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?
>> >
>>
>> To correct a error in your question: IBM (or any other company) does
>> not make "decisions" in this project. Employees of IBM (or any other
>> company) do not make "decisions" in this project. However,
>> individuals of IBM (and other companies) will make contributions to
>> this project, and these contributions will be reviewed and accepted or
>> rejected, like any other contributions.
>
> There was no error in the question, decisions made at IBM, whether
> policy on OSS, Developer time allowance, code release to the core, work
> on elements that are only useful in Symphony.... these are corporate
> decisions that can affect the project.
>
Actually, none of this can affect the project unless the project
accepts the work we do. We have a PPMC of what? 50? 60? 70 members?
And how many IBM employees on it? Maybe 6? 7? 8? All we can do is
offer contributions. Remember, even a project Committer does not have
absolute ability to make changes at whim. Changes are reviewed and
can be rejected by other Committers.
If you are saying that IBM engineers collectively have the ability to
make contributions that could be accepted by the project and by being
accepted would affect the project, then I thank you for the
compliment. But I don't see a problem here. Honestly, we're getting
pretty equal criticism from people suggesting we're not going to
contribute enough as there are people concerned that we're going to
contribute too much.
> In any case not being privy to the internal politics at IBM, this is
> mostly educated conjecture on my part so not really worth debating.
>
>>
>>
>> You have quite a list of concerns, Graham. I hope you will agree that
>> debating them will achieve nothing, and that the best way to allay
>> these concerns is to move forward and demonstrate good acts and even
>> better results.
>>
>
> Agreed, I've made my concerns known. Corporations are, by their very
> nature, sociopathic. Not a new revelation, but one that needs to be
> restated on occasion. Thankfully, Corporations are also made up of good
> people and are repositories of resources and networks that are not
> always available to a disparate group of volunteers. That's the plus
> side.
>
> I'll drink to the future of ApacheOOo.
>
> Cheers
> GL
>
> --
> Graham Lauder,
> OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ
> http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html
>
> OpenOffice.org Migration and training Consultant.
>
>
>
>
Re: Another introduction
Posted by Graham Lauder <yo...@openoffice.org>.
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 10:52 +0100, Ian Lynch wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, I've made my concerns known. Corporations are, by their very
> > nature, sociopathic. Not a new revelation, but one that needs to be
> > restated on occasion. Thankfully, Corporations are also made up of good
> > people and are repositories of resources and networks that are not
> > always available to a disparate group of volunteers. That's the plus
> > side.
> >
> > I'll drink to the future of ApacheOOo.
> >
>
> Mine's a pint of Bass ;-)
>
I'm trying to develop a taste for Guinness, the Irish are playing a RWC
pool game at the local stadium and so I'll support them up to and
including! :)
Cheers
GL
--
Graham Lauder,
OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ
http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html
OpenOffice.org Migration and training Consultant.
Re: Another introduction
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
>
> Agreed, I've made my concerns known. Corporations are, by their very
> nature, sociopathic. Not a new revelation, but one that needs to be
> restated on occasion. Thankfully, Corporations are also made up of good
> people and are repositories of resources and networks that are not
> always available to a disparate group of volunteers. That's the plus
> side.
>
> I'll drink to the future of ApacheOOo.
>
Mine's a pint of Bass ;-)
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.
Re: Another introduction
Posted by Graham Lauder <yo...@openoffice.org>.
On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 09:21 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Graham Lauder <yo...@openoffice.org> 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).
> >
>
>
> Welcome aboard, Graham!
Glad to be here.
>
> I'd compare the situation with OOo under Sun/Oracle, where there the
> copyright was assigned to Sun, where there were reserved seats on the
> Committee Council for Sun staff, where the project leads on the dev
> side were almost all Sun employees. You will not see things like this
> in Apache. Apache projects are run by a meritocracy, not by a
> corporate-dominated hierarchy. We're not going to have "leads" who
> control the destiny of a component by power that has been assigned to
> them by a central authority. Power is not centralized.
>
> Yes, time + merit does give a form of power. But time comes in many
> ways. By employment, but also by retirement or by avocation. I know
> we have some retired engineers contributing to the project as well.
> Should we deny them the ability to do so because they have a luxury of
> time that we don't all have? I don't think so. There is competition
> for an open source developer's time and attention as fierce as any
> other competition in the marketplace. I think we should be grateful
> for any contribution of time we receive, big or small.
Fair comment
>
> > 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?
> >
>
> To correct a error in your question: IBM (or any other company) does
> not make "decisions" in this project. Employees of IBM (or any other
> company) do not make "decisions" in this project. However,
> individuals of IBM (and other companies) will make contributions to
> this project, and these contributions will be reviewed and accepted or
> rejected, like any other contributions.
There was no error in the question, decisions made at IBM, whether
policy on OSS, Developer time allowance, code release to the core, work
on elements that are only useful in Symphony.... these are corporate
decisions that can affect the project.
In any case not being privy to the internal politics at IBM, this is
mostly educated conjecture on my part so not really worth debating.
>
>
> You have quite a list of concerns, Graham. I hope you will agree that
> debating them will achieve nothing, and that the best way to allay
> these concerns is to move forward and demonstrate good acts and even
> better results.
>
Agreed, I've made my concerns known. Corporations are, by their very
nature, sociopathic. Not a new revelation, but one that needs to be
restated on occasion. Thankfully, Corporations are also made up of good
people and are repositories of resources and networks that are not
always available to a disparate group of volunteers. That's the plus
side.
I'll drink to the future of ApacheOOo.
Cheers
GL
--
Graham Lauder,
OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ
http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html
OpenOffice.org Migration and training Consultant.
Re: Another introduction
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Graham Lauder <yo...@openoffice.org> 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).
>
Welcome aboard, Graham!
> I am MarCon (Marketing Contact) for New Zealand
> http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html 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.
>
I'd compare the situation with OOo under Sun/Oracle, where there the
copyright was assigned to Sun, where there were reserved seats on the
Committee Council for Sun staff, where the project leads on the dev
side were almost all Sun employees. You will not see things like this
in Apache. Apache projects are run by a meritocracy, not by a
corporate-dominated hierarchy. We're not going to have "leads" who
control the destiny of a component by power that has been assigned to
them by a central authority. Power is not centralized.
Yes, time + merit does give a form of power. But time comes in many
ways. By employment, but also by retirement or by avocation. I know
we have some retired engineers contributing to the project as well.
Should we deny them the ability to do so because they have a luxury of
time that we don't all have? I don't think so. There is competition
for an open source developer's time and attention as fierce as any
other competition in the marketplace. I think we should be grateful
for any contribution of time we receive, big or small.
> 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?
>
To correct a error in your question: IBM (or any other company) does
not make "decisions" in this project. Employees of IBM (or any other
company) do not make "decisions" in this project. However,
individuals of IBM (and other companies) will make contributions to
this project, and these contributions will be reviewed and accepted or
rejected, like any other contributions.
I hope that any contributions by IBM engineers will be judged purely
on their merit and not given special advantages, or disadvantages. I
would hope that is the same is true in any Apache project, or indeed
for other open source projects like LibreOffice, where a dozen
Novell/SUSE employees do the bulk of the programming.
> Time equals power in a meritocracy.
>
To some extent yes. But I would not understate the impact of quality,
innovation, experience, knowledge and even enthusiasm.
> 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.
>
You have quite a list of concerns, Graham. I hope you will agree that
debating them will achieve nothing, and that the best way to allay
these concerns is to move forward and demonstrate good acts and even
better results.
Regards,
-Rob
>
> Cheers
> GL
> --
> Graham Lauder,
> OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ
> http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html
>
> OpenOffice.org Migration and training Consultant.
>
>
> .
>
>