You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> on 2011/12/12 16:09:26 UTC
Off topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvqxjZr79eE
Coursework submitted for the Gold INGOT certificate by a 15 year old
competent in the use of Blender.
Ok, its off topic but I thought it might be an interesting change :-)
--
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:Off topic
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
if this thread is to continue can we return to the original point...
Ian: look even 15 year old schoolkids do really cool stuff
Louis: yeah, we need to empower everyone
That sounds like a great message to me. Our job is to decide how in the
future, not endlesdly debate the past
Ross
(yes, I am aware I contributed to the current direction of this thread, I
thought I was being constructive identifying what the ASF finds does and
doors not work, seems I triggered another petty argument with some clumsy
wording- sorry)
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Dec 12, 2011 3:09 PM, "Ian Lynch" <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvqxjZr79eE
>
> Coursework submitted for the Gold INGOT certificate by a 15 year old
> competent in the use of Blender.
>
> Ok, its off topic but I thought it might be an interesting change :-)
>
> --
> 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: Off topic
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I'm reluctant to add any chaff to the threads that are running around here.
Yet, related to Jean's point, it is important to internalize that here in Apache territory, forking is a feature, not a failure.
It might be a failure of someone's ambitions, but that is for them to sort out. Adopting an Open Source development and licensing model has built-in consequences. It is the nature of the beast.
If there is some measure that failed to be achieved, it would be useful to know whether that is *our* measure and what are the lessons learned. And forking will remain a feature.
- Dennis
OTHER "OT" REFLECTIONS
Under the Corporate Governance that nurtured OpenOffice.org, there was considerable investment and especially undertakings provided with paid staffs and budgets (including, especially, marketing perhaps). There was also ownership of the copyright.
Now, by virtue of the copyright ownership, the Apache OpenOffice project is possible.
But the absence of the corporate governance and the resources and facilities it provided, there is much that needs to be backfilled or recovered in some other manner. Some of those missings (dare I mention marketing again) involved spending money and it is in the nature of the Apache Software Foundation that such spending by ASF is rather (dare I say "extremely") unlikely, and project-external efforts are the alternative. That is likewise the case for the way Team OpenOffice.org was connected to OpenOffice.org in the past, along with other "NGOs" that collected donations for whatever purpose. And if developers here have paid support, it is not from Apache, but external sources. So be it.
There are different opportunities for down-/side-stream undertakings that are prepared to play nice with Apache releases and the Apache OpenOffice project. It takes out-of-the-box creative thinking. Here, past is not so much prologue.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 13:00
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Off topic
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 05:48, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:31:19 -0500
>>> Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Ian Lynch
>>>> <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> > Well one thing that definitely didn't work in the past was
>>>> > alienating community members with ill-thought out arguments
>>>> > no matter how logical those arguments might appear to an
>>>> > individual. The community is made of people with emotions and
>>>> > that is why brute logic is often a very ineffective tool.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> And the community is also made up of members who think
>>>> logically. Emotional responses, denying inconvenient truths,
>>>> reinventing history, and other tribal responses are ineffective
>>>> tools that can also alienate community members.
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quite honestly I am astounded at the amount of infighting and
>>> petty point-scoring that goes on on the Apache OpenOffice
>>> lists. Are you grown, rational beings, or sub teen children?
>>> Get your act together, or the AOOo project is doomed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So what point are you trying to score with, Rory? What were you
>> trying to accomplish with your name calling? What are you adding to
>> the conversation?
>>
>> I think part of the problem is that some members of this list do not
>> appreciate the fact that the growth of this project is not going to
>> occur exclusively or even predominately from legacy OOo participants.
>>
>> Growth is going to come from:
>>
>> 1) Re-engaging with legacy OOo participants who did not go over to LibreOffice.
>>
>> 2) Engaging those who were never involved in OOo in the first place.
>>
>> 3) Encouraging LibreOffice participants to get engaged.
>>
>> Each of these groups come with a different perspective and a different
>> set of concerns. But I think it is obvious that categories 2) and 3)
>> are not going to be very receptive to assertions that the legacy
>> project was entirely wonderful, free from problems and should be
>> emulated in all respects. In fact, such an attitude will raise red
>> flags with them and discourage them from getting involved.
>>
>> I understand that needless and senseless criticism of the legacy
>> project will also be a turn-off for category 1). So let's not do
>> that. But let's not make the opposite mistake either. Let's have an
>> honest dialog about what went well and what didn't. We all know that
>> the situation was bad enough that large numbers of volunteers went to
>> LibreOffice. If we ignore that fact or just say that this was done
>> for illogical or non-consequential reasons, then we're not being
>> honest with ourselves and will not be making the necessary changes to
>> improve.
>>
>> -Rob
>
>
> To many people, there is a major difference between talking about
> "what went well and what didn't" (or "what worked and what didn't")
> and calling something a "failure". The latter term typically leads to
> the sort of unhelpful discussion recently seen on this thread; the
> former is far more likely to elicit constructive discussion.
>
Failure is an outcome, or at least a way of labeling an outcome.
Maybe not the only way of describing it. There may be other,
euphemistic ways to describe the outcome that consists of a large
portion of the community leaving for LibreOffice and the corporate
sponsor pulling out and laying off the core engineering staff for that
project. We could call it a "transition",a "temporary setback", a
"challenge", an "opportunity" a "reboot", or whatever you wish.
But whatever you call it, the outcome was not good and we should be
sure we understand and avoid reinstitutionalizing the same causes.
If someone has a recommended euphemism, please let me know and I will
adopt it in future.
-Rob
> --Jean
Re: Off topic
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 05:48, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:31:19 -0500
>>> Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Ian Lynch
>>>> <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> > Well one thing that definitely didn't work in the past was
>>>> > alienating community members with ill-thought out arguments
>>>> > no matter how logical those arguments might appear to an
>>>> > individual. The community is made of people with emotions and
>>>> > that is why brute logic is often a very ineffective tool.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> And the community is also made up of members who think
>>>> logically. Emotional responses, denying inconvenient truths,
>>>> reinventing history, and other tribal responses are ineffective
>>>> tools that can also alienate community members.
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>
>>> Quite honestly I am astounded at the amount of infighting and
>>> petty point-scoring that goes on on the Apache OpenOffice
>>> lists. Are you grown, rational beings, or sub teen children?
>>> Get your act together, or the AOOo project is doomed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So what point are you trying to score with, Rory? What were you
>> trying to accomplish with your name calling? What are you adding to
>> the conversation?
>>
>> I think part of the problem is that some members of this list do not
>> appreciate the fact that the growth of this project is not going to
>> occur exclusively or even predominately from legacy OOo participants.
>>
>> Growth is going to come from:
>>
>> 1) Re-engaging with legacy OOo participants who did not go over to LibreOffice.
>>
>> 2) Engaging those who were never involved in OOo in the first place.
>>
>> 3) Encouraging LibreOffice participants to get engaged.
>>
>> Each of these groups come with a different perspective and a different
>> set of concerns. But I think it is obvious that categories 2) and 3)
>> are not going to be very receptive to assertions that the legacy
>> project was entirely wonderful, free from problems and should be
>> emulated in all respects. In fact, such an attitude will raise red
>> flags with them and discourage them from getting involved.
>>
>> I understand that needless and senseless criticism of the legacy
>> project will also be a turn-off for category 1). So let's not do
>> that. But let's not make the opposite mistake either. Let's have an
>> honest dialog about what went well and what didn't. We all know that
>> the situation was bad enough that large numbers of volunteers went to
>> LibreOffice. If we ignore that fact or just say that this was done
>> for illogical or non-consequential reasons, then we're not being
>> honest with ourselves and will not be making the necessary changes to
>> improve.
>>
>> -Rob
>
>
> To many people, there is a major difference between talking about
> "what went well and what didn't" (or "what worked and what didn't")
> and calling something a "failure". The latter term typically leads to
> the sort of unhelpful discussion recently seen on this thread; the
> former is far more likely to elicit constructive discussion.
>
Failure is an outcome, or at least a way of labeling an outcome.
Maybe not the only way of describing it. There may be other,
euphemistic ways to describe the outcome that consists of a large
portion of the community leaving for LibreOffice and the corporate
sponsor pulling out and laying off the core engineering staff for that
project. We could call it a "transition",a "temporary setback", a
"challenge", an "opportunity" a "reboot", or whatever you wish.
But whatever you call it, the outcome was not good and we should be
sure we understand and avoid reinstitutionalizing the same causes.
If someone has a recommended euphemism, please let me know and I will
adopt it in future.
-Rob
> --Jean
Re: Off topic
Posted by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 05:48, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:31:19 -0500
>> Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Ian Lynch
>>> <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> > Well one thing that definitely didn't work in the past was
>>> > alienating community members with ill-thought out arguments
>>> > no matter how logical those arguments might appear to an
>>> > individual. The community is made of people with emotions and
>>> > that is why brute logic is often a very ineffective tool.
>>> >
>>>
>>> And the community is also made up of members who think
>>> logically. Emotional responses, denying inconvenient truths,
>>> reinventing history, and other tribal responses are ineffective
>>> tools that can also alienate community members.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>
>> Quite honestly I am astounded at the amount of infighting and
>> petty point-scoring that goes on on the Apache OpenOffice
>> lists. Are you grown, rational beings, or sub teen children?
>> Get your act together, or the AOOo project is doomed.
>>
>>
>
> So what point are you trying to score with, Rory? What were you
> trying to accomplish with your name calling? What are you adding to
> the conversation?
>
> I think part of the problem is that some members of this list do not
> appreciate the fact that the growth of this project is not going to
> occur exclusively or even predominately from legacy OOo participants.
>
> Growth is going to come from:
>
> 1) Re-engaging with legacy OOo participants who did not go over to LibreOffice.
>
> 2) Engaging those who were never involved in OOo in the first place.
>
> 3) Encouraging LibreOffice participants to get engaged.
>
> Each of these groups come with a different perspective and a different
> set of concerns. But I think it is obvious that categories 2) and 3)
> are not going to be very receptive to assertions that the legacy
> project was entirely wonderful, free from problems and should be
> emulated in all respects. In fact, such an attitude will raise red
> flags with them and discourage them from getting involved.
>
> I understand that needless and senseless criticism of the legacy
> project will also be a turn-off for category 1). So let's not do
> that. But let's not make the opposite mistake either. Let's have an
> honest dialog about what went well and what didn't. We all know that
> the situation was bad enough that large numbers of volunteers went to
> LibreOffice. If we ignore that fact or just say that this was done
> for illogical or non-consequential reasons, then we're not being
> honest with ourselves and will not be making the necessary changes to
> improve.
>
> -Rob
To many people, there is a major difference between talking about
"what went well and what didn't" (or "what worked and what didn't")
and calling something a "failure". The latter term typically leads to
the sort of unhelpful discussion recently seen on this thread; the
former is far more likely to elicit constructive discussion.
--Jean
Re: Off topic
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:48:39 -0500
Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Rory O'Farrell
> >
> > Quite honestly I am astounded at the amount of infighting and
> > petty point-scoring that goes on on the Apache OpenOffice
> > lists. Are you grown, rational beings, or sub teen children?
> > Get your act together, or the AOOo project is doomed.
>
> So what point are you trying to score with, Rory? What were you
> trying to accomplish with your name calling? What are you
> adding to the conversation?
I called no particular person any name; I made a general point
and I have no doubt there will be nany who will agree with it
Your reply is exactly what I mean - petty point-scoring.
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
Re: Off topic
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:31:19 -0500
> Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Ian Lynch
>> <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Well one thing that definitely didn't work in the past was
>> > alienating community members with ill-thought out arguments
>> > no matter how logical those arguments might appear to an
>> > individual. The community is made of people with emotions and
>> > that is why brute logic is often a very ineffective tool.
>> >
>>
>> And the community is also made up of members who think
>> logically. Emotional responses, denying inconvenient truths,
>> reinventing history, and other tribal responses are ineffective
>> tools that can also alienate community members.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
> Quite honestly I am astounded at the amount of infighting and
> petty point-scoring that goes on on the Apache OpenOffice
> lists. Are you grown, rational beings, or sub teen children?
> Get your act together, or the AOOo project is doomed.
>
>
So what point are you trying to score with, Rory? What were you
trying to accomplish with your name calling? What are you adding to
the conversation?
I think part of the problem is that some members of this list do not
appreciate the fact that the growth of this project is not going to
occur exclusively or even predominately from legacy OOo participants.
Growth is going to come from:
1) Re-engaging with legacy OOo participants who did not go over to LibreOffice.
2) Engaging those who were never involved in OOo in the first place.
3) Encouraging LibreOffice participants to get engaged.
Each of these groups come with a different perspective and a different
set of concerns. But I think it is obvious that categories 2) and 3)
are not going to be very receptive to assertions that the legacy
project was entirely wonderful, free from problems and should be
emulated in all respects. In fact, such an attitude will raise red
flags with them and discourage them from getting involved.
I understand that needless and senseless criticism of the legacy
project will also be a turn-off for category 1). So let's not do
that. But let's not make the opposite mistake either. Let's have an
honest dialog about what went well and what didn't. We all know that
the situation was bad enough that large numbers of volunteers went to
LibreOffice. If we ignore that fact or just say that this was done
for illogical or non-consequential reasons, then we're not being
honest with ourselves and will not be making the necessary changes to
improve.
-Rob
Re: Off topic
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:31:19 -0500
Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Ian Lynch
> <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Well one thing that definitely didn't work in the past was
> > alienating community members with ill-thought out arguments
> > no matter how logical those arguments might appear to an
> > individual. The community is made of people with emotions and
> > that is why brute logic is often a very ineffective tool.
> >
>
> And the community is also made up of members who think
> logically. Emotional responses, denying inconvenient truths,
> reinventing history, and other tribal responses are ineffective
> tools that can also alienate community members.
>
> -Rob
>
Quite honestly I am astounded at the amount of infighting and
petty point-scoring that goes on on the Apache OpenOffice
lists. Are you grown, rational beings, or sub teen children?
Get your act together, or the AOOo project is doomed.
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
Re: Off topic
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Well one thing that definitely didn't work in the past was alienating
> community members with ill-thought out arguments no matter how logical
> those arguments might appear to an individual. The community is made of
> people with emotions and that is why brute logic is often a very
> ineffective tool.
>
And the community is also made up of members who think logically.
Emotional responses, denying inconvenient truths, reinventing history,
and other tribal responses are ineffective tools that can also
alienate community members.
-Rob
Re: Off topic
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 18 December 2011 15:42, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 18 December 2011 14:57, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Friday 16 Dec 2011 12:03:53 Rob Weir wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> In other words you think my views are heretical.
> >
> >
> > No, they are a political perspective dressed up as if rational.
> >
>
> It looks like you are trying to dismiss my points without rebutting a
> single point of my argument.
>
Because I haven't time for a political debate that won't get anywhere.
>
> > Of course, that doesn't mean that individual engineers failed
> >> personally, or that there were no good efforts. Far from it. You
> >> should never take such things personally.
> >>
> >
> > Most of the community are not engineers.
> >
>
> True. But engineers are essential contributors to the project.
No argument but the point is that the community is much broader and the
debate was about the whole community not just engineers. That is generally
something that seemed to be better understood in the OOo community a few
years back.
There
> are other essential contributors roles as well. Remove any one of
> them and the project fails.
>
> > I think acknowledging the above is key to community building,
>
> No one denies this. But will you acknowledge that a complex system
> can fail as a whole by the failure of even a single component?
>
Of course - but it all depends on your perspective on failure which is why
it ends up as a political debate.
> One can die of a heart attack but still be healthy in other areas. It
> is not all or nothing.
I think anyone who just died of a heart attack might disagree :-) But death
doesn't mean someone's life was a failure. Some would view it as a natural
end to a phase. Arguably the impact of Leonardo's life is mostly after the
event. Just because he died it didn't mean his life was a failure.
Organ donor programs are based on this
> principle.
>
> >>
> >
> > The key to community building is to generate community spirit and a
> feeling
> > of belonging.
> >
>
> This is one key, yes. But a eulogy for someone that had a "great
> spirit" is still a eulogy.
>
> > especially in persuading LibreOffice volunteers that their ultimate
> >> goals are also fulfilled at Apache, and that Apache has far greater
> >> means, and proven ability, to prevent control from a single
> >> corporation than TDF does.
> >>
> >
> > Brute common sense from an individual perspective rarely realises its
> goal
> > and often has the opposite effect from that intended.
> > --
>
> I think we need to be honest about what worked well and what didn't,
> in order to avoid the mistakes of the past, but also to build on past
> successes. Community spirit based on mass reality distortion fields
> helps no one, since it prevents us from seeing things as they are.
>
Well one thing that definitely didn't work in the past was alienating
community members with ill-thought out arguments no matter how logical
those arguments might appear to an individual. The community is made of
people with emotions and that is why brute logic is often a very
ineffective tool.
-Rob
>
> > 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.
>
--
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: Off topic
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 December 2011 14:57, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Friday 16 Dec 2011 12:03:53 Rob Weir wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> In other words you think my views are heretical.
>
>
> No, they are a political perspective dressed up as if rational.
>
It looks like you are trying to dismiss my points without rebutting a
single point of my argument.
> Of course, that doesn't mean that individual engineers failed
>> personally, or that there were no good efforts. Far from it. You
>> should never take such things personally.
>>
>
> Most of the community are not engineers.
>
True. But engineers are essential contributors to the project. There
are other essential contributors roles as well. Remove any one of
them and the project fails.
> I think acknowledging the above is key to community building,
No one denies this. But will you acknowledge that a complex system
can fail as a whole by the failure of even a single component?
One can die of a heart attack but still be healthy in other areas. It
is not all or nothing. Organ donor programs are based on this
principle.
>>
>
> The key to community building is to generate community spirit and a feeling
> of belonging.
>
This is one key, yes. But a eulogy for someone that had a "great
spirit" is still a eulogy.
> especially in persuading LibreOffice volunteers that their ultimate
>> goals are also fulfilled at Apache, and that Apache has far greater
>> means, and proven ability, to prevent control from a single
>> corporation than TDF does.
>>
>
> Brute common sense from an individual perspective rarely realises its goal
> and often has the opposite effect from that intended.
> --
I think we need to be honest about what worked well and what didn't,
in order to avoid the mistakes of the past, but also to build on past
successes. Community spirit based on mass reality distortion fields
helps no one, since it prevents us from seeing things as they are.
-Rob
> 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: Off topic
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 18 December 2011 14:57, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Friday 16 Dec 2011 12:03:53 Rob Weir wrote:
> <snip>
>
> In other words you think my views are heretical.
No, they are a political perspective dressed up as if rational.
Of course, that doesn't mean that individual engineers failed
> personally, or that there were no good efforts. Far from it. You
> should never take such things personally.
>
Most of the community are not engineers.
I think acknowledging the above is key to community building,
>
The key to community building is to generate community spirit and a feeling
of belonging.
especially in persuading LibreOffice volunteers that their ultimate
> goals are also fulfilled at Apache, and that Apache has far greater
> means, and proven ability, to prevent control from a single
> corporation than TDF does.
>
Brute common sense from an individual perspective rarely realises its goal
and often has the opposite effect from that intended.
--
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.
[OT] Use of the GPL under fast decline
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
JIC you missed it in Slashdot:
http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/233753/gpl-copyleft-use-declining-faster-ever
Quoting the article:
...
"I don't think projects are moving away from GPL, but that new vendors are choosing community approaches enabled by permissive licenses, rather than attempting to control projects using the GPL," he replied.
____
Sounds familiar? ;).
Now IMHO, part of the issue is Free Software advocates tried
to sell the GPL into big companies as a way to bring in cheap
development and still gain something from the licensing. This
model was broken by the community forking and the difficulty
of generating revenue from free software. Apparently companies
are not falling for it anymore.
The article also mentions the effect of the GPL3: I can say
that in FreeBSD we took the rather brave decision of avoiding
the GPL3 in the base system, which means we are stuck with gcc
4.2.1 and binutils 2.17. This was done mainly due to concerns
from embedded developers. Fortunately Apple took the same
decision and clang has come to the rescue so FreeBSD 10 is
expected to be GPL-free.
regards,
Pedro.
Re: Off topic
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday 16 Dec 2011 12:03:53 Rob Weir wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> Well, that corporate subsidy is gone. The question is how we can
>> create a sustainable model for this project. What worked before,
>> based on corporate charity, is not really relevant anymore. The
>> question is, what works now?
>
> I have no problem with that, in fact I'm glad we're not beholden to a single
> corporate entity. I'm also happy to admit that I'm glad it's at Apache. We
> have a different model now, but that doesn't mean the other was a failure and
> any talk that it was, is simply not backed by the evidence and
> counterproductive in terms of community building.
>
In other words you think my views are heretical. So here's the
evidence that everyone can see. OOo, the project, had highly
concentrated control in Sun. This was both direct organizational
control -- their employees where heads of most of the engineering
projects, and they governing bodies had reserved seats for leads, as
well as concentrated investment by Sun -- most of the core developers
were Sun employees. This dual concentration resulted in two failure
modes that brought down the project. 1) the concentration of power
and the refusal to devolve this into a foundation structure and 2)
the non sustainability of Sun's investment. Both of these failure
modes came together when a large portion of the OOo project broke away
and formed LibreOffice and Oracle pulled out their investment. The
fact that the LO fork happened and that Oracle withdrew is ample
evidence of the failure of the OOo project. I don't know how else you
can spin it.
Of course, that doesn't mean that individual engineers failed
personally, or that there were no good efforts. Far from it. You
should never take such things personally.
The nice thing about Apache, and one of the reasons I was an
enthusiastic supporter of moving to Apache, is that it avoids both of
these failure modes in the future. ASF is a long-established and
strong foundation, with a governance based on individuals and
meritocracy. Corporations do not join. We're not going to be able to
recreate the power structures of OOo in Apache. This is a good thing.
Also, Apache has protections against indirect control via concentrated
investment from a single entity. We won't be permitted to graduate
from a podling if the project is dependent on a single company, like
IBM. That's the rule. So in order to graduate, we need to make
progress technically with a product release, but also we need to
diversify the investment base so avoid such indirect control.
I think acknowledging the above is key to community building,
especially in persuading LibreOffice volunteers that their ultimate
goals are also fulfilled at Apache, and that Apache has far greater
means, and proven ability, to prevent control from a single
corporation than TDF does.
-Rob
Re: Off topic
Posted by Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com>.
On Friday 16 Dec 2011 12:03:53 Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > The evidence actually reveals the complete opposite. A vast vibrant
> > community with all the tension and foibles that brings with it, that
> > produced, marketed and distributed a well featured and reliable Office
> > suite to a community of probably tens of millions of users. Could we
> > have done some things better, of course, nothing is ever perfect but it
> > was never as bad as you and others have been painting it.
>
> OOo was a failure because it only worked as a recipient of corporate
> charity. It was entirely a money hole for Sun and Oracle. It is
> amazing what kind of crazy organization you can have if sustainability
> of the ecosystem is not an issue because you have access to some magic
> external source of funds.
I see, so if Sun and Oracle (and I include them even tho they fairly quickly
decided the OOo community didn't fit with their corporate model, they did
continue to support it in the interim.) sees fit to generously fund an open
source project then it's a failure, but if IBM pays you to be involved in this
Apache version and picks up a number of ex Sun devs to work on it, then that
is.....another crazy organisation perhaps? What sort of failure is that then?
let's at least be consistent.
At the end of the day any opensource project functions because of the
generosity of anyone, individual or corporate, that contributes via cash or
code or time, the overall proportion of any individual contribution should not
and does not define success or failure, that much to me is obvious. Therefore
to continually trumpet the old OOo as a "failure" in the face, says to me that
there is either some sort of other agenda or a lack of understanding of the
Open Source model. ESR made the point that one of the strengths of the
OpenSource model is the ability for an owner to "pass it on", for any or all
reasons, to give the ability for a new driver to inject a new level of
enthusiasm.
Is taking that step signalling that the project is a failure, of course not,
quite the opposite, it demonstrates a desire on the part of the previous owner
to see the project grow and prosper, even if they had to be cajoled into it by
interested parties wishing to have it continue..
>
> Well, that corporate subsidy is gone. The question is how we can
> create a sustainable model for this project. What worked before,
> based on corporate charity, is not really relevant anymore. The
> question is, what works now?
I have no problem with that, in fact I'm glad we're not beholden to a single
corporate entity. I'm also happy to admit that I'm glad it's at Apache. We
have a different model now, but that doesn't mean the other was a failure and
any talk that it was, is simply not backed by the evidence and
counterproductive in terms of community building.
Cheers
GL
>
> -Rob
Re: Off topic
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Graham makes excellent points. I certainly did not mean to disregard
the amazing things OOo achieved with respect to community. However, I
believe that when my observation remains valid when it is read in the
context of the specific point I was replying to. I was responding to
the the claimed success of the previous "business models".
I was not referring to the health of the community, I was referring to
the health of previous business models.
Ross
On 15 December 2011 22:44, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 Dec 2011 06:25:50 Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 13 December 2011 16:16, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > This and others are actually viable business models, and we showed as
>> > much with OOo's long tenure. The issue that we had to deal with was that
>> > the owning companies pretty much clipped our wings and prevented us from
>> > becoming what we could.
>>
>> Historically that may or may not be true. From where I stand as a
>> complete newcomer I see the results of the OOo "long tenure" as far
>> from a glowing success. We have a significant fork, burned out
>> relationships and a really unhealthy dose of mistrust as a result. All
>> this seems to be attributable to what you call "the issue that we had
>> to deal with". The Apache process removes that issue. It focuses on
>> creating a level playing field.
>
> If that's what you see then I would respectfully suggest that you're not
> looking in the right place.
>
> You say Apache is about building Communities, I would suggest that OOo was
> very good at building communities
>
> OOo had a community of thousands with over a hundred Native language
> communities. People all round the globe working on multiple parts of the OOo
> universe, from hackers to QA to translators to artists to marketing folk.
>
> Then if you count the community of users, OOo is Second in the marketplace
> only to the most dominant proprietary Software company in the world and their
> billion dollar marketing budgets.
>
> By these measures no other OSS project has built a community the size of OOo,
> save perhaps Mozilla.
>
> This "unsuccessful" community served up downloads of just shy of 300,000 an
> hour average for around 6 months between the launch of 3.0 and 3.1. and onward
> to 3.2 and that only counts those served off the download site, not the ones
> for instance sold by community distributors or simply copied and passed on by
> our community of users or distributed by magazines.
> Sure we had ownership and control issues with the corporate partner, but the
> community continued. The "significant fork," just proved the strength of that
> community and it should also be remembered that LO wasn't the first, IBM
> forked it way back in the 1.1.x days.
>
> As far as the "unhealthy" distrust goes, you would perhaps like us to be
> malleable and totally accepting of everything without question given that we
> in the community were thrust into the Apache deal without any sort of
> consultation. OK that is perhaps a symptom of what Louis was talking about and
> like the other issues we just deal with it.
>
> IBM forked OOo back in the days when it had a dual license that included a
> permissive license: SISSL. They used that as a basis of Symphony and never
> contributed back to the community or became part of the community. So from
> where I stood as a complete newcomer to Apache, it seemed back room deals had
> been done, not to benefit the OOo community, but, given IBM staffers high
> profile in the new podling, simply to benefit IBM, who under the Apache
> license would have unfettered access to the code they had desired since the
> permissive SISSL license was dropped with OOo 2.0.
> I can therefore vouch for the health of my distrust. :)
>
> The question therefore that needs be answered for the OOo community, (or maybe
> just me, it wouldn't be the first time i've occupied a lonely outpost on my
> own) Does the the move to Apache benefit the community and especially the end
> users. In the first instance I was cautiously optimistic, with some small
> reservations. Some reservations became larger However as you say, the
> corporate partner issue has been removed, although right now the playing field
> still doesn't feel that level.
>
> There has been a consistent "dissing" of the old project since we got here as
> though it was a huge failure, nothing that we did was ever right, it was
> totally dysfunctional. Naturally this doesn't serve inspire confidence in
> those of us who have been with OOo for a long time.
>
> The evidence actually reveals the complete opposite. A vast vibrant community
> with all the tension and foibles that brings with it, that produced, marketed
> and distributed a well featured and reliable Office suite to a community of
> probably tens of millions of users. Could we have done some things better, of
> course, nothing is ever perfect but it was never as bad as you and others have
> been painting it.
>
>
> Cheers
> GL
>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Off topic
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 2011-12-15 6:03 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Graham Lauder<g....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The evidence actually reveals the complete opposite. A vast vibrant community
>> with all the tension and foibles that brings with it, that produced, marketed
>> and distributed a well featured and reliable Office suite to a community of
>> probably tens of millions of users. Could we have done some things better, of
>> course, nothing is ever perfect but it was never as bad as you and others have
>> been painting it.
>>
>
> OOo was a failure because it only worked as a recipient of corporate
> charity.
First off, the real reason that the previous OpenOffice.org project - as
a project - is now dead is because Oracle made a business decision to
kill the project. That's why part of The Apache Way is about having a
healthy and diverse community, so that one for-profit corporation's
whims of changing it's business model don't necessarily kill an
otherwise great open source project that other people are passionate
about working on.
Secondly, the rest of this thread is off topic, and personally, I don't
see arguing over theories and business models and the past helping
actually get the first AOO build running. ooo-dev@ should be about
helping the community work together to plan and do work to move the
project forward, not trying to convince each other of our own world views.
But that's just me.
- Shane
Re: Off topic
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 December 2011 23:03, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > The evidence actually reveals the complete opposite. A vast vibrant
>> community
>> > with all the tension and foibles that brings with it, that produced,
>> marketed
>> > and distributed a well featured and reliable Office suite to a community
>> of
>> > probably tens of millions of users. Could we have done some things
>> better, of
>> > course, nothing is ever perfect but it was never as bad as you and
>> others have
>> > been painting it.
>> >
>>
>> OOo was a failure
>
>
> No, overall I agree with Graham OOo has been a great success. Without OOo
> there would be no odf and not even a debate about interoperability and the
> appropriateness of proprietary formats in government. We can speculate
> whether the corporate charity was a restriction or a benefit - there is no
> control to test that against.
>
OOo was the name of a product, an open source project and a community.
So we may just be talking past each other here. The product was
fine. The community was vibrant. But both of these were sustained by
an open source project based on a corporate dominated development
model, a benevolent dictatorship that avoided power sharing and used
the license to prevent competition from forks. Take away that
corporate subsidy, but change nothing else about the project, and the
product and community accomplishments cannot be sustained. They will
fall to earth with a might crash.
It is like pointing to Cuba in 1970 and saying what wonderful parks
and hospitals they have, but ignoring the fact that this come only
from a Soviet subsidy and at the expense of intolerance of political
dissent.
The goal, of course, is not to find another dictator, from SUSE or IBM
or anyone else. The goal is to build an ecosystem of multiple
stakeholders and co-investors in the technology.
-Rob
Re: Off topic
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 15 December 2011 23:03, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > The evidence actually reveals the complete opposite. A vast vibrant
> community
> > with all the tension and foibles that brings with it, that produced,
> marketed
> > and distributed a well featured and reliable Office suite to a community
> of
> > probably tens of millions of users. Could we have done some things
> better, of
> > course, nothing is ever perfect but it was never as bad as you and
> others have
> > been painting it.
> >
>
> OOo was a failure
No, overall I agree with Graham OOo has been a great success. Without OOo
there would be no odf and not even a debate about interoperability and the
appropriateness of proprietary formats in government. We can speculate
whether the corporate charity was a restriction or a benefit - there is no
control to test that against.
because it only worked as a recipient of corporate
> charity.
It did work of value well beyond that. It was arguably over-dependent on
corporate charity so always vulnerable to that collapsing but to say it
only worked as a recipient of that is really to misunderstand the entire
community of volunteers that added far more value than Sun's money.
> It was entirely a money hole for Sun and Oracle.
But not IBM?
It is
> amazing what kind of crazy organization you can have if sustainability
> of the ecosystem is not an issue because you have access to some magic
> external source of funds.
>
I think that is pretty insulting to a lot of people here most of whom have
worked unpaid for many years to promote OOo well before Apache took over
and often despite rather than because of the corporates. Why do you think
LibreOffice exists?
Well, that corporate subsidy is gone.
Not really, the corporate ownership is gone which is not the same thing.
Many of the people working on the code will be corporately subsidised.
> The question is how we can
> create a sustainable model for this project. What worked before,
> based on corporate charity, is not really relevant anymore.
Or maybe you mean what didn't work before based on corporate charity. Yo
can't have it both ways,
> The question is, what works now?
>
What will work is getting the same or more development commitment and
realistically that will still depend to an extent on corporate sponsorship
one way or another. That is probably the easy bit. Building and sustaining
the wider global community efforts in NLs, marketing, education,
documentation and all those other value added services through a committed
community of 10s of thousands of volunteers as enjoyed by OOo at its height
is going to be more of a challenge and something ASF seems to have less
experience. Alienating the people who have stayed loyal to the project is
hardly a good strategy.
--
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: Off topic
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> The evidence actually reveals the complete opposite. A vast vibrant community
> with all the tension and foibles that brings with it, that produced, marketed
> and distributed a well featured and reliable Office suite to a community of
> probably tens of millions of users. Could we have done some things better, of
> course, nothing is ever perfect but it was never as bad as you and others have
> been painting it.
>
OOo was a failure because it only worked as a recipient of corporate
charity. It was entirely a money hole for Sun and Oracle. It is
amazing what kind of crazy organization you can have if sustainability
of the ecosystem is not an issue because you have access to some magic
external source of funds.
Well, that corporate subsidy is gone. The question is how we can
create a sustainable model for this project. What worked before,
based on corporate charity, is not really relevant anymore. The
question is, what works now?
-Rob
Re: Off topic
Posted by Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com>.
On Wednesday 14 Dec 2011 06:25:50 Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 13 December 2011 16:16, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This and others are actually viable business models, and we showed as
> > much with OOo's long tenure. The issue that we had to deal with was that
> > the owning companies pretty much clipped our wings and prevented us from
> > becoming what we could.
>
> Historically that may or may not be true. From where I stand as a
> complete newcomer I see the results of the OOo "long tenure" as far
> from a glowing success. We have a significant fork, burned out
> relationships and a really unhealthy dose of mistrust as a result. All
> this seems to be attributable to what you call "the issue that we had
> to deal with". The Apache process removes that issue. It focuses on
> creating a level playing field.
If that's what you see then I would respectfully suggest that you're not
looking in the right place.
You say Apache is about building Communities, I would suggest that OOo was
very good at building communities
OOo had a community of thousands with over a hundred Native language
communities. People all round the globe working on multiple parts of the OOo
universe, from hackers to QA to translators to artists to marketing folk.
Then if you count the community of users, OOo is Second in the marketplace
only to the most dominant proprietary Software company in the world and their
billion dollar marketing budgets.
By these measures no other OSS project has built a community the size of OOo,
save perhaps Mozilla.
This "unsuccessful" community served up downloads of just shy of 300,000 an
hour average for around 6 months between the launch of 3.0 and 3.1. and onward
to 3.2 and that only counts those served off the download site, not the ones
for instance sold by community distributors or simply copied and passed on by
our community of users or distributed by magazines.
Sure we had ownership and control issues with the corporate partner, but the
community continued. The "significant fork," just proved the strength of that
community and it should also be remembered that LO wasn't the first, IBM
forked it way back in the 1.1.x days.
As far as the "unhealthy" distrust goes, you would perhaps like us to be
malleable and totally accepting of everything without question given that we
in the community were thrust into the Apache deal without any sort of
consultation. OK that is perhaps a symptom of what Louis was talking about and
like the other issues we just deal with it.
IBM forked OOo back in the days when it had a dual license that included a
permissive license: SISSL. They used that as a basis of Symphony and never
contributed back to the community or became part of the community. So from
where I stood as a complete newcomer to Apache, it seemed back room deals had
been done, not to benefit the OOo community, but, given IBM staffers high
profile in the new podling, simply to benefit IBM, who under the Apache
license would have unfettered access to the code they had desired since the
permissive SISSL license was dropped with OOo 2.0.
I can therefore vouch for the health of my distrust. :)
The question therefore that needs be answered for the OOo community, (or maybe
just me, it wouldn't be the first time i've occupied a lonely outpost on my
own) Does the the move to Apache benefit the community and especially the end
users. In the first instance I was cautiously optimistic, with some small
reservations. Some reservations became larger However as you say, the
corporate partner issue has been removed, although right now the playing field
still doesn't feel that level.
There has been a consistent "dissing" of the old project since we got here as
though it was a huge failure, nothing that we did was ever right, it was
totally dysfunctional. Naturally this doesn't serve inspire confidence in
those of us who have been with OOo for a long time.
The evidence actually reveals the complete opposite. A vast vibrant community
with all the tension and foibles that brings with it, that produced, marketed
and distributed a well featured and reliable Office suite to a community of
probably tens of millions of users. Could we have done some things better, of
course, nothing is ever perfect but it was never as bad as you and others have
been painting it.
Cheers
GL
Re: Off topic
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 13 December 2011 16:16, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Further points.
>
> OOo differed from Mozilla, for instance, but resembled Eclipse in that we accepted funds for development work. At a conference hosted by financial firms where I represented OOo and there were representatives of Eclipse and Moz., Mike M. and I made similar points: That OOo can be used as a vehicle for alerting developers and other contributors of paid opportunities to contribute code.
>
Who would be paying? Regardless of the answer to this my immediate
(gut) reaction is that it is not really appropriate. If the ASF
doesn't pay for development. If some third party is paying then I
predict this would end in tears. I will try and explain.
Short term, drive by contributions are not what make a project
sustainable. They are useful and we welcome anyone willing to offer
them, but it will not make the project sustainable in and of itself.
What we need is the largest possible number of financially viable
organisations to sprout up around the Apache OO code. We then want to
get out of their way and let them make money and pay developers in any
way they see fit.
> I'd be in favour of re-doing that, but stress that code contributed must comply with the prevailing license, though I'd also have no problem with dual licensing.
>
Firstly, we care about building a community not about getting the code
out of people. By focussing on the community we build collaborative
development efforts. We don't compel people to licence their code to
us, we make it worth their while to do so. That is the ecosystem
Apache project strive to build.
Secondly, there is no way to enforce contribution in the way you
suggest. I see unnecessary conflict ahead.
> This and others are actually viable business models, and we showed as much with OOo's long tenure. The issue that we had to deal with was that the owning companies pretty much clipped our wings and prevented us from becoming what we could.
>
Historically that may or may not be true. From where I stand as a
complete newcomer I see the results of the OOo "long tenure" as far
from a glowing success. We have a significant fork, burned out
relationships and a really unhealthy dose of mistrust as a result. All
this seems to be attributable to what you call "the issue that we had
to deal with". The Apache process removes that issue. It focuses on
creating a level playing field.
If you truly believe that matching people to money in this way is a
sensible approach I suggest you set up whatever legal structure you
want to make it happen and prove me wrong (I speak only as myself, not
for the PPMC).
Others who don't have as much time for, or confidence in, such
efforts might just want to set up a "contractors for hire" page and
make potential paymasters aware of it. Paymasters may also want to
know that there is a foundation wide jobs@apache.org list for
recruitment purposes across all Apache projects.
Ross
Re: Off topic
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Further points.
>
> OOo differed from Mozilla, for instance, but resembled Eclipse in that we accepted funds for development work. At a conference hosted by financial firms where I represented OOo and there were representatives of Eclipse and Moz., Mike M. and I made similar points: That OOo can be used as a vehicle for alerting developers and other contributors of paid opportunities to contribute code.
>
> I'd be in favour of re-doing that, but stress that code contributed must comply with the prevailing license, though I'd also have no problem with dual licensing.
>
> This and others are actually viable business models, and we showed as much with OOo's long tenure. The issue that we had to deal with was that the owning companies pretty much clipped our wings and prevented us from becoming what we could.
>
Consider three ecosystem models:
A) A single distribution of the open source product, from a single
central website, with a single highly promoted and trademarked name,
which raises funds
and distributes it to its members to sustain a development effort.
B) A single distribution of the open source product, from a single
central website, with a single highly promoted and trademarked name,
where members set up their own series of fund-raising initiatives to
direct contributions to themselves based on their claimed affiliation
with and contributions to the one project.
C) A single core open source projects with multiple downstream
products based on it, each of which distributes its own package and
develops and executes on ts own business model.
A) is what we call a corporation. C) is more like what Apache
encourages. B) is confusing, and what (IMHO) OOo was trying to do.
I'm not sure how you can do that without infringing on the trademark,
and causing a conflict with those executing on C).
-Rob
> But that was then.
>
> Louis
>
>
> On 2011-12-13, at 11:12 , Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2011-12-13, at 10:43 , Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> This may be a bit hard to imagine, since OOo never really developed
>>> this kind of ecosystem. This was due to license and control issues.
>>> But we have the opportunity now to encourage a healthier ecosystem.
>>
>> You are in error. Actually, OOo did develop numerous such ecosystems where one could donate funds or contribute work. These were autonomously managed, for the most part, by the NLC projects. But we also used a central dyad, SPI and TeamOOo, and the contributions were from users.
>>
>> We also had many related businesses around the world depending upon and making money from OOo code. Key examples are in Malaysia and region; India, but also Brazil, Spain and so on. A lot moved to LibreOffice. But the point is ODF and the code that implements it.
>>
>> That said, I would very much like to re-establish the ecosystem that we created over 10 years of work—that's why I am a little annoyed that you so cavalierly dismissed what we have done, but I'm sure I misinterpreted and misread and didn't read right what you wrote and my apologies, Rob, for being impatient and no doubt unjustifiably indignant—but anyway, I'd very much like to recapture the work.
>>
>> For reference, the usual links:
>>
>> http://support.openoffice.org/ lists many and points to others
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments
>>
>> These two point to support options, most of which are out of date, and to those who have notified us (or we've been told about) who are significant users of OOo. This list does not really include LibreOffice or Symphony or other OOo-related implementations, such as EuroOffice (I think that's its name) and so on. And there are many such.
>>
>> louis
>
Re: Off topic
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
Further points.
OOo differed from Mozilla, for instance, but resembled Eclipse in that we accepted funds for development work. At a conference hosted by financial firms where I represented OOo and there were representatives of Eclipse and Moz., Mike M. and I made similar points: That OOo can be used as a vehicle for alerting developers and other contributors of paid opportunities to contribute code.
I'd be in favour of re-doing that, but stress that code contributed must comply with the prevailing license, though I'd also have no problem with dual licensing.
This and others are actually viable business models, and we showed as much with OOo's long tenure. The issue that we had to deal with was that the owning companies pretty much clipped our wings and prevented us from becoming what we could.
But that was then.
Louis
On 2011-12-13, at 11:12 , Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
> On 2011-12-13, at 10:43 , Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> This may be a bit hard to imagine, since OOo never really developed
>> this kind of ecosystem. This was due to license and control issues.
>> But we have the opportunity now to encourage a healthier ecosystem.
>
> You are in error. Actually, OOo did develop numerous such ecosystems where one could donate funds or contribute work. These were autonomously managed, for the most part, by the NLC projects. But we also used a central dyad, SPI and TeamOOo, and the contributions were from users.
>
> We also had many related businesses around the world depending upon and making money from OOo code. Key examples are in Malaysia and region; India, but also Brazil, Spain and so on. A lot moved to LibreOffice. But the point is ODF and the code that implements it.
>
> That said, I would very much like to re-establish the ecosystem that we created over 10 years of work—that's why I am a little annoyed that you so cavalierly dismissed what we have done, but I'm sure I misinterpreted and misread and didn't read right what you wrote and my apologies, Rob, for being impatient and no doubt unjustifiably indignant—but anyway, I'd very much like to recapture the work.
>
> For reference, the usual links:
>
> http://support.openoffice.org/ lists many and points to others
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments
>
> These two point to support options, most of which are out of date, and to those who have notified us (or we've been told about) who are significant users of OOo. This list does not really include LibreOffice or Symphony or other OOo-related implementations, such as EuroOffice (I think that's its name) and so on. And there are many such.
>
> louis
Re: Off topic
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 13 December 2011 11:18, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2011-12-13, at 10:43 , Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> This may be a bit hard to imagine, since OOo never really developed
>>> this kind of ecosystem. This was due to license and control issues.
>>> But we have the opportunity now to encourage a healthier ecosystem.
>>
>> You are in error. Actually, OOo did develop numerous such ecosystems where one could donate funds or contribute work. These were autonomously managed, for the most part, by the NLC projects. But we also used a central dyad, SPI and TeamOOo, and the contributions were from users.
>>
>
> Not truly autonomous if they were relying on using the OpenOffice.org
> trademark and suggesting that they officially represented the project.
>
> So we never really had that degree of independence.
>
> -Rob
Let's clarify. Autonomy does not mean independence, and I've long
scrupled at that distinction. I'm not surprised it slipped by you.
Autonomy in the actual useful sense is the ability to act on your own,
but still be to any number of degrees dependent upon the context.
Independence argues freedom from that operational context.
To give an example. The US declared independence. Canada, autonomy.
Canada has the Queen. The US? :-)
The NL projects were and I guess sort of are autonomous, as much as I
could make them, while being part of the originating context and thus
commons, so that they ultimately gained their value as much from their
actions as from the commons to which they contributed the fruit of
their work and which tried to return the favour.
They did use the trademark, and we did have conditions on it. But they
named themselves as they wanted (this I was critiqued for allowing)
and did other things that they could, as I felt they had the best
insight into their operational context.
Examples of success: BrOffice, which is also, probably an example of
failure, at least according to some models.
Louis
Re: Off topic
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2011-12-13, at 10:43 , Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> This may be a bit hard to imagine, since OOo never really developed
>> this kind of ecosystem. This was due to license and control issues.
>> But we have the opportunity now to encourage a healthier ecosystem.
>
> You are in error. Actually, OOo did develop numerous such ecosystems where one could donate funds or contribute work. These were autonomously managed, for the most part, by the NLC projects. But we also used a central dyad, SPI and TeamOOo, and the contributions were from users.
>
Not truly autonomous if they were relying on using the OpenOffice.org
trademark and suggesting that they officially represented the project.
So we never really had that degree of independence.
-Rob
Re: Off topic
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
On 2011-12-13, at 10:43 , Rob Weir wrote:
> This may be a bit hard to imagine, since OOo never really developed
> this kind of ecosystem. This was due to license and control issues.
> But we have the opportunity now to encourage a healthier ecosystem.
You are in error. Actually, OOo did develop numerous such ecosystems where one could donate funds or contribute work. These were autonomously managed, for the most part, by the NLC projects. But we also used a central dyad, SPI and TeamOOo, and the contributions were from users.
We also had many related businesses around the world depending upon and making money from OOo code. Key examples are in Malaysia and region; India, but also Brazil, Spain and so on. A lot moved to LibreOffice. But the point is ODF and the code that implements it.
That said, I would very much like to re-establish the ecosystem that we created over 10 years of work—that's why I am a little annoyed that you so cavalierly dismissed what we have done, but I'm sure I misinterpreted and misread and didn't read right what you wrote and my apologies, Rob, for being impatient and no doubt unjustifiably indignant—but anyway, I'd very much like to recapture the work.
For reference, the usual links:
http://support.openoffice.org/ lists many and points to others
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments
These two point to support options, most of which are out of date, and to those who have notified us (or we've been told about) who are significant users of OOo. This list does not really include LibreOffice or Symphony or other OOo-related implementations, such as EuroOffice (I think that's its name) and so on. And there are many such.
louis
Re: Off topic
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 December 2011 11:12, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure where this meme of "can't be done here in Apache" is coming
>> from.
>>
>
> Maybe can be done in the future but not right now? Earlier discussions
> suggested that there is no current mechanism to donate money to the Apache
> OO podling. Constraints for making donations were also explained in terms
> of ASF's not for profit status under US law - maybe I misunderstood, but
> that seems to me to be a significant barrier, especially for those not
> conversant with US law on not for profits ;-).
>
Donate money to an organization, for what? Obviously an organization
that receives money would need some way to disburse it. To pay for
servers? For bandwidth? Apache seems OK in that department. To pay
for developers? Apache doesn't do that. That doesn't mean someone
else can't do that. But you don't use Apache as the middleman for
moving money around in that case. You could have a different
middleman, or several of them, outside of the official Apache project.
Or you could avoid middlemen altogether and do something using an
online pledge system like Kickstarter:
http://www.kickstarter.com/
> There are very few things that can't be done here. The key is that
>> whatever is done under that Apache banner is for the public good. That
>> means it does not benefit any one individual or organisation more than
>> any other.
>>
>
> So it would be possible to make a direct donation to the OO podling? Rather
> than to ASF in general? Otherwise someone would have to set up a separate
> organisation to eg raise money for marketing they could be sure would get
> used as intended. Then there is the issue of trademarks when operating
> outside ASF (TeamOO etc). So while the outcome might be achievable its not
> necessarily easy. I'm not saying anything can't be done, but it seems from
> the discussion that getting some things done are going to be very hard work
> with no certainly of a good outcome.
>
It is not that hard. Take a look at other Apache projects, like
Subversion. Look at their binary downloads. These are all 3rd party
packages:
http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html
You see several business models based on taking the base Apache
Subversion code and then enhancing.
-- VisualSVN has a free 30-day trial download. Further use requires a license.
-- SlikSVN is free to use, but the download sight promotes their paid
SVN hosting
-- the Collab Net distribution is packages with a stack of related
technologies, IDE integration, and they promote their migration
services.
-- Some are entirely free, open source like the BSD port.
-- WANdisco has a free version as well as an enterprise supported version
-- TortoiseSVN is free but has a "donate" button on their website,
where you can contribute directly to the developers, or buy them
something from their Amazon wish list.
So there are a number of business models there, all flourishing
simultaneously. That's a healthy ecosystem. Note also that they are
not relying on using the trademark in a way that suggests that they
are the one true subversion client. They have adopted unique names
and are distinguishing themselves based on their innovations.
Now imagine if Apache stuck itself in the middle there and said it was
going to collect donations and decide how the donations were spent.
By doing that Apache would be competing against the larger ecosystem.
In fact it would probably kill off its own ecosystem. You would have
a single official Subversion client, with some developers getting paid
via donations to Apache. But the innovation of the broader ecosystem
would dry up.
This may be a bit hard to imagine, since OOo never really developed
this kind of ecosystem. This was due to license and control issues.
But we have the opportunity now to encourage a healthier ecosystem.
-Rob
> The limiting factor for creating a truly balanced and complete
>> ecosystem is people getting it done, not rules and regulations.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> On 13 December 2011 09:40, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 12 December 2011 23:44, Louis Suárez-Potts <lsuarezpotts@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> HI,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 12 December 2011 18:24, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > forum for
>> >> >> ecosystem activity.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Q: Would Apache be the site for that?
>> >> >
>> >> > That all depends on what you mean by "ecosystem activity". Apache
>> >> > exists to produce open source software for the public good.
>> >>
>> >> How nice. :-)
>> >>
>> >> I mean civil as well as governmental commercial (and not) activity
>> >> utilising and normalising within the warp and woof of the everyday the
>> >> work produced by the commons-based peer network. In short, the stuff
>> >> that earns the keep of those who keep the urn: but without burn or
>> >> churn. (sorry, dinnertime)
>> >>
>> >> At OOo we had a simple policy that sought to promote disinterested
>> >> ecosystem activity. I'd be a lot more inclined to relax the
>> >> strictures, as the situation here is quite different. But there were
>> >> some provisions that made sense, and which I long advocated for. These
>> >> included promoting sponsors of work via regulated icons (not garish or
>> >> distracting from the thing of value produced itself), as well as
>> >> unedited listings of service/support providers. I had started a list
>> >> but the DE group under André did a much better job, though it was
>> >> rather unwieldy, as they were the first to admit. Better technology
>> >> now would make for better listing. The extant list:
>> >> http://bizdev.openoffice.org/
>> >>
>> >> (The history of posting sponsors' ads is tedious but the risk is
>> >> always one of bleeding volunteers of that which moves them in the
>> >> pursuit of the lucre that moves others. But we can manage that. And
>> >> Ian and I have had historical discussions on this point, though we now
>> >> pretty much agree on the what's what of it.)
>> >>
>> >
>> > If OpenOffice is to reach its impact in terms of potential it needs
>> > vehicles for promotion and distribution beyond just making the code
>> > available from a web site. If that is not possible in the Apache Way with
>> > the Apache web sites, alternatives need to be found. The main issues I'd
>> > anticipate is the use of logos and trademarks and the motivation of the
>> > people involved in terms of a positive effect on development. That is
>> never
>> > going to be easy and has associated risk but there is also risk in doing
>> > nothing simply to avoid that risk.
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Off topic
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ross, et al.,
On 2011-12-13, at 09:31 , Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 13 December 2011 14:05, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 13 December 2011 11:12, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure where this meme of "can't be done here in Apache" is coming
>>> from.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe can be done in the future but not right now?
>
> Louis original mail was hinged around " I think it more generally
> points to the need to provide a forum for ecosystem activity." and his
> subsequent mail was focussed on activities such as "These
> included promoting sponsors of work via regulated icons (not garish or
> distracting from the thing of value produced itself), as well as
> unedited listings of service/support providers."
>
> There is nothing in Apache policy that says the project cannot have
> such a page. In needs to be managed sensitively and fairly, but the
> PPMC is free to decide on how that is done.
>
> Ross
Right; and so let's get going…
louis
Re: Off topic
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 13 December 2011 14:05, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 December 2011 11:12, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure where this meme of "can't be done here in Apache" is coming
>> from.
>>
>
> Maybe can be done in the future but not right now?
Louis original mail was hinged around " I think it more generally
points to the need to provide a forum for ecosystem activity." and his
subsequent mail was focussed on activities such as "These
included promoting sponsors of work via regulated icons (not garish or
distracting from the thing of value produced itself), as well as
unedited listings of service/support providers."
There is nothing in Apache policy that says the project cannot have
such a page. In needs to be managed sensitively and fairly, but the
PPMC is free to decide on how that is done.
Ross
Re: Off topic
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 13 December 2011 11:12, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure where this meme of "can't be done here in Apache" is coming
> from.
>
Maybe can be done in the future but not right now? Earlier discussions
suggested that there is no current mechanism to donate money to the Apache
OO podling. Constraints for making donations were also explained in terms
of ASF's not for profit status under US law - maybe I misunderstood, but
that seems to me to be a significant barrier, especially for those not
conversant with US law on not for profits ;-).
There are very few things that can't be done here. The key is that
> whatever is done under that Apache banner is for the public good. That
> means it does not benefit any one individual or organisation more than
> any other.
>
So it would be possible to make a direct donation to the OO podling? Rather
than to ASF in general? Otherwise someone would have to set up a separate
organisation to eg raise money for marketing they could be sure would get
used as intended. Then there is the issue of trademarks when operating
outside ASF (TeamOO etc). So while the outcome might be achievable its not
necessarily easy. I'm not saying anything can't be done, but it seems from
the discussion that getting some things done are going to be very hard work
with no certainly of a good outcome.
The limiting factor for creating a truly balanced and complete
> ecosystem is people getting it done, not rules and regulations.
>
> Ross
>
> On 13 December 2011 09:40, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12 December 2011 23:44, Louis Suárez-Potts <lsuarezpotts@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> HI,
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12 December 2011 18:24, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > forum for
> >> >> ecosystem activity.
> >> >>
> >> >> Q: Would Apache be the site for that?
> >> >
> >> > That all depends on what you mean by "ecosystem activity". Apache
> >> > exists to produce open source software for the public good.
> >>
> >> How nice. :-)
> >>
> >> I mean civil as well as governmental commercial (and not) activity
> >> utilising and normalising within the warp and woof of the everyday the
> >> work produced by the commons-based peer network. In short, the stuff
> >> that earns the keep of those who keep the urn: but without burn or
> >> churn. (sorry, dinnertime)
> >>
> >> At OOo we had a simple policy that sought to promote disinterested
> >> ecosystem activity. I'd be a lot more inclined to relax the
> >> strictures, as the situation here is quite different. But there were
> >> some provisions that made sense, and which I long advocated for. These
> >> included promoting sponsors of work via regulated icons (not garish or
> >> distracting from the thing of value produced itself), as well as
> >> unedited listings of service/support providers. I had started a list
> >> but the DE group under André did a much better job, though it was
> >> rather unwieldy, as they were the first to admit. Better technology
> >> now would make for better listing. The extant list:
> >> http://bizdev.openoffice.org/
> >>
> >> (The history of posting sponsors' ads is tedious but the risk is
> >> always one of bleeding volunteers of that which moves them in the
> >> pursuit of the lucre that moves others. But we can manage that. And
> >> Ian and I have had historical discussions on this point, though we now
> >> pretty much agree on the what's what of it.)
> >>
> >
> > If OpenOffice is to reach its impact in terms of potential it needs
> > vehicles for promotion and distribution beyond just making the code
> > available from a web site. If that is not possible in the Apache Way with
> > the Apache web sites, alternatives need to be found. The main issues I'd
> > anticipate is the use of logos and trademarks and the motivation of the
> > people involved in terms of a positive effect on development. That is
> never
> > going to be easy and has associated risk but there is also risk in doing
> > nothing simply to avoid that risk.
> >
> > --
> > 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.
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
--
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: Off topic
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
I'm not sure where this meme of "can't be done here in Apache" is coming from.
There are very few things that can't be done here. The key is that
whatever is done under that Apache banner is for the public good. That
means it does not benefit any one individual or organisation more than
any other.
The limiting factor for creating a truly balanced and complete
ecosystem is people getting it done, not rules and regulations.
Ross
On 13 December 2011 09:40, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 December 2011 23:44, Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> HI,
>>
>>
>> On 12 December 2011 18:24, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
>> wrote:
>> > forum for
>> >> ecosystem activity.
>> >>
>> >> Q: Would Apache be the site for that?
>> >
>> > That all depends on what you mean by "ecosystem activity". Apache
>> > exists to produce open source software for the public good.
>>
>> How nice. :-)
>>
>> I mean civil as well as governmental commercial (and not) activity
>> utilising and normalising within the warp and woof of the everyday the
>> work produced by the commons-based peer network. In short, the stuff
>> that earns the keep of those who keep the urn: but without burn or
>> churn. (sorry, dinnertime)
>>
>> At OOo we had a simple policy that sought to promote disinterested
>> ecosystem activity. I'd be a lot more inclined to relax the
>> strictures, as the situation here is quite different. But there were
>> some provisions that made sense, and which I long advocated for. These
>> included promoting sponsors of work via regulated icons (not garish or
>> distracting from the thing of value produced itself), as well as
>> unedited listings of service/support providers. I had started a list
>> but the DE group under André did a much better job, though it was
>> rather unwieldy, as they were the first to admit. Better technology
>> now would make for better listing. The extant list:
>> http://bizdev.openoffice.org/
>>
>> (The history of posting sponsors' ads is tedious but the risk is
>> always one of bleeding volunteers of that which moves them in the
>> pursuit of the lucre that moves others. But we can manage that. And
>> Ian and I have had historical discussions on this point, though we now
>> pretty much agree on the what's what of it.)
>>
>
> If OpenOffice is to reach its impact in terms of potential it needs
> vehicles for promotion and distribution beyond just making the code
> available from a web site. If that is not possible in the Apache Way with
> the Apache web sites, alternatives need to be found. The main issues I'd
> anticipate is the use of logos and trademarks and the motivation of the
> people involved in terms of a positive effect on development. That is never
> going to be easy and has associated risk but there is also risk in doing
> nothing simply to avoid that risk.
>
> --
> 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.
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Off topic
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 12 December 2011 23:44, Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>wrote:
> HI,
>
>
> On 12 December 2011 18:24, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
> wrote:
> > forum for
> >> ecosystem activity.
> >>
> >> Q: Would Apache be the site for that?
> >
> > That all depends on what you mean by "ecosystem activity". Apache
> > exists to produce open source software for the public good.
>
> How nice. :-)
>
> I mean civil as well as governmental commercial (and not) activity
> utilising and normalising within the warp and woof of the everyday the
> work produced by the commons-based peer network. In short, the stuff
> that earns the keep of those who keep the urn: but without burn or
> churn. (sorry, dinnertime)
>
> At OOo we had a simple policy that sought to promote disinterested
> ecosystem activity. I'd be a lot more inclined to relax the
> strictures, as the situation here is quite different. But there were
> some provisions that made sense, and which I long advocated for. These
> included promoting sponsors of work via regulated icons (not garish or
> distracting from the thing of value produced itself), as well as
> unedited listings of service/support providers. I had started a list
> but the DE group under André did a much better job, though it was
> rather unwieldy, as they were the first to admit. Better technology
> now would make for better listing. The extant list:
> http://bizdev.openoffice.org/
>
> (The history of posting sponsors' ads is tedious but the risk is
> always one of bleeding volunteers of that which moves them in the
> pursuit of the lucre that moves others. But we can manage that. And
> Ian and I have had historical discussions on this point, though we now
> pretty much agree on the what's what of it.)
>
If OpenOffice is to reach its impact in terms of potential it needs
vehicles for promotion and distribution beyond just making the code
available from a web site. If that is not possible in the Apache Way with
the Apache web sites, alternatives need to be found. The main issues I'd
anticipate is the use of logos and trademarks and the motivation of the
people involved in terms of a positive effect on development. That is never
going to be easy and has associated risk but there is also risk in doing
nothing simply to avoid that risk.
--
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: Off topic
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
HI,
On 12 December 2011 18:24, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> forum for
>> ecosystem activity.
>>
>> Q: Would Apache be the site for that?
>
> That all depends on what you mean by "ecosystem activity". Apache
> exists to produce open source software for the public good.
How nice. :-)
I mean civil as well as governmental commercial (and not) activity
utilising and normalising within the warp and woof of the everyday the
work produced by the commons-based peer network. In short, the stuff
that earns the keep of those who keep the urn: but without burn or
churn. (sorry, dinnertime)
At OOo we had a simple policy that sought to promote disinterested
ecosystem activity. I'd be a lot more inclined to relax the
strictures, as the situation here is quite different. But there were
some provisions that made sense, and which I long advocated for. These
included promoting sponsors of work via regulated icons (not garish or
distracting from the thing of value produced itself), as well as
unedited listings of service/support providers. I had started a list
but the DE group under André did a much better job, though it was
rather unwieldy, as they were the first to admit. Better technology
now would make for better listing. The extant list:
http://bizdev.openoffice.org/
(The history of posting sponsors' ads is tedious but the risk is
always one of bleeding volunteers of that which moves them in the
pursuit of the lucre that moves others. But we can manage that. And
Ian and I have had historical discussions on this point, though we now
pretty much agree on the what's what of it.)
louis
>
>
> Ross
Re: Off topic
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 12 December 2011 23:17, Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ian, yes, your post was refreshingly OT :-) But not really, too, as I
> think it more generally points to the need to provide a forum for
> ecosystem activity.
>
> Q: Would Apache be the site for that?
That all depends on what you mean by "ecosystem activity". Apache
exists to produce open source software for the public good.
Ross
Re: Off topic
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
Ian, yes, your post was refreshingly OT :-) But not really, too, as I
think it more generally points to the need to provide a forum for
ecosystem activity.
Q: Would Apache be the site for that? Or do we look elsewhere? I'd
also like to think that we could make such a forum of ecosystem
activity embracing of all ODF implementation ecosystems.
Louis
On 12 December 2011 10:09, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvqxjZr79eE
>
> Coursework submitted for the Gold INGOT certificate by a 15 year old
> competent in the use of Blender.
>
> Ok, its off topic but I thought it might be an interesting change :-)
>
> --
> 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.