Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>]

(Wearing IBM Hat)  (Warning - long post )

Here's an update on what was communicated this week at the annual
Lotusphere event in Orlando, Florida. I hope this helps clarify
misunderstandings, and resolves lingering concerns regarding IBM plans with
respect to investments that directly support and benefit the overall Apache
OpenOffice project. There are (3) topics to look at.

First, IBM Lotus Symphony 3.0.1 was announced. This is a new release of IBM
Lotus Symphony, based on OpenOffice Technology that was licensed directly
with Sun in 2007, when IBM formally joined the OpenOffice.org community.
Symphony uses an Eclipse RCP framework known as Lotus Expeditor.
 Expeditor, or XPD for short, enables IBM to embed Symphony in the flagship
Lotus Notes offering as a no charge entitlement. IBM does not directly
monetize Symphony. IBM has never sold Symphony. IBM has offered enterprise
support agreements for customers and QuickStart services offerings to help
customers begin to deploy Symphony. With XPD, IBM and IBM partners have
developed widgets, similar to OO extensions, that offer added value; e.g.
Multimedia Libraries for end user support, and so forth. Symphony 3.0.1
will continue to be provided for Lotus Notes 8.5.x customers throughout the
life cycle of this Lotus Notes release family. Fixpacks will provide
ongoing support for this customer set.

Notably, IBM announced it is ending its Symphony fork, the downstream fork
of OpenOffice, if you prefer to think of it that way. With the July 15,
2011 announcement that IBM will contribute its Symphony source code to the
Apache OpenOffice project, it makes no sense to continue a separate
development effort. Instead, the entire Symphony development team will now
be focused on working in the Apache OpenOffice community.

Second, new features and function, worthy of consideration by this
community as a 'Apache OpenOffice 4.0' release will be the primary focus
for the IBM volunteers working in the project at Apache, after the project
successfully completes the Apache 3.4 release. See the AOO 4.0 Feature
Planning wiki page here: *http://s.apache.org/hW   *- As part of the public
discussions at Lotusphere, our product manager announced a proposed 'Apache
OpenOffice 4 the IBM Edition' name. Yes, this is long and cumbersome. It is
intended to describe what will be a future free download of Apache
OpenOffice with extensions bundled in that are of interest to IBM
customers; e.g. an extension to connect Apache OpenOffice to IBM
Connections, a social networking offer (think Facebook for Business).
 Connections offers Profiles, Community, Blogs, Wikis, Files etc. So an
extension will enable users to save their documents directly to the 'Files'
repository for community sharing, etc. Other extensions are being
considered. All extensions will be no charge. There is no monetization play
for Apache OpenOffice the IBM Edition as there was never one for IBM Lotus
Symphony. We will need to seek the approval to use this proposed naming
from Apache Trademarks and this PPMC. Look for that request soon.

IBM is enthusiastic about the opportunity to collaborate with the community
in a balanced way. You'll hopefully see that there is no hidden 'puppeteer'
controlling our team member actions. Yes, we have individuals who are very
active in Rob Weir and Juergen Schmidt, but we hope to see other
individuals from our team contributing soon. Working in Apache is
especially a big change of culture for our Chinese team, so I hope
community members will be understanding and welcoming of this as you notice
them begin to more actively participate and contribute as individuals. We
believe there is an unusual and very exciting opportunity to bring new
ideas and innovation to Apache OpenOffice. We also believe that many other
like-minded companies and individuals will share this view, and step
forward to actively participate in the community in the coming months.

Thirdly, IBM announced the open beta for IBM Docs, formerly branded
LotusLive Symphony. LotusLive is now re-branded IBM SmartCloud for Social
Business. Think of IBM Docs as web-based collaborative document editors.
There is no OpenOffice source code in IBM Docs. Instead, IBM Docs consumes
MS-Office documents, and ODF documents produced by OpenOffice, LibreOffice,
Calligra, AbiWord, etc. IBM Docs uses the Apache ODF Toolkit to manage
conversion services from ODF to Web standards needed to perform the editing
capabilities. IBM Docs exports ODF and MS-Office document file formats. IBM
Docs will become generally available later this year with IBM Connections
as the parent offering. The focus is on social document collaboration for
business since IBM Connections is unlikely to be deployed for general
consumer use in the same fashion as you see now with Google Docs.

You can find the charts describing all of this here: *
http://s.apache.org/Tj6*

Sorry about the long post. I do understand why it's easy to get caught up
in the 'blind man and the elephant' game, and miss the whole damn animal in
the process. IBM has often been accused of being an elephant, so I think
this metaphor works here. We are very excited about the future of Apache
OpenOffice, and will do our best to work to build a self-sustaining
community based on diversity and balance. At the same time, you will see
alot of energy and contributions coming forward over the coming months.

As for me, if you forgot about my earlier introduction here is the one I
posted on ooo-marketing in November:
http://markmail.org/message/stejocuxui5aintr You can see I'm not a coder,
but I plan to do alot of the other stuff more in the marketing and
community side of things.  I hope this post helps answer your questions. If
you have more, I'm sure you won't be shy about posting them on this thread.
I am proud to say I have began to know and understand the OpenOffice.org
community beginning in Koper, Slovenia at the 2005 OpenOffice.org
Conference. I drove IBM sponsorship of OpenOffice.org annually since that
time, and participated first hand in 2007 through 2010, where I chaired the
OASIS ODF 1.2 Interop event. Enough about me, I'm offering this short CV to
help you get to know me better. I also chair the OASIS ODF Adoption TC. So
you see I care an awful lot about the success of ODF as well as Apache
OpenOffice.

Onward!

/don


*
*

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>]

On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:42 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:

> This thread has gone pretty far off topic for our already heavily loaded ooo-dev@ mailing list, so I suggest we drop discussions of jurisdictional distinctions of corporate law and Adam Smith references.

I was sorely tempted, but then my PPMC hat kept popping on my head ;-)

Also, it is a good idea to read all of the thread before responding to the middle.

Regards,
Dave


> 
> - Shane

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>]

This thread has gone pretty far off topic for our already heavily loaded 
ooo-dev@ mailing list, so I suggest we drop discussions of 
jurisdictional distinctions of corporate law and Adam Smith references.

- Shane

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 Feb 2012 01:58:58 Rob Weir wrote:
>> >
>> > ASF does not fill one critical measure of Corporations:  Freely
>> > transferrable shares.  Apache is an Incorporated Charity.  The Profit
>> > Motive doesn't  come into the equation.
>>
>> That may be a distinction in New Zealand, but it is not in the US.
>> Apache is a corporation.
>
>
> It is of little consequence,  the fact is that it applies to any Limited
> Liability, for profit, share holder held organisation.  Corporation is a
> common term.  Semantic gymnastics doesn't change it.
>
>
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/certificate.html
>>
>> A non-profit corporation is just a specialized form of a corporation.
>> Not all for-profit corporations have publicly trading shares.   And in
>> some states a non-profit corporation can issue stock.  So your
>> generalities really fall apart.
>>
>> >> So wild generalities of corporations being "sociopathic
>> >> beasts" are not going to get you very far.
>
> I would be pretty famous I suspect if I had come up with the concept.  In fact
> it goes back to the 18th century and Adam Smiths "Wealth of Nations", he
> didn't of course coin the word Sociopath or indeed corporations, but he did
> point to the dangers in organisations where ownership and liability are
> separated
>

Actually, Adam Smith was talking broadly, not of corporations, but any
assembly of tradesmen, which would include non-profits, guilds,
benevolent societies, etc., specifically:

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and
diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the
public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." (The Wealth of
Nations, Book 1, Chapter 10)

What Smith spoke about is far from limited to for-profit corporations.

>
>> >
>> > It is a fairly well known tenet, well researched and presented by
>> > behavioural psychologists, business analysts and philosophers.  It's not
>> > a criticism, just a statement that has a considerable measure of
>> > accuracy.  Certainly it is a generalisation and I know of a number of
>> > corporations that now rate Ethical Performance as high as Profit and
>> > Share holder return on their KPIs to avoid the Sociopathic trait.
>> >  Perhaps IBM is becoming one of those, I don't know. You yourself have
>> > said that in the past that IBM was a less than ideal member of the OSS
>> > community.  I dare say that you and your colleagues would have known how
>> > IBM was perceived in the community, but that was simply brushed off and
>> > ignored because that affected neither profit nor shareholder return.
>> > Ignoring the groups wishes is a Sociopathic trait.  It is also a well
>> > known fact that sociopathic personalities do well in the corporate
>> > environment.
>>
>> Perhaps this is true in New Zealand.  I can't really speak to that,
>> since offhand I can't name a single New Zealand Corporation.
>
> I can do it for you if you wish, I'm still on the Board of Directors of one.
> Heck,  Apache was incorporated by a New Zealander, we do know how they work.
> :)
>
>> But in
>> the US it is more complicated.
>
> Really, the bit we are considering isn't that complicated and besides which
> complexity is of little consequence to the discussion, it's to do with
> divorcing ownership from liability.
>

Apache officers have the limited immunity that comes with a
incorporation, just like officers of any other corporation.

>>
>> > In your exchanges with a number of people on the list, you have
>> > demonstrated a low level of empathy
>>
>> I feel your pain.
>
> LOL, typical sarcasm, I rest my case.
>
>
>> >>  I would have thought the
>> >> 20th century would have thought us something about the dangers of such
>> >> demagoguery?
>> >
>> > Tsk, a trait of the internet debate and American politics is the
>> > tendencty to lean toward hyperboly and grand over statement.
>>
>> But you get my point?
>
> Oh indeed I do, my point is that it isn't demagoguery it is simply a
> statement, I seriously doubt however that you will ever see any of my points
>
> [.....]
>
>>
>> > Ireland, the Lutheran Church, the Real Madrid Football club are not going
>> > to profit from the activities of this project, not that it would worry
>> > me if they did.  What would concern me however is how much loyalty would
>> > any of the above\
>>
>> I hope many project participants find ways of profiting from AOO.
>> That would be a wonderful thing, especially as it draws more resources
>> (contributions from more individuals) into the project.
>>
>> > show to the project and so I would question their motives as well and in
>> > particular the loyalty prioritisation of the individuals from those
>> > communities with roles that could lead to a conflict of interest.  Not a
>> > big ask and not demagoguery
>>
>> Profit is not a conflict of interest.
>
> That's a strawman, I never said it was and deliberately misinterpreting what I
> say is not going to get us anywhere.   If a person or a group is working
> toward a profit of some description, while at the same time working toward a
> profit within another group then at some point there is probability of
> conflict of interest especially if there is a co-dependence.   The loyalty

There is always the possibility of a conflict of interest in any
group.  That is the kind of truism that is not worth debating.

> question is to do with priorities:  If in the case of a conflict of interest,
> which groups profit is a priority to the individual.  Or to be more specific,
> if the AOO PMC were to take decisions on a course of action that were contrary
> to IBM policy would you or any other IBM employee then remove yourself from
> the project or would IBM simply back away.
>

And what if the PPMC made a decision that was against New Zealand law?
 What would you do?

In any case, IBM policy covers what IBM does and what IBM employees
may do,  It does not cover what the PPMC does.

>
>> > Oh, I know exactly what I want to achieve in the project, the point is
>> > the goal is ONLY about OOo, there is no divided loyalty.
>>
>> The last I checked, we don't require a loyalty oath to participate in
>> this project.  If you want to propose one, I suggest you do so in a
>> new thread.
>
> Strawman again, I never suggested anything remotely like it.
>
>>
>> As far as I can tell, we all have multiple demands on our time, from
>> family, life, even other demands at our jobs.  This is not a conflict
>> of interest, in any sense of the term.  A conflict of interest would
>> be if someone was simultaneously being paid by different parties to
>> help and to harm the project.  I am not aware of this occurring.  If
>> you believe otherwise, I'd recommend you raise this, in a new thread,
>> on ooo-private.
>
> Nonsense, again you make a statement that has little bearing on the
> discussion.  "Paid"  is receiving a reward of some type, we have already
> established that monetary recompense is not the only form of reward in an OSS
> project.  My reward comes from one place, yours comes from Two:
> IBM (given that you get a salary from IBM to work on this project)
> and the more esoteric rewards that come from working for this project
>

Great.  Then I must admit that I have zero idea what you are
complaining about.   And not from lack of trying to find out.  I hope
you find the peace you seek.


> [....]
>
>>
>> Well, IMHO Don has managed to squeeze in an amazing  misunderstanding
>> in such a small space, a true economy of means.  A few corrections you
>> might note in any response:
>>
>> 1) We're using Apache 2.0 license, not BSD
>>
>> 2) This choices were made the owner of the code, Oracle.
>>
>> 3) LO was created 9 months for AOO, so it is incorrect to say LO were
>> created in response to the license change at Apache
>>
>> 4) LO also abandoned the pure LGPL approach.  They added the "weak
>> copyleft" MPL license as an option.  Again this was done 9 months
>> before AOO.
>
> You know that and I know that and I never said anthing different, but none of
> that is the point.  I will repeat:  perception is everything. I could counter
> Don's arguments but it wouldn't matter, this is marketing, we deal with
> feelings, with emotions.  It's not about being right, but about getting people
> to see us in a positive light.
>

I think there is still room in this worth for facts.  Perception are
fleeting, shallow and all so changeable.  Facts are stubborn things.

>>
>> I suggest you end your unproductive tirade against corporations or
>> against me personally and concentrate on what positive things you want
>> to accomplish in the project.  In the end, arguing with me
>> accomplishing nothing.  It doesn't really even waste my time much.
>
> There is no tirade, against corporations or you, again you misinterpret to fit
> your own view of the circumstance.    It's no more of an attack than
> suggesting that you are a coffee drinker.  Several people have made comment
> about your conduct on the list and the conduct is mildly sociopathic and I say
> that in the same tone as I say that I am mildly addicted to coffee.  For
> myself and the others who have commented it was simply a matter of making a
> statement in the hope that we may encourage a little self evaluation.
>
> I have owned several companies, and as I said I'm still on the board of one.
> Out of forty+ odd years of my working life, thirty have been in my own
> companies. I was once told it's because I have issues with authority figures.
> To some that may be a problem, but not to me and not to most Entrepreneurs who
> exhibit the same trait.  It can be a bit of a downside, but when it comes to
> fast decision making, it's an upside.
>
> If I was hiring someone in certain jobs I would be hunting for someone  with
> Sociopathic tendencies, those tendencies are useful in certain circumstances.
> Not "bad" or "good", just either useful or to be avoided.  If I was hiring
> programmers, I'd be looking for someone a little OCD, "On the Spectrum" is the
> euphimism.  That is not a criticism, it's statement of obvious desirable
> personality trait.  Every pesonality trait also has it's downsides, my job or
> the job of my HR department is to manage those.
>
> That's all I'm trying to do here right now, we have a sociopathic elephant in
> the room I would just like to get a handle on what motivates it, because no
> matter how we spin it right now the biggest flag flying over the AOO project
> is a blue one, I, as a marketing guy, want to communicate to the Dons of
> this world that this is a positive thing.  I chose to use Ed's announcment as
> a benchmark for IBMs involvement in AOO, as means to that end.  I didn't
> expect dancing in the streets given that there is a strong bias to the GPL in
> NZOSS, but I will admit to hoping for a little better reaction.
>

Your error here is believing that just because you can put a name on
something ("IBM's true motivation for participating in AOO") that this
is a well-defined, strictly-bounded, unchanging thing.  I hope you
believe me when I say with absolute certainty that there is no marble
tablet in our corporate vault engraved "Apache OpenOffice Grand
Strategy -- Strictly Secret, Do not share with Kiwis".  It should be
pretty obvious what we're doing in the project.  We're working openly
and everyone can see what our employees are doing.  But beyond what
we've already spoken of publicly, nothing else is written.  Don't
assume that there is a secret plan or motivation that we're holding
back from the community.  What will happen going forward will -- I
sincerely hope --  be written with the community, on this mailing
list.

> (I should add, Don is one of the co-owners of his company, Catalyst, which
> employs around 150 developers across the world contributing to a wide range of
> OSS projects,  Ubuntu, Moodle, Koha and Mahara being the most significant
> beneficiaries and yes they profit from GPL'd OSS, very successfully.  They are
> an excellent model for dedicated OSS companies.  First and foremost ethical
> and dedicated members of all the FOSS communities they support.  You would
> struggle to find a negative word spoken about them in the FOSS community.)
>

Yes, of course, we all know Don.  I believe he remembers me as well.
I said nothing ill of is character, just that he got all his facts
wrong.

-Rob

>>
>> But again, it might just be that you enjoy this....
>
> You are right of course, it's like any involvement in an OSS project,
> enjoyment is critical. Of course there are grades and for me, this discussion
> comes low on the enjoyment but high on the necessity scale.
>
> You are also correct that I felt that I was probably wasting my time, given
> that I was pretty sure that you would ignore it all in any case, but I'm
> stubborn enough to try anyway.
>
>
> Cheers
> GL
>
>
>
>>
>> > Cheers
>> > GL
>> >
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> -Rob
>> >>
>> >> > Cheers
>> >> > GL

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com>]

On Wednesday 01 Feb 2012 01:58:58 Rob Weir wrote:
> > 
> > ASF does not fill one critical measure of Corporations:  Freely
> > transferrable shares.  Apache is an Incorporated Charity.  The Profit
> > Motive doesn't  come into the equation.
> 
> That may be a distinction in New Zealand, but it is not in the US.
> Apache is a corporation. 


It is of little consequence,  the fact is that it applies to any Limited 
Liability, for profit, share holder held organisation.  Corporation is a 
common term.  Semantic gymnastics doesn't change it.   


> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/certificate.html
> 
> A non-profit corporation is just a specialized form of a corporation.
> Not all for-profit corporations have publicly trading shares.   And in
> some states a non-profit corporation can issue stock.  So your
> generalities really fall apart.
> 
> >> So wild generalities of corporations being "sociopathic
> >> beasts" are not going to get you very far.

I would be pretty famous I suspect if I had come up with the concept.  In fact 
it goes back to the 18th century and Adam Smiths "Wealth of Nations", he 
didn't of course coin the word Sociopath or indeed corporations, but he did  
point to the dangers in organisations where ownership and liability are 
separated


> > 
> > It is a fairly well known tenet, well researched and presented by
> > behavioural psychologists, business analysts and philosophers.  It's not
> > a criticism, just a statement that has a considerable measure of
> > accuracy.  Certainly it is a generalisation and I know of a number of
> > corporations that now rate Ethical Performance as high as Profit and
> > Share holder return on their KPIs to avoid the Sociopathic trait.
> >  Perhaps IBM is becoming one of those, I don't know. You yourself have
> > said that in the past that IBM was a less than ideal member of the OSS
> > community.  I dare say that you and your colleagues would have known how
> > IBM was perceived in the community, but that was simply brushed off and
> > ignored because that affected neither profit nor shareholder return.
> > Ignoring the groups wishes is a Sociopathic trait.  It is also a well
> > known fact that sociopathic personalities do well in the corporate
> > environment.
> 
> Perhaps this is true in New Zealand.  I can't really speak to that,
> since offhand I can't name a single New Zealand Corporation.  

I can do it for you if you wish, I'm still on the Board of Directors of one.  
Heck,  Apache was incorporated by a New Zealander, we do know how they work.  
:)

> But in
> the US it is more complicated.

Really, the bit we are considering isn't that complicated and besides which 
complexity is of little consequence to the discussion, it's to do with 
divorcing ownership from liability. 

> 
> > In your exchanges with a number of people on the list, you have
> > demonstrated a low level of empathy
> 
> I feel your pain.

LOL, typical sarcasm, I rest my case.


> >>  I would have thought the
> >> 20th century would have thought us something about the dangers of such
> >> demagoguery?
> > 
> > Tsk, a trait of the internet debate and American politics is the
> > tendencty to lean toward hyperboly and grand over statement.
> 
> But you get my point?

Oh indeed I do, my point is that it isn't demagoguery it is simply a 
statement, I seriously doubt however that you will ever see any of my points  

[.....]

> 
> > Ireland, the Lutheran Church, the Real Madrid Football club are not going
> > to profit from the activities of this project, not that it would worry
> > me if they did.  What would concern me however is how much loyalty would
> > any of the above\
> 
> I hope many project participants find ways of profiting from AOO.
> That would be a wonderful thing, especially as it draws more resources
> (contributions from more individuals) into the project.
> 
> > show to the project and so I would question their motives as well and in
> > particular the loyalty prioritisation of the individuals from those
> > communities with roles that could lead to a conflict of interest.  Not a
> > big ask and not demagoguery
> 
> Profit is not a conflict of interest.

That's a strawman, I never said it was and deliberately misinterpreting what I 
say is not going to get us anywhere.   If a person or a group is working 
toward a profit of some description, while at the same time working toward a 
profit within another group then at some point there is probability of 
conflict of interest especially if there is a co-dependence.   The loyalty 
question is to do with priorities:  If in the case of a conflict of interest, 
which groups profit is a priority to the individual.  Or to be more specific, 
if the AOO PMC were to take decisions on a course of action that were contrary 
to IBM policy would you or any other IBM employee then remove yourself from 
the project or would IBM simply back away.   


> > Oh, I know exactly what I want to achieve in the project, the point is
> > the goal is ONLY about OOo, there is no divided loyalty.
> 
> The last I checked, we don't require a loyalty oath to participate in
> this project.  If you want to propose one, I suggest you do so in a
> new thread.

Strawman again, I never suggested anything remotely like it.

> 
> As far as I can tell, we all have multiple demands on our time, from
> family, life, even other demands at our jobs.  This is not a conflict
> of interest, in any sense of the term.  A conflict of interest would
> be if someone was simultaneously being paid by different parties to
> help and to harm the project.  I am not aware of this occurring.  If
> you believe otherwise, I'd recommend you raise this, in a new thread,
> on ooo-private.

Nonsense, again you make a statement that has little bearing on the 
discussion.  "Paid"  is receiving a reward of some type, we have already 
established that monetary recompense is not the only form of reward in an OSS 
project.  My reward comes from one place, yours comes from Two: 
IBM (given that you get a salary from IBM to work on this project)  
and the more esoteric rewards that come from working for this project  

[....]

> 
> Well, IMHO Don has managed to squeeze in an amazing  misunderstanding
> in such a small space, a true economy of means.  A few corrections you
> might note in any response:
> 
> 1) We're using Apache 2.0 license, not BSD
> 
> 2) This choices were made the owner of the code, Oracle.
> 
> 3) LO was created 9 months for AOO, so it is incorrect to say LO were
> created in response to the license change at Apache
> 
> 4) LO also abandoned the pure LGPL approach.  They added the "weak
> copyleft" MPL license as an option.  Again this was done 9 months
> before AOO.

You know that and I know that and I never said anthing different, but none of 
that is the point.  I will repeat:  perception is everything. I could counter 
Don's arguments but it wouldn't matter, this is marketing, we deal with 
feelings, with emotions.  It's not about being right, but about getting people 
to see us in a positive light.    

> 
> I suggest you end your unproductive tirade against corporations or
> against me personally and concentrate on what positive things you want
> to accomplish in the project.  In the end, arguing with me
> accomplishing nothing.  It doesn't really even waste my time much.

There is no tirade, against corporations or you, again you misinterpret to fit 
your own view of the circumstance.    It's no more of an attack than 
suggesting that you are a coffee drinker.  Several people have made comment 
about your conduct on the list and the conduct is mildly sociopathic and I say 
that in the same tone as I say that I am mildly addicted to coffee.  For 
myself and the others who have commented it was simply a matter of making a 
statement in the hope that we may encourage a little self evaluation.    

I have owned several companies, and as I said I'm still on the board of one.
Out of forty+ odd years of my working life, thirty have been in my own 
companies. I was once told it's because I have issues with authority figures.  
To some that may be a problem, but not to me and not to most Entrepreneurs who 
exhibit the same trait.  It can be a bit of a downside, but when it comes to 
fast decision making, it's an upside.
 
If I was hiring someone in certain jobs I would be hunting for someone  with 
Sociopathic tendencies, those tendencies are useful in certain circumstances.  
Not "bad" or "good", just either useful or to be avoided.  If I was hiring 
programmers, I'd be looking for someone a little OCD, "On the Spectrum" is the 
euphimism.  That is not a criticism, it's statement of obvious desirable 
personality trait.  Every pesonality trait also has it's downsides, my job or 
the job of my HR department is to manage those.  

That's all I'm trying to do here right now, we have a sociopathic elephant in 
the room I would just like to get a handle on what motivates it, because no 
matter how we spin it right now the biggest flag flying over the AOO project 
is a blue one, I, as a marketing guy, want to communicate to the Dons of   
this world that this is a positive thing.  I chose to use Ed's announcment as 
a benchmark for IBMs involvement in AOO, as means to that end.  I didn't 
expect dancing in the streets given that there is a strong bias to the GPL in 
NZOSS, but I will admit to hoping for a little better reaction.

(I should add, Don is one of the co-owners of his company, Catalyst, which 
employs around 150 developers across the world contributing to a wide range of 
OSS projects,  Ubuntu, Moodle, Koha and Mahara being the most significant 
beneficiaries and yes they profit from GPL'd OSS, very successfully.  They are 
an excellent model for dedicated OSS companies.  First and foremost ethical 
and dedicated members of all the FOSS communities they support.  You would 
struggle to find a negative word spoken about them in the FOSS community.)

> 
> But again, it might just be that you enjoy this....

You are right of course, it's like any involvement in an OSS project, 
enjoyment is critical. Of course there are grades and for me, this discussion 
comes low on the enjoyment but high on the necessity scale.

You are also correct that I felt that I was probably wasting my time, given 
that I was pretty sure that you would ignore it all in any case, but I'm 
stubborn enough to try anyway.


Cheers
GL



> 
> > Cheers
> > GL
> > 
> >> Regards,
> >> 
> >> -Rob
> >> 
> >> > Cheers
> >> > GL

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>]

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday 27 Jan 2012 04:53:29 Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 02:50:20 Rob Weir wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> >> >> Second, new features and function, worthy of consideration by this
>> >> >> community as a 'Apache OpenOffice 4.0' release will be the primary
>> >> >> focus for the IBM volunteers working in the project at Apache, after
>> >> >> the project successfully completes the Apache 3.4 release.  See the
>> >> >> AOO 4.0 Feature Planning wiki page here: *http://s.apache.org/hW*
>> >> >
>> >> > IBM "volunteers?"  _I_  volunteer.  I don't get paid to be here, I
>> >> > come here only on my own time.  That's what volunteers do, if someone
>> >> > is picking up a salary to work on AOO code that's hardly
>> >> > volunteering, except maybe in "doublespeak". Tsk!   However, whatever
>> >> > they're called, it will be good to see them pushing along 4.0, we are
>> >> > at a point now, having been out of the market for such a lengthy
>> >> > time, that with the new release there needs to be a substantially
>> >> > different product.
>> >>
>> >> Let me challenge your views on this.  Anyone who participates in this
>> >> project does so because they get more out of it than they put into it.
>> >>  Further, they would be insane to participate in the project under any
>> >> other conditions.  What they put in is obvious:  their time, their
>> >> skills, their experience, their care, their overly long emails, etc.
>> >> What they get out is less tangible, but it still exists.  In some
>> >> cases it is a salary, in other cases it is enjoyment, or experience,
>> >> reputation, etc.  Cash payments are they only form of reward.  Even
>> >> those who think they are participating for purely altruistic reasons
>> >> are doing so to enhance their self-image, imagining themselves to do
>> >> altruistic deeds.  This is just basic balance of energy.  An animal
>> >> will not survive long if it chases down and kills prey where the
>> >> returned calories are less then those expended in the hunt.  Since no
>> >> one has a gun to our heads, forcing them to work on this project,
>> >> everyone here is a volunteer.  Everyone is free to go or remain, or
>> >> participate to whatever level they feel gives them a sufficient reward
>> >> (of any form) for their investment in the project.   Even those who
>> >> are employed had and have a choice of jobs they could take.  Maybe
>> >> they took their current job because it gave them the opportunity to
>> >> continue participation in the project?  Any illusion about this basic
>> >> fact, such as the the project has self-less martyrs and course
>> >> mercenaries,  is just sentimentality and does not really promote clear
>> >> thinking.  The form of your personal reward for working in the project
>> >> has zero impact on your rights, abilities, prerogatives, status or (to
>> >> me at least) the weight of your arguments in this project.
>> >
>> > Challenge away, I never said: people that volunteer, do it for altruistic
>> > reasons, not sure where you read that. I will clarify:
>> >
>> > I simply stated that IBM's motives were certainly not altruistic I just
>> > have no idea what they are, and given that a corporation is a
>> > sociopathic beast I would really like to know what they are, but in the
>> > absence of an OOo related mission statement, I have to try deduction.
>>
>> I remind you that the Apache Software Foundation is also a
>> corporation.
>
> ASF does not fill one critical measure of Corporations:  Freely transferrable
> shares.  Apache is an Incorporated Charity.  The Profit Motive doesn't  come
> into the equation.
>

That may be a distinction in New Zealand, but it is not in the US.
Apache is a corporation. You can read their Certificate of
Incorporation here:

http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/certificate.html

A non-profit corporation is just a specialized form of a corporation.
Not all for-profit corporations have publicly trading shares.   And in
some states a non-profit corporation can issue stock.  So your
generalities really fall apart.

>> So wild generalities of corporations being "sociopathic
>> beasts" are not going to get you very far.
>
> It is a fairly well known tenet, well researched and presented by behavioural
> psychologists, business analysts and philosophers.  It's not a criticism, just
> a statement that has a considerable measure of accuracy.  Certainly it is a
> generalisation and I know of a number of corporations that now rate Ethical
> Performance as high as Profit and Share holder return on their KPIs to avoid
> the Sociopathic trait.  Perhaps IBM is becoming one of those, I don't know.
> You yourself have said that in the past that IBM was a less than ideal member
> of the OSS community.  I dare say that you and your colleagues would have
> known how IBM was perceived in the community, but that was simply brushed off
> and ignored because that affected neither profit nor shareholder return.
> Ignoring the groups wishes is a Sociopathic trait.  It is also a well known
> fact that sociopathic personalities do well in the corporate environment.
>

Perhaps this is true in New Zealand.  I can't really speak to that,
since offhand I can't name a single New Zealand Corporation.  But in
the US it is more complicated.

> In your exchanges with a number of people on the list, you have demonstrated a
> low level of empathy
>

I feel your pain.

>>
>> > I also stated that someone paid by a corporate member to participate in
>> > this community cannot be called a volunteer.  Take your argument to the
>> > extreme and you could say that every one _lives_ voluntarily because
>> > they decided not to top themselves this morning.  A ridiculous argument.
>> >   Volunteer = someone who has to sacrifice personal time outside of
>> > their daily mortgage paying work, to contribute.
>>
>> I never said that someone with corporate sponsorship is a volunteer.
>> What I did is challenge you on your belief that this distinction --
>> the form of reward a participant receives --  makes any difference
>> whatsoever in terms of how we work on the project. Some members might
>> be Irishmen, Lutherans or fans of Real Madrid.  These affiliations, as
>> well as employment status,  are just some of the many attributes of
>> our personhood.  We should be dealing with each other as persons,
>> looking at individual actions, rather than drawing wild stereotypes
>> based on speculated group characteristics.  I would have thought the
>> 20th century would have thought us something about the dangers of such
>> demagoguery?
>
> Tsk, a trait of the internet debate and American politics is the tendencty to
> lean toward hyperboly and grand over statement.
>

But you get my point?

> Ireland, the Lutheran Church, the Real Madrid Football club are not going to
> profit from the activities of this project, not that it would worry me if they
> did.  What would concern me however is how much loyalty would any of the above\

I hope many project participants find ways of profiting from AOO.
That would be a wonderful thing, especially as it draws more resources
(contributions from more individuals) into the project.

> show to the project and so I would question their motives as well and in
> particular the loyalty prioritisation of the individuals from those
> communities with roles that could lead to a conflict of interest.  Not a big
> ask and not demagoguery
>

Profit is not a conflict of interest.

>
>>
>> > Everyone participates in an Open Source project for various reasons, some
>> > may be their own and some may be employers and all do it for some form
>> > of reward whether it be cash or something more esoteric.  There are a
>> > lot of people who do this as part of their 9 to 5 who are not what I
>> > would call volunteers.  How do I know this?  Easy, this list dies over
>> > the weekend.
>>
>> Maybe that is because we volunteer for other things on the weekend?
>> Or spend time with family, based on their schedule?  In the end, it is
>> really not your concern.  Instead of questioning others motivations,
>> I'd recommend simply asking yourself what you want to accomplish in
>> the project.
>
> Oh, I know exactly what I want to achieve in the project, the point is the
> goal is ONLY about OOo, there is no divided loyalty.
>

The last I checked, we don't require a loyalty oath to participate in
this project.  If you want to propose one, I suggest you do so in a
new thread.

As far as I can tell, we all have multiple demands on our time, from
family, life, even other demands at our jobs.  This is not a conflict
of interest, in any sense of the term.  A conflict of interest would
be if someone was simultaneously being paid by different parties to
help and to harm the project.  I am not aware of this occurring.  If
you believe otherwise, I'd recommend you raise this, in a new thread,
on ooo-private.

>

>>
>> Of course, there is the distinct possibility that part of the joy you
>> experience by your participation in this project is engaging in length
>> off-topic debates with me.  I'll let your next response confirm or
>> deny that theory ;-)
>
> Well my first response is  that, this discussion was with Don originally.
>
> Secondly, for you this might be off topic, for a marketing guy this is right
> on topic.
>
> I made an announcement on the NZ Open Source Society List, nothing huge just a
> quick summary of where things were headed with a small amount of cheerleading.
>
> The response from the immediate Past President:
>
> http://lists.nzoss.org.nz/pipermail/openchat/2012-January/009201.html
>
> That's a marketing issue, I need to be able to answer it, because no matter
> what  "We are just individuals"  spin you put on it, at the end of the day I
> have to answer the above responses because the appearance is that IBM drove
> this.  IBM funds it by paying you to be here and has hired devs from the old
> OOo team and so on.
>

Well, IMHO Don has managed to squeeze in an amazing  misunderstanding
in such a small space, a true economy of means.  A few corrections you
might note in any response:

1) We're using Apache 2.0 license, not BSD

2) This choices were made the owner of the code, Oracle.

3) LO was created 9 months for AOO, so it is incorrect to say LO were
created in response to the license change at Apache

4) LO also abandoned the pure LGPL approach.  They added the "weak
copyleft" MPL license as an option.  Again this was done 9 months
before AOO.

> Now I and Shane and Joe and Ross and Jurgen and Dave and so on either know or
> are at the least, pretty darn sure that this is much more than the Rob
> Weir/IBM show, but as I alluded to Don earlier in this thread, perception is
> everything and while it might be easy to just ignore it, If however we want to
> spread the brand and have the wider user community view it in a positive light
> then it has to be addressed.
>

I suggest you end your unproductive tirade against corporations or
against me personally and concentrate on what positive things you want
to accomplish in the project.  In the end, arguing with me
accomplishing nothing.  It doesn't really even waste my time much.

But again, it might just be that you enjoy this....

>
> Cheers
> GL
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> > Cheers
>> > GL
>

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com>]

On Friday 27 Jan 2012 04:53:29 Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 02:50:20 Rob Weir wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> >> >> Second, new features and function, worthy of consideration by this
> >> >> community as a 'Apache OpenOffice 4.0' release will be the primary
> >> >> focus for the IBM volunteers working in the project at Apache, after
> >> >> the project successfully completes the Apache 3.4 release.  See the
> >> >> AOO 4.0 Feature Planning wiki page here: *http://s.apache.org/hW*
> >> > 
> >> > IBM "volunteers?"  _I_  volunteer.  I don't get paid to be here, I
> >> > come here only on my own time.  That's what volunteers do, if someone
> >> > is picking up a salary to work on AOO code that's hardly
> >> > volunteering, except maybe in "doublespeak". Tsk!   However, whatever
> >> > they're called, it will be good to see them pushing along 4.0, we are
> >> > at a point now, having been out of the market for such a lengthy
> >> > time, that with the new release there needs to be a substantially
> >> > different product.
> >> 
> >> Let me challenge your views on this.  Anyone who participates in this
> >> project does so because they get more out of it than they put into it.
> >>  Further, they would be insane to participate in the project under any
> >> other conditions.  What they put in is obvious:  their time, their
> >> skills, their experience, their care, their overly long emails, etc.
> >> What they get out is less tangible, but it still exists.  In some
> >> cases it is a salary, in other cases it is enjoyment, or experience,
> >> reputation, etc.  Cash payments are they only form of reward.  Even
> >> those who think they are participating for purely altruistic reasons
> >> are doing so to enhance their self-image, imagining themselves to do
> >> altruistic deeds.  This is just basic balance of energy.  An animal
> >> will not survive long if it chases down and kills prey where the
> >> returned calories are less then those expended in the hunt.  Since no
> >> one has a gun to our heads, forcing them to work on this project,
> >> everyone here is a volunteer.  Everyone is free to go or remain, or
> >> participate to whatever level they feel gives them a sufficient reward
> >> (of any form) for their investment in the project.   Even those who
> >> are employed had and have a choice of jobs they could take.  Maybe
> >> they took their current job because it gave them the opportunity to
> >> continue participation in the project?  Any illusion about this basic
> >> fact, such as the the project has self-less martyrs and course
> >> mercenaries,  is just sentimentality and does not really promote clear
> >> thinking.  The form of your personal reward for working in the project
> >> has zero impact on your rights, abilities, prerogatives, status or (to
> >> me at least) the weight of your arguments in this project.
> > 
> > Challenge away, I never said: people that volunteer, do it for altruistic
> > reasons, not sure where you read that. I will clarify:
> > 
> > I simply stated that IBM's motives were certainly not altruistic I just
> > have no idea what they are, and given that a corporation is a
> > sociopathic beast I would really like to know what they are, but in the
> > absence of an OOo related mission statement, I have to try deduction.
> 
> I remind you that the Apache Software Foundation is also a
> corporation. 

ASF does not fill one critical measure of Corporations:  Freely transferrable 
shares.  Apache is an Incorporated Charity.  The Profit Motive doesn't  come 
into the equation.   

> So wild generalities of corporations being "sociopathic
> beasts" are not going to get you very far.

It is a fairly well known tenet, well researched and presented by behavioural 
psychologists, business analysts and philosophers.  It's not a criticism, just 
a statement that has a considerable measure of accuracy.  Certainly it is a 
generalisation and I know of a number of corporations that now rate Ethical 
Performance as high as Profit and Share holder return on their KPIs to avoid 
the Sociopathic trait.  Perhaps IBM is becoming one of those, I don't know.  
You yourself have said that in the past that IBM was a less than ideal member 
of the OSS community.  I dare say that you and your colleagues would have 
known how IBM was perceived in the community, but that was simply brushed off 
and ignored because that affected neither profit nor shareholder return.  
Ignoring the groups wishes is a Sociopathic trait.  It is also a well known 
fact that sociopathic personalities do well in the corporate environment. 

In your exchanges with a number of people on the list, you have demonstrated a 
low level of empathy   

> 
> > I also stated that someone paid by a corporate member to participate in
> > this community cannot be called a volunteer.  Take your argument to the
> > extreme and you could say that every one _lives_ voluntarily because
> > they decided not to top themselves this morning.  A ridiculous argument.
> >   Volunteer = someone who has to sacrifice personal time outside of
> > their daily mortgage paying work, to contribute.
> 
> I never said that someone with corporate sponsorship is a volunteer.
> What I did is challenge you on your belief that this distinction --
> the form of reward a participant receives --  makes any difference
> whatsoever in terms of how we work on the project. Some members might
> be Irishmen, Lutherans or fans of Real Madrid.  These affiliations, as
> well as employment status,  are just some of the many attributes of
> our personhood.  We should be dealing with each other as persons,
> looking at individual actions, rather than drawing wild stereotypes
> based on speculated group characteristics.  I would have thought the
> 20th century would have thought us something about the dangers of such
> demagoguery?

Tsk, a trait of the internet debate and American politics is the tendencty to 
lean toward hyperboly and grand over statement.

Ireland, the Lutheran Church, the Real Madrid Football club are not going to 
profit from the activities of this project, not that it would worry me if they 
did.  What would concern me however is how much loyalty would any of the above 
show to the project and so I would question their motives as well and in 
particular the loyalty prioritisation of the individuals from those 
communities with roles that could lead to a conflict of interest.  Not a big 
ask and not demagoguery  


> 
> > Everyone participates in an Open Source project for various reasons, some
> > may be their own and some may be employers and all do it for some form
> > of reward whether it be cash or something more esoteric.  There are a
> > lot of people who do this as part of their 9 to 5 who are not what I
> > would call volunteers.  How do I know this?  Easy, this list dies over
> > the weekend.
> 
> Maybe that is because we volunteer for other things on the weekend?
> Or spend time with family, based on their schedule?  In the end, it is
> really not your concern.  Instead of questioning others motivations,
> I'd recommend simply asking yourself what you want to accomplish in
> the project.

Oh, I know exactly what I want to achieve in the project, the point is the 
goal is ONLY about OOo, there is no divided loyalty.  


> 
> Of course, there is the distinct possibility that part of the joy you
> experience by your participation in this project is engaging in length
> off-topic debates with me.  I'll let your next response confirm or
> deny that theory ;-)

Well my first response is  that, this discussion was with Don originally.

Secondly, for you this might be off topic, for a marketing guy this is right 
on topic. 

I made an announcement on the NZ Open Source Society List, nothing huge just a 
quick summary of where things were headed with a small amount of cheerleading.

The response from the immediate Past President:

http://lists.nzoss.org.nz/pipermail/openchat/2012-January/009201.html 

That's a marketing issue, I need to be able to answer it, because no matter 
what  "We are just individuals"  spin you put on it, at the end of the day I 
have to answer the above responses because the appearance is that IBM drove 
this.  IBM funds it by paying you to be here and has hired devs from the old 
OOo team and so on.  

Now I and Shane and Joe and Ross and Jurgen and Dave and so on either know or 
are at the least, pretty darn sure that this is much more than the Rob 
Weir/IBM show, but as I alluded to Don earlier in this thread, perception is 
everything and while it might be easy to just ignore it, If however we want to 
spread the brand and have the wider user community view it in a positive light 
then it has to be addressed. 


Cheers 
GL


> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rob
> 
> > Cheers
> > GL

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>]

----- Original Message -----

> From: Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff
> 
> Am 26.01.12 16:53, schrieb Rob Weir:

>>  I never said that someone with corporate sponsorship is a volunteer.
>>  What I did is challenge you on your belief that this distinction --
>>  the form of reward a participant receives --  makes any difference
>>  whatsoever in terms of how we work on the project. Some members might
>>  be Irishmen, Lutherans or fans of Real Madrid.  These affiliations, as
>>  well as employment status,  are just some of the many attributes of
>>  our personhood.  We should be dealing with each other as persons,
>>  looking at individual actions, rather than drawing wild stereotypes
>>  based on speculated group characteristics.
> That's not realy true Rob. I think IBM employee will also speak up for 
> IBM Interests here. But thats normal, and this is not bad. Also a load 
> of "Volunteers" speek not only for them self. Remember, many has also 
> commercial interrests. I have nothing against IBM. but don't tell me 
> that they speak up all only as individual. For this reason it's good to 
> know what people do in the rest of there life. So you understand same 
> positions better.

At the ASF it is expected that you wear your Apache hat first and foremost.
Most people are able to recognize conflicts of interest and in those circumstances
should recuse themselves.  But IBM doesn't appear to be conflicted about
it's involvement in this project, and that they are willing to dedicate
resources to it at this point should be a welcome change.

Most working groups at IBM do a very respectable job of constructive engagement
with Apache projects, and I expect nothing less from the team Rob and company
assemble here.  But they should be viewed as part of the mix now, no different
than Pedro or any other volunteers save for their own personal motivations for
getting (and staying) involved.  We tend not to question people's rationales for
constructive participation beyond assuming "enlightened self-interest" is behind
what drives them.  At the end of the day it is the collective decision-making of
the entire PPMC that will shape the direction of this project, not IBM management.

HTH

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>]

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 2:15 AM, imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
> On 2012/01/27 00:48, Rob Weir said:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>> Am 26.01.12 16:53, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Graham Lauder<g....@gmail.com>
>>>>> On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 02:50:20 Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Graham Lauder<g....@gmail.com>
>> That's why "hats" are so important.  See the section "Individuals
>> compose the ASF" here"
>
>    Sorry that it took me several days to respond.  It's Chinese New
> Year holiday here, and you are sending long, long English mails. ^^;
>

Happy New Year!

I know I miss my co-workers in Beijing as well. I hope they all come
back rested and ready for more fun !

>    I have to disappoint those that hope it be only the personal view of
> a single person.  I kind of agree that IBM needs to clarify its role on
> this question:  "Why is an IBM-hatted person announced Apache OpenOffice
> 4?"  Or, put it in another way, should I forward this message to our
> local OpenOffice community, and tell them "this great Apache OpenOffice
> 4 news came from IBM"?  "The release schedule of Apache OpenOffice 4?  I
> believe IBM has one."
>

We did not announce Apache OpenOffice 4.0.   We spoke to an IBM
conference, in front of IBM customers and business partners, and told
them what we are interested in contributing to Apache OpenOffice 4.0.

Note that these 4.0 feature ideas were shared with the community 20 days ago:

http://markmail.org/message/3cbo4p5kwxnd4ujp

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning

What 4.0 looks like will be depend on what all of us contribute.  Not just IBM.

It is true that most of the ideas for 4.0 features have come from IBM
employees.  But this does not prevent anyone else from listing things
they want to work on.  The wiki is open for anyone to add to.  In
fact, I'm a little disappointed that more project members have not
proposed things for AOO 4.0.

>    I have a lot respect to Rob, Donald and many of you here for your
> continuous work and time in the past year.  I have a lot respect to IBM
> for its contribution to Apache OpenOffice.  I welcome your work on PMC.
>  But that's a different thing.
>
>    So, is there a non-IBM person in planning this whole AOO4 thing?
> How to know and how to participate for us non-IBMers?
>

A few ideas:

0) In general, how does a feature get into a release? Obviously
someone needs to offer to do the work.  So those who have ideas and
are willing to implement them are invited to list them on the wiki.
The more people that do that, the more accurate our 4.0 plan will be.

1) Start with the wiki link above, and add the things that you want to work on.

2) I also started a page for AOO 4.1 ideas:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning

3) If you attend a conference and can present on AOO, then please do
this.  It is good for the project if members give updates at
conferences.  Just make sure you are speaking for yourself, not
officially for the project.  So things like "Here is a snapshot of
current proposals for AOO 4.0 from the project wiki" or "Here are the
things I'm looking to contribute to AOO".  No one can say for certain
what is in AOO until we (and the IPMC) vote on a release.  So all we
can talk about know are proposals.


> --
> Best regards,
> imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
>
> <<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
> OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org/
> EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
>

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>]

Am Samstag, 28. Januar 2012 schrieb imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>:
> On 2012/01/27 00:48, Rob Weir said:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch>
wrote:
>>> Am 26.01.12 16:53, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Graham Lauder<g....@gmail.com>
>>>>> On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 02:50:20 Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Graham Lauder<g....@gmail.com>
>> That's why "hats" are so important.  See the section "Individuals
>> compose the ASF" here"
>
>    Sorry that it took me several days to respond.  It's Chinese New
> Year holiday here, and you are sending long, long English mails. ^^;
>
>    I have to disappoint those that hope it be only the personal view of
> a single person.  I kind of agree that IBM needs to clarify its role on
> this question:  "Why is an IBM-hatted person announced Apache OpenOffice
> 4?"

I think it was more a further public commitment that IBM is working on the
promised contribution of Smphony code into Apache OpenOffice in a 4.0
timeframe. IBM can't really announce a 4.0 version, it will be the
community who will decide and finally vote on it.

Or, put it in another way, should I forward this message to our
> local OpenOffice community, and tell them "this great Apache OpenOffice
> 4 news came from IBM"?  "The release schedule of Apache OpenOffice 4?  I
> believe IBM has one."

We don't have a final schedule for 4.0 but you should have noticed that we
have already started to collect stuff for a 4.0 and that all community
members are invited to contribute to this efforts.
But at the moment our primary goal is to release a 3.4 version.

But hey if you think you can do something that either help us to move
forward on the 3.4 or even a 4.0 then simply start working on it and let us
know.

I personally think it would be great to have a bigger 4.0 release quite
fast after a 3.4 with some nice features. Either from Symphony or
completely new. It would help to show that AOO is a living project and able
to deliver a good product.

>
>    I have a lot respect to Rob, Donald and many of you here for your
> continuous work and time in the past year.  I have a lot respect to IBM
> for its contribution to Apache OpenOffice.  I welcome your work on PMC.
>  But that's a different thing.
>
>    So, is there a non-IBM person in planning this whole AOO4 thing?
> How to know and how to participate for us non-IBMers

By simply start working on something. If you don't know what, start a
discussion on the mailing list and ask. Don't wait that somebody will
exactly tell you what you should do.
Or join an ongoing discussion and pick some work items from there if you
think you can help working on this.
We have so many things to do, that everybody who is interested can find
something that is appropriate to the skills they have.

Just start doing it.

Juergen

PS: with limited time anf net access over the weekend ;-)

>
> --
> Best regards,
> imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
>
> <<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
> OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org/
> EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
>
>

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>]

On 2012/01/27 00:48, Rob Weir said:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 26.01.12 16:53, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Graham Lauder<g....@gmail.com>
>>>> On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 02:50:20 Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Graham Lauder<g....@gmail.com>
> That's why "hats" are so important.  See the section "Individuals
> compose the ASF" here"

    Sorry that it took me several days to respond.  It's Chinese New
Year holiday here, and you are sending long, long English mails. ^^;

    I have to disappoint those that hope it be only the personal view of
a single person.  I kind of agree that IBM needs to clarify its role on
this question:  "Why is an IBM-hatted person announced Apache OpenOffice
4?"  Or, put it in another way, should I forward this message to our
local OpenOffice community, and tell them "this great Apache OpenOffice
4 news came from IBM"?  "The release schedule of Apache OpenOffice 4?  I
believe IBM has one."

    I have a lot respect to Rob, Donald and many of you here for your
continuous work and time in the past year.  I have a lot respect to IBM
for its contribution to Apache OpenOffice.  I welcome your work on PMC.
 But that's a different thing.

    So, is there a non-IBM person in planning this whole AOO4 thing?
How to know and how to participate for us non-IBMers?

-- 
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc

<<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 26.01.12 16:53, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Graham Lauder<g....@gmail.com>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 02:50:20 Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Graham Lauder<g....@gmail.com>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, new features and function, worthy of consideration by this
>>>>>> community as a 'Apache OpenOffice 4.0' release will be the primary
>>>>>> focus
>>>>>> for the IBM volunteers working in the project at Apache, after the
>>>>>> project successfully completes the Apache 3.4 release.  See the AOO
>>>>>> 4.0
>>>>>> Feature Planning wiki page here: *http://s.apache.org/hW*
>>>>>
>>>>> IBM "volunteers?"  _I_  volunteer.  I don't get paid to be here, I come
>>>>> here only on my own time.  That's what volunteers do, if someone is
>>>>> picking up a salary to work on AOO code that's hardly volunteering,
>>>>> except maybe in "doublespeak". Tsk!   However, whatever they're called,
>>>>> it will be good to see them pushing along 4.0, we are at a point now,
>>>>> having been out of the market for such a lengthy time, that with the
>>>>> new
>>>>> release there needs to be a substantially different product.
>>>>
>>>> Let me challenge your views on this.  Anyone who participates in this
>>>> project does so because they get more out of it than they put into it.
>>>>  Further, they would be insane to participate in the project under any
>>>> other conditions.  What they put in is obvious:  their time, their
>>>> skills, their experience, their care, their overly long emails, etc.
>>>> What they get out is less tangible, but it still exists.  In some
>>>> cases it is a salary, in other cases it is enjoyment, or experience,
>>>> reputation, etc.  Cash payments are they only form of reward.  Even
>>>> those who think they are participating for purely altruistic reasons
>>>> are doing so to enhance their self-image, imagining themselves to do
>>>> altruistic deeds.  This is just basic balance of energy.  An animal
>>>> will not survive long if it chases down and kills prey where the
>>>> returned calories are less then those expended in the hunt.  Since no
>>>> one has a gun to our heads, forcing them to work on this project,
>>>> everyone here is a volunteer.  Everyone is free to go or remain, or
>>>> participate to whatever level they feel gives them a sufficient reward
>>>> (of any form) for their investment in the project.   Even those who
>>>> are employed had and have a choice of jobs they could take.  Maybe
>>>> they took their current job because it gave them the opportunity to
>>>> continue participation in the project?  Any illusion about this basic
>>>> fact, such as the the project has self-less martyrs and course
>>>> mercenaries,  is just sentimentality and does not really promote clear
>>>> thinking.  The form of your personal reward for working in the project
>>>> has zero impact on your rights, abilities, prerogatives, status or (to
>>>> me at least) the weight of your arguments in this project.
>>>
>>> Challenge away, I never said: people that volunteer, do it for altruistic
>>> reasons, not sure where you read that. I will clarify:
>>>
>>> I simply stated that IBM's motives were certainly not altruistic I just
>>> have
>>> no idea what they are, and given that a corporation is a sociopathic
>>> beast I
>>> would really like to know what they are, but in the absence of an OOo
>>> related
>>> mission statement, I have to try deduction.
>>>
>> I remind you that the Apache Software Foundation is also a
>> corporation.  So wild generalities of corporations being "sociopathic
>> beasts" are not going to get you very far.
>>
>>> I also stated that someone paid by a corporate member to participate in
>>> this
>>> community cannot be called a volunteer.  Take your argument to the
>>> extreme and
>>> you could say that every one _lives_ voluntarily because they decided not
>>> to
>>> top themselves this morning.  A ridiculous argument.   Volunteer =
>>> someone who
>>> has to sacrifice personal time outside of their daily mortgage paying
>>> work, to
>>> contribute.
>>>
>> I never said that someone with corporate sponsorship is a volunteer.
>> What I did is challenge you on your belief that this distinction --
>> the form of reward a participant receives --  makes any difference
>> whatsoever in terms of how we work on the project. Some members might
>> be Irishmen, Lutherans or fans of Real Madrid.  These affiliations, as
>> well as employment status,  are just some of the many attributes of
>> our personhood.  We should be dealing with each other as persons,
>> looking at individual actions, rather than drawing wild stereotypes
>> based on speculated group characteristics.
>
> That's not realy true Rob. I think IBM employee will also speak up for IBM
> Interests here. But thats normal, and this is not bad. Also a load of

That's why "hats" are so important.  See the section "Individuals
compose the ASF" here"

http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html

On rare occasions, when I feel I need to say something on behalf of
IBM, I've been explicit about that.  I say, "wearing my IBM hat....",
as in:

http://markmail.org/message/blwwws6ir545b2j6

or (an example from Don):

http://markmail.org/message/ybhbyw3aembdph5d

If I'm not doing that, then by default I am speaking as an individual
contributor on the project, expressing my own opinions, etc.  I hope
no one automatically agrees with what I say just because I happen to
work for IBM, or because I'm an American, or that I am a Red Sox fan,
but I also hope no one just automatically disagrees with me based on
these extraneous facts.

> "Volunteers" speek not only for them self. Remember, many has also
> commercial interrests. I have nothing against IBM. but don't tell me that
> they speak up all only as individual. For this reason it's good to know what
> people do in the rest of there life. So you understand same positions
> better.
>
>> I would have thought the
>> 20th century would have thought us something about the dangers of such
>> demagoguery?
>>
>>> Everyone participates in an Open Source project for various reasons, some
>>> may
>>> be their own and some may be employers and all do it for some form of
>>> reward
>>> whether it be cash or something more esoteric.  There are a lot of people
>>> who
>>> do this as part of their 9 to 5 who are not what I would call volunteers.
>>>  How
>>> do I know this?  Easy, this list dies over the weekend.
>>>
>> Maybe that is because we volunteer for other things on the weekend?
>> Or spend time with family, based on their schedule?  In the end, it is
>> really not your concern.  Instead of questioning others motivations,
>> I'd recommend simply asking yourself what you want to accomplish in
>> the project.
>>
>> Of course, there is the distinct possibility that part of the joy you
>> experience by your participation in this project is engaging in length
>> off-topic debates with me.  I'll let your next response confirm or
>> deny that theory ;-)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Cheers
>>> GL
>
>
>
> --
> My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch>]

Am 26.01.12 16:53, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Graham Lauder<g....@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 02:50:20 Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Graham Lauder<g....@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>> Second, new features and function, worthy of consideration by this
>>>>> community as a 'Apache OpenOffice 4.0' release will be the primary focus
>>>>> for the IBM volunteers working in the project at Apache, after the
>>>>> project successfully completes the Apache 3.4 release.  See the AOO 4.0
>>>>> Feature Planning wiki page here: *http://s.apache.org/hW*
>>>> IBM "volunteers?"  _I_  volunteer.  I don't get paid to be here, I come
>>>> here only on my own time.  That's what volunteers do, if someone is
>>>> picking up a salary to work on AOO code that's hardly volunteering,
>>>> except maybe in "doublespeak". Tsk!   However, whatever they're called,
>>>> it will be good to see them pushing along 4.0, we are at a point now,
>>>> having been out of the market for such a lengthy time, that with the new
>>>> release there needs to be a substantially different product.
>>> Let me challenge your views on this.  Anyone who participates in this
>>> project does so because they get more out of it than they put into it.
>>>   Further, they would be insane to participate in the project under any
>>> other conditions.  What they put in is obvious:  their time, their
>>> skills, their experience, their care, their overly long emails, etc.
>>> What they get out is less tangible, but it still exists.  In some
>>> cases it is a salary, in other cases it is enjoyment, or experience,
>>> reputation, etc.  Cash payments are they only form of reward.  Even
>>> those who think they are participating for purely altruistic reasons
>>> are doing so to enhance their self-image, imagining themselves to do
>>> altruistic deeds.  This is just basic balance of energy.  An animal
>>> will not survive long if it chases down and kills prey where the
>>> returned calories are less then those expended in the hunt.  Since no
>>> one has a gun to our heads, forcing them to work on this project,
>>> everyone here is a volunteer.  Everyone is free to go or remain, or
>>> participate to whatever level they feel gives them a sufficient reward
>>> (of any form) for their investment in the project.   Even those who
>>> are employed had and have a choice of jobs they could take.  Maybe
>>> they took their current job because it gave them the opportunity to
>>> continue participation in the project?  Any illusion about this basic
>>> fact, such as the the project has self-less martyrs and course
>>> mercenaries,  is just sentimentality and does not really promote clear
>>> thinking.  The form of your personal reward for working in the project
>>> has zero impact on your rights, abilities, prerogatives, status or (to
>>> me at least) the weight of your arguments in this project.
>> Challenge away, I never said: people that volunteer, do it for altruistic
>> reasons, not sure where you read that. I will clarify:
>>
>> I simply stated that IBM's motives were certainly not altruistic I just have
>> no idea what they are, and given that a corporation is a sociopathic beast I
>> would really like to know what they are, but in the absence of an OOo related
>> mission statement, I have to try deduction.
>>
> I remind you that the Apache Software Foundation is also a
> corporation.  So wild generalities of corporations being "sociopathic
> beasts" are not going to get you very far.
>
>> I also stated that someone paid by a corporate member to participate in this
>> community cannot be called a volunteer.  Take your argument to the extreme and
>> you could say that every one _lives_ voluntarily because they decided not to
>> top themselves this morning.  A ridiculous argument.   Volunteer = someone who
>> has to sacrifice personal time outside of their daily mortgage paying work, to
>> contribute.
>>
> I never said that someone with corporate sponsorship is a volunteer.
> What I did is challenge you on your belief that this distinction --
> the form of reward a participant receives --  makes any difference
> whatsoever in terms of how we work on the project. Some members might
> be Irishmen, Lutherans or fans of Real Madrid.  These affiliations, as
> well as employment status,  are just some of the many attributes of
> our personhood.  We should be dealing with each other as persons,
> looking at individual actions, rather than drawing wild stereotypes
> based on speculated group characteristics.
That's not realy true Rob. I think IBM employee will also speak up for 
IBM Interests here. But thats normal, and this is not bad. Also a load 
of "Volunteers" speek not only for them self. Remember, many has also 
commercial interrests. I have nothing against IBM. but don't tell me 
that they speak up all only as individual. For this reason it's good to 
know what people do in the rest of there life. So you understand same 
positions better.
> I would have thought the
> 20th century would have thought us something about the dangers of such
> demagoguery?
>
>> Everyone participates in an Open Source project for various reasons, some may
>> be their own and some may be employers and all do it for some form of reward
>> whether it be cash or something more esoteric.  There are a lot of people who
>> do this as part of their 9 to 5 who are not what I would call volunteers.  How
>> do I know this?  Easy, this list dies over the weekend.
>>
> Maybe that is because we volunteer for other things on the weekend?
> Or spend time with family, based on their schedule?  In the end, it is
> really not your concern.  Instead of questioning others motivations,
> I'd recommend simply asking yourself what you want to accomplish in
> the project.
>
> Of course, there is the distinct possibility that part of the joy you
> experience by your participation in this project is engaging in length
> off-topic debates with me.  I'll let your next response confirm or
> deny that theory ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
>> Cheers
>> GL


-- 
My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 02:50:20 Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> Second, new features and function, worthy of consideration by this
>> >> community as a 'Apache OpenOffice 4.0' release will be the primary focus
>> >> for the IBM volunteers working in the project at Apache, after the
>> >> project successfully completes the Apache 3.4 release.  See the AOO 4.0
>> >> Feature Planning wiki page here: *http://s.apache.org/hW*
>> >
>> > IBM "volunteers?"  _I_  volunteer.  I don't get paid to be here, I come
>> > here only on my own time.  That's what volunteers do, if someone is
>> > picking up a salary to work on AOO code that's hardly volunteering,
>> > except maybe in "doublespeak". Tsk!   However, whatever they're called,
>> > it will be good to see them pushing along 4.0, we are at a point now,
>> > having been out of the market for such a lengthy time, that with the new
>> > release there needs to be a substantially different product.
>>
>> Let me challenge your views on this.  Anyone who participates in this
>> project does so because they get more out of it than they put into it.
>>  Further, they would be insane to participate in the project under any
>> other conditions.  What they put in is obvious:  their time, their
>> skills, their experience, their care, their overly long emails, etc.
>> What they get out is less tangible, but it still exists.  In some
>> cases it is a salary, in other cases it is enjoyment, or experience,
>> reputation, etc.  Cash payments are they only form of reward.  Even
>> those who think they are participating for purely altruistic reasons
>> are doing so to enhance their self-image, imagining themselves to do
>> altruistic deeds.  This is just basic balance of energy.  An animal
>> will not survive long if it chases down and kills prey where the
>> returned calories are less then those expended in the hunt.  Since no
>> one has a gun to our heads, forcing them to work on this project,
>> everyone here is a volunteer.  Everyone is free to go or remain, or
>> participate to whatever level they feel gives them a sufficient reward
>> (of any form) for their investment in the project.   Even those who
>> are employed had and have a choice of jobs they could take.  Maybe
>> they took their current job because it gave them the opportunity to
>> continue participation in the project?  Any illusion about this basic
>> fact, such as the the project has self-less martyrs and course
>> mercenaries,  is just sentimentality and does not really promote clear
>> thinking.  The form of your personal reward for working in the project
>> has zero impact on your rights, abilities, prerogatives, status or (to
>> me at least) the weight of your arguments in this project.
>
> Challenge away, I never said: people that volunteer, do it for altruistic
> reasons, not sure where you read that. I will clarify:
>
> I simply stated that IBM's motives were certainly not altruistic I just have
> no idea what they are, and given that a corporation is a sociopathic beast I
> would really like to know what they are, but in the absence of an OOo related
> mission statement, I have to try deduction.
>

I remind you that the Apache Software Foundation is also a
corporation.  So wild generalities of corporations being "sociopathic
beasts" are not going to get you very far.

> I also stated that someone paid by a corporate member to participate in this
> community cannot be called a volunteer.  Take your argument to the extreme and
> you could say that every one _lives_ voluntarily because they decided not to
> top themselves this morning.  A ridiculous argument.   Volunteer = someone who
> has to sacrifice personal time outside of their daily mortgage paying work, to
> contribute.
>

I never said that someone with corporate sponsorship is a volunteer.
What I did is challenge you on your belief that this distinction --
the form of reward a participant receives --  makes any difference
whatsoever in terms of how we work on the project. Some members might
be Irishmen, Lutherans or fans of Real Madrid.  These affiliations, as
well as employment status,  are just some of the many attributes of
our personhood.  We should be dealing with each other as persons,
looking at individual actions, rather than drawing wild stereotypes
based on speculated group characteristics.  I would have thought the
20th century would have thought us something about the dangers of such
demagoguery?

> Everyone participates in an Open Source project for various reasons, some may
> be their own and some may be employers and all do it for some form of reward
> whether it be cash or something more esoteric.  There are a lot of people who
> do this as part of their 9 to 5 who are not what I would call volunteers.  How
> do I know this?  Easy, this list dies over the weekend.
>

Maybe that is because we volunteer for other things on the weekend?
Or spend time with family, based on their schedule?  In the end, it is
really not your concern.  Instead of questioning others motivations,
I'd recommend simply asking yourself what you want to accomplish in
the project.

Of course, there is the distinct possibility that part of the joy you
experience by your participation in this project is engaging in length
off-topic debates with me.  I'll let your next response confirm or
deny that theory ;-)

Regards,

-Rob

> Cheers
> GL

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
<jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/25/12 9:35 PM, Graham Lauder wrote:
>>
>> Everyone participates in an Open Source project for various reasons, some
>> may
>> be their own and some may be employers and all do it for some form of
>> reward
>> whether it be cash or something more esoteric.  There are a lot of people
>> who
>> do this as part of their 9 to 5 who are not what I would call volunteers.
>
>
> should we now feel offended? Probably not because it's hopefully only the
> personal view of a single person. I think many of the full-time employed
> community members are here with passion and spent a lot of more time in the
> project than necessary by their contracts.

I think following one's passion is an example of a "more esoteric"
reward.  He's just saying that everyone that does anything here is
doing it because they get something out of it.  And sometimes what
they get out of it isn't love.

Don

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>]

--- Gio 26/1/12, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com> ha scritto:

> > There are a lot of people who
> > do this as part of their 9 to 5 who are not what I
> > would call volunteers.
> 
> should we now feel offended? Probably not because it's
> hopefully only the personal view of a single person. I think
> many of the full-time employed community members are here
> with passion and spent a lot of more time in the project
> than necessary by their contracts.
>

I will put it this way ...

I am currently unemployed so I can devote quite a some
time to my pet projects but this is not the ideal situation.
When I get a real job then I will likely drop anything I
am doing here: I am also unlikely to do things I don't
find interesting for my own selfish reasons.

I think that for the project it is good to have people
that are full time developers and also enjoy what they
are doing, and eventually, for the greater good, they
may end up doing things that no one else would care about
doing but that are necessary for the project.

Pedro. 

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>]

On 1/25/12 9:35 PM, Graham Lauder wrote:
> On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 02:50:20 Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Graham Lauder<g....@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> Second, new features and function, worthy of consideration by this
>>>> community as a 'Apache OpenOffice 4.0' release will be the primary focus
>>>> for the IBM volunteers working in the project at Apache, after the
>>>> project successfully completes the Apache 3.4 release.  See the AOO 4.0
>>>> Feature Planning wiki page here: *http://s.apache.org/hW*
>>>
>>> IBM "volunteers?"  _I_  volunteer.  I don't get paid to be here, I come
>>> here only on my own time.  That's what volunteers do, if someone is
>>> picking up a salary to work on AOO code that's hardly volunteering,
>>> except maybe in "doublespeak". Tsk!   However, whatever they're called,
>>> it will be good to see them pushing along 4.0, we are at a point now,
>>> having been out of the market for such a lengthy time, that with the new
>>> release there needs to be a substantially different product.
>>
>> Let me challenge your views on this.  Anyone who participates in this
>> project does so because they get more out of it than they put into it.
>>   Further, they would be insane to participate in the project under any
>> other conditions.  What they put in is obvious:  their time, their
>> skills, their experience, their care, their overly long emails, etc.
>> What they get out is less tangible, but it still exists.  In some
>> cases it is a salary, in other cases it is enjoyment, or experience,
>> reputation, etc.  Cash payments are they only form of reward.  Even
>> those who think they are participating for purely altruistic reasons
>> are doing so to enhance their self-image, imagining themselves to do
>> altruistic deeds.  This is just basic balance of energy.  An animal
>> will not survive long if it chases down and kills prey where the
>> returned calories are less then those expended in the hunt.  Since no
>> one has a gun to our heads, forcing them to work on this project,
>> everyone here is a volunteer.  Everyone is free to go or remain, or
>> participate to whatever level they feel gives them a sufficient reward
>> (of any form) for their investment in the project.   Even those who
>> are employed had and have a choice of jobs they could take.  Maybe
>> they took their current job because it gave them the opportunity to
>> continue participation in the project?  Any illusion about this basic
>> fact, such as the the project has self-less martyrs and course
>> mercenaries,  is just sentimentality and does not really promote clear
>> thinking.  The form of your personal reward for working in the project
>> has zero impact on your rights, abilities, prerogatives, status or (to
>> me at least) the weight of your arguments in this project.
>
> Challenge away, I never said: people that volunteer, do it for altruistic
> reasons, not sure where you read that. I will clarify:
>
> I simply stated that IBM's motives were certainly not altruistic I just have
> no idea what they are, and given that a corporation is a sociopathic beast I
> would really like to know what they are, but in the absence of an OOo related
> mission statement, I have to try deduction.
>
> I also stated that someone paid by a corporate member to participate in this
> community cannot be called a volunteer.  Take your argument to the extreme and
> you could say that every one _lives_ voluntarily because they decided not to
> top themselves this morning.  A ridiculous argument.   Volunteer = someone who
> has to sacrifice personal time outside of their daily mortgage paying work, to
> contribute.
>
> Everyone participates in an Open Source project for various reasons, some may
> be their own and some may be employers and all do it for some form of reward
> whether it be cash or something more esoteric.  There are a lot of people who
> do this as part of their 9 to 5 who are not what I would call volunteers.

should we now feel offended? Probably not because it's hopefully only 
the personal view of a single person. I think many of the full-time 
employed community members are here with passion and spent a lot of more 
time in the project than necessary by their contracts.

And hey if they do it mainly in the their day job, it's totally fine. As 
long as their contribution to the project is something that brings the 
project forward. From my personal experience open source can only work 
if you have both individual as well as full-time employed community 
members. Take a look to any other huge open source project and you will 
notice that it is always the same. If Novell and RedHat for example 
wouldn't sponsor the developers who are currently doing huge parts of 
the development work, the project wouldn't really make progress on the 
code level or with feature development.

The return I got from a project is always bigger than that what I am 
able to give as an individual.

I for example had other job offers as well but IBM convinced me to join 
their team and continue to work on the project where I really have 
passion for. And yes Don and Rob did a great job to transport IBMs view 
and vision so that I finally joined IBM. And hey IBM is a great company 
with a history of more than 100 years ;-)

I repeat myself it's the together that makes open source projects 
successful. When you take a look back, Sun/Oracle developers drove the 
project forward from a technical perspective, but the many other 
volunteers in the community worked on the brand recognition, did the 
translation work, did marketing, worked on documentation, etc. All this 
was important and necessary to make OpenOffice successful.

And it's the same here. The members of this project whoever it is can 
bring the project forward. We are all equal. If somebody is thinking 
that things can be done better, it's up to this community member to 
simply do it in a way that is aligned with our project rules. Nobody 
should wait that others do the job as it sometimes was in the past.

  How
> do I know this?  Easy, this list dies over the weekend.
>
I don't know which list you read over the weekend  but I got enough 
emails even over the weekend. And often I reply to them also. But of 
course I often take a break and spent more times with my family and 
friends ;-)

Juergen

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com>]

On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 02:50:20 Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 
> >> Second, new features and function, worthy of consideration by this
> >> community as a 'Apache OpenOffice 4.0' release will be the primary focus
> >> for the IBM volunteers working in the project at Apache, after the
> >> project successfully completes the Apache 3.4 release.  See the AOO 4.0
> >> Feature Planning wiki page here: *http://s.apache.org/hW*
> > 
> > IBM "volunteers?"  _I_  volunteer.  I don't get paid to be here, I come
> > here only on my own time.  That's what volunteers do, if someone is
> > picking up a salary to work on AOO code that's hardly volunteering,
> > except maybe in "doublespeak". Tsk!   However, whatever they're called,
> > it will be good to see them pushing along 4.0, we are at a point now,
> > having been out of the market for such a lengthy time, that with the new
> > release there needs to be a substantially different product.
> 
> Let me challenge your views on this.  Anyone who participates in this
> project does so because they get more out of it than they put into it.
>  Further, they would be insane to participate in the project under any
> other conditions.  What they put in is obvious:  their time, their
> skills, their experience, their care, their overly long emails, etc.
> What they get out is less tangible, but it still exists.  In some
> cases it is a salary, in other cases it is enjoyment, or experience,
> reputation, etc.  Cash payments are they only form of reward.  Even
> those who think they are participating for purely altruistic reasons
> are doing so to enhance their self-image, imagining themselves to do
> altruistic deeds.  This is just basic balance of energy.  An animal
> will not survive long if it chases down and kills prey where the
> returned calories are less then those expended in the hunt.  Since no
> one has a gun to our heads, forcing them to work on this project,
> everyone here is a volunteer.  Everyone is free to go or remain, or
> participate to whatever level they feel gives them a sufficient reward
> (of any form) for their investment in the project.   Even those who
> are employed had and have a choice of jobs they could take.  Maybe
> they took their current job because it gave them the opportunity to
> continue participation in the project?  Any illusion about this basic
> fact, such as the the project has self-less martyrs and course
> mercenaries,  is just sentimentality and does not really promote clear
> thinking.  The form of your personal reward for working in the project
> has zero impact on your rights, abilities, prerogatives, status or (to
> me at least) the weight of your arguments in this project.

Challenge away, I never said: people that volunteer, do it for altruistic 
reasons, not sure where you read that. I will clarify:

I simply stated that IBM's motives were certainly not altruistic I just have 
no idea what they are, and given that a corporation is a sociopathic beast I 
would really like to know what they are, but in the absence of an OOo related 
mission statement, I have to try deduction.  

I also stated that someone paid by a corporate member to participate in this 
community cannot be called a volunteer.  Take your argument to the extreme and 
you could say that every one _lives_ voluntarily because they decided not to 
top themselves this morning.  A ridiculous argument.   Volunteer = someone who 
has to sacrifice personal time outside of their daily mortgage paying work, to 
contribute. 

Everyone participates in an Open Source project for various reasons, some may 
be their own and some may be employers and all do it for some form of reward 
whether it be cash or something more esoteric.  There are a lot of people who 
do this as part of their 9 to 5 who are not what I would call volunteers.  How 
do I know this?  Easy, this list dies over the weekend.   

Cheers
GL

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>]

On 25 January 2012 13:50, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday 20 Jan 2012 09:24:44 Donald Harbison wrote:

...

>>> Second, new features and function, worthy of consideration by this
>>> community as a 'Apache OpenOffice 4.0' release will be the primary focus
>>> for the IBM volunteers working in the project at Apache, after the project
>>> successfully completes the Apache 3.4 release.  See the AOO 4.0 Feature
>>> Planning wiki page here: *http://s.apache.org/hW*
>>
>> IBM "volunteers?"  _I_  volunteer.  I don't get paid to be here, I come here
>> only on my own time.  That's what volunteers do, if someone is picking up a
>> salary to work on AOO code that's hardly volunteering, except maybe in
>> "doublespeak". Tsk!   However, whatever they're called, it will be good to see
>> them pushing along 4.0, we are at a point now, having been out of the market
>> for such a lengthy time, that with the new release there needs to be a
>> substantially different product.
>>
>
> Let me challenge your views on this.  Anyone who participates in this
> project does so because they get more out of it than they put into it.

Agreed. I led a session at ApacheCon titled "Can I depend on Software
built By Volunteers?", the abstract is at [1] and the audio is at [2]
(no slides it was an off-the-cuff audience participation style
session).

In this session we explore what it means to be a volunteer. We
challenge the mistaken opinion that volunteers cannot be paid. Having
established this we then look at whether volunteering in an ASF
project is usually driven by employment or "something else". What we
conclude is that it is "something else" in nearly all cases.

Consider that Jane is paid to deliver results for her employer. If
Jane finds that the best route to delivery is through community led
open source she ought to fight for the survival of that community at
all costs. It is in her interests to do so, both for her community
reputation (employability beyond her current role) and for her
employers satisfaction (employability in her current role). If Jane is
smart she will recognise that her personal reputation is more
important within the community than that of her employer. If she blows
her community reputation she loses her ability to deliver for her
employer as well as her ability to seek alternative employment
relating to that communities activities. A double whammy.

In ASF projects it is not possible for Jane's boss to say "make this
happen at any cost". If Jane thinks the move is inappropriate she can
simply say "that will not fly, it is not good for the community and we
cannot wield sufficient influence to force the community to comply".
Note, it is not Jane that is challenging her superiors, it is the
community she represents. At this point Jane's job is to figure out a
way forward that works for both the community and her employer.

Unfortunately, managing this balancing act is really hard to do. IMHO
this is why those who understand community led open source development
get paid more than most other developers.

The model is not perfect. It does break down if there is nobody to
represent alternative community views. However, as long as we have at
least one volunteer watching the "Bull Elephant" closely (nice analogy
Graham)  we will be fine (and historically this has been tested on
more than one occasion). It really doesn't matter who is paying for
our volunteers food, it only matters that they care about the
community.

Ross


[1] http://na11.apachecon.com/talks/19420
[2] http://lanyrd.com/profile/rgardler/audio/


>  Further, they would be insane to participate in the project under any
> other conditions.  What they put in is obvious:  their time, their
> skills, their experience, their care, their overly long emails, etc.
> What they get out is less tangible, but it still exists.  In some
> cases it is a salary, in other cases it is enjoyment, or experience,
> reputation, etc.  Cash payments are they only form of reward.  Even
> those who think they are participating for purely altruistic reasons
> are doing so to enhance their self-image, imagining themselves to do
> altruistic deeds.  This is just basic balance of energy.  An animal
> will not survive long if it chases down and kills prey where the
> returned calories are less then those expended in the hunt.  Since no
> one has a gun to our heads, forcing them to work on this project,
> everyone here is a volunteer.  Everyone is free to go or remain, or
> participate to whatever level they feel gives them a sufficient reward
> (of any form) for their investment in the project.   Even those who
> are employed had and have a choice of jobs they could take.  Maybe
> they took their current job because it gave them the opportunity to
> continue participation in the project?  Any illusion about this basic
> fact, such as the the project has self-less martyrs and course
> mercenaries,  is just sentimentality and does not really promote clear
> thinking.  The form of your personal reward for working in the project
> has zero impact on your rights, abilities, prerogatives, status or (to
> me at least) the weight of your arguments in this project.
>
>
>>> - As part of the public
>>> discussions at Lotusphere, our product manager announced a proposed 'Apache
>>> OpenOffice 4 the IBM Edition' name. Yes, this is long and cumbersome. It is
>>> intended to describe what will be a future free download of Apache
>>> OpenOffice with extensions bundled in that are of interest to IBM
>>> customers; e.g. an extension to connect Apache OpenOffice to IBM
>>> Connections, a social networking offer (think Facebook for Business).
>>>  Connections offers Profiles, Community, Blogs, Wikis, Files etc. So an
>>> extension will enable users to save their documents directly to the 'Files'
>>> repository for community sharing, etc. Other extensions are being
>>> considered. All extensions will be no charge. There is no monetization play
>>> for Apache OpenOffice the IBM Edition as there was never one for IBM Lotus
>>> Symphony. We will need to seek the approval to use this proposed naming
>>> from Apache Trademarks and this PPMC. Look for that request soon.
>>
>> I must admit this completely mystifies me.  I always tell small high street
>> retailers who sell machines with OOo on them: "Charge for it!"
>>
>> The best test of value put on a product by the market is to sell against a
>> free competition and frankly I think Symphony would sell well as a consumer
>> product.  It looks good, it's interoperability, especially with MSO 07> file
>> formats is excellent, better than both LO and OOo, and it has UI enhancements
>> that I've been trying to get into OOo for years, especially Mail Merge and MDI
>> (which was an old Star Office 5 thing) and others.  Go the Symphony team!
>> Brilliant.   And yes I use and promote Symphony regularly.
>>
>>>
>>> IBM is enthusiastic about the opportunity to collaborate with the community
>>> in a balanced way. You'll hopefully see that there is no hidden 'puppeteer'
>>> controlling our team member actions. Yes, we have individuals who are very
>>> active in Rob Weir and Juergen Schmidt, but we hope to see other
>>> individuals from our team contributing soon. Working in Apache is
>>> especially a big change of culture for our Chinese team, so I hope
>>> community members will be understanding and welcoming of this as you notice
>>> them begin to more actively participate and contribute as individuals. We
>>> believe there is an unusual and very exciting opportunity to bring new
>>> ideas and innovation to Apache OpenOffice. We also believe that many other
>>> like-minded companies and individuals will share this view, and step
>>> forward to actively participate in the community in the coming months.
>>
>> [...snip...]
>>
>>>
>>> Sorry about the long post. I do understand why it's easy to get caught up
>>> in the 'blind man and the elephant' game, and miss the whole damn animal in
>>> the process. IBM has often been accused of being an elephant, so I think
>>> this metaphor works here. We are very excited about the future of Apache
>>> OpenOffice, and will do our best to work to build a self-sustaining
>>> community based on diversity and balance. At the same time, you will see
>>> alot of energy and contributions coming forward over the coming months.
>>
>> Don't apologise, I'm grateful you took the time and I'm glad IBM paid for that
>> time.  I am also glad you understand and I think the non-IBM community, even
>> given the above reservations, will take what we are comfortable with, at face
>> value and maybe over time a level of trust will emerge, it's just not going to
>> happen in 5 minutes.
>>
>> I talked about power on the maillists way back at the beginning and the fact
>> that he who has time at the keyboard wields a considerable amount of
>> power despite the "Everyone has the same vote" rule and what holds true is
>> "Some are more equal than others".  True, it also means that shit is getting
>> done and that's the good side of the equation or at least you would hope so,
>> certainly evidence would point that way at present.
>>
>> The problem tho is that the project starts to take on the personality of those
>> who are most present in terms of volume,  that has been evidenced by the
>> combative tenor of this maillist since the beginning.  The Community in the
>> old OOo system had it's moments and it's personalities, but the general tenor
>> was of a community doing what it loved, in the company of like minded people
>> with a raft of different skillsets in different communities.  It was a
>> community of communities.  Not saying it was perfect, but it was a lot more
>> welcoming than this community is at present.
>>
>> Now IBM has zero to negative reputation in Open Source with a reputation of
>> being the most guarded entity on the block.  Secret deals to start the whole
>> Apache thing off first, but mouthing promises to be open.  Then the above
>> announcement, that was discussed in secret with the TDF but not a whisper to
>> the community or even so much as a heads up to the mentors.
>>
>> Leopards and spots come to mind.
>>
>> IBM staffers certainly seem to be making the most noise on the lists except
>> when it counts.  Take this announcement as a for instance.  The response to
>> concerns wrt the secrecy around this announcement from the top IBM guy here:
>> "If you'd come up with a few more crazy conspiracy theories we would have
>> talked to you!" and this to a mentor.
>>
>> So you'll forgive us for for feeling like the blind man in the room with the
>> elephant wondering if and when it's going to take a dump..
>>
>> The other thing that has a certain irony to it is the constant pot shots at
>> the Novell / SUSE guys, given Novell's long standing contributions to OOo and
>> OpenSource in general in contrast to IBM's limited to non existent
>> contribution.  And I realise that this is possibly more perception than
>> reality, but you're a marketing / pr guy, so I don't need to tell you the
>> connection between perception and everything.
>>
>> So, the Symphony contribution is pleasing, which I already stated back at the
>> first announcement.
>> The dropping of Symphony in favour of an IBM edition of AOO, I can see the
>> value to the community from a marketing and brand recognition POV so that has
>> positives.
>>
>> In general, I think, on the surface the positives outweigh the negatives and
>> while the subtext takes a little translating at times, the ASF's positive
>> actions with OOo give me a good feeling about the future.
>>
>> But there's that Bull Elephant again, so I keep a wary eye out.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> GL
>>
>>



-- 
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday 20 Jan 2012 09:24:44 Donald Harbison wrote:
>
> Sorry this took so long to reply to, I've been busy.
>
>
>> (Wearing IBM Hat)  (Warning - long post )
>
> Warning longer post!  :)
>
>>
>> Here's an update on what was communicated this week at the annual
>> Lotusphere event in Orlando, Florida. I hope this helps clarify
>> misunderstandings, and resolves lingering concerns regarding IBM plans with
>> respect to investments that directly support and benefit the overall Apache
>> OpenOffice project.
>
> IBM, and it's staffers are going to have to get used to that.  Corporate
> doublespeak is something that we are all familiar with and so it is necessary
> for those of us outside the sphere of cogniscense to try to translate between
> the lines of the words that are put out front.  Transparency is an extremely
> unusual attribute in the corporate beast.
>
> A Corporation looks after it's shareholders first, it's own health second, but
> as a consequence of the former and then customers come third.  "Low cost, low
> profit"  centers come far down the list of priorities.  The corporate beast is
> sociopathic, has no sense of loyalty, except that which is bought and paid for
> and is completely nonempathic.   Every dealing therefore will be and should be
> scrutinised to deduce the motives behind.  Assumption of  Altruism however,
> would be extremely unlikely no matter what was said.
>
> Here's what it has looked like to me and many others, this is reinforced by
> IBMs past actions with regard to OOo.  Others were more succinct: "A Pox on
> IBM" was one.  IBM have some serious pr to do
>
> Symphony development is/was expensive, certainly for a cost free product.
> Oracle showed very quickly after the purchase of SUN that they saw OOo as a
> burden.  They went through some motions and made announcements espousing their
> ongoing support for the project.  (There's that corporate doublespeak again
> and you wonder why some are a little less than trusting)  However IBM had a
> deal, signed with SUN back in '07 wrt OOo code (I would love to know how much
> changed hands with that deal) and to avoid any messy legal stuff sat down with
> Larry's people (a question that was always in my mind: Did Larry's people
> mistakenly figure they had an automatic buyer for the whole OOo thing in IBM
> before they bought SUN? Did IBM let them think that.  It would certainly have
> explained the confused messages.) and negotiated Oracle's gift of the OOo code
> to Apache and hence, via AL2, to allow IBM unfettered access to the code
> without any copyleft baggage, without any or only little cost to IBM and also
> without the need for costly infrastructure which would be picked up by the
> ASF.  And now,.... additionally...., ASF will host the Symphony code as well.
> Slicing a few more dollars out of IBM infrastructure overheads while at the
> same time giving them an easy, low cost, exit strategy if it becomes
> necessary.
>
> Now it is true that there has been some money pushed toward the ASF and a
> spend on devs, which is all great, but I would seriously doubt that it would
> be a negative sum game for IBM in the medium or long term, it's just not the
> corporate way.
>
> So the above is always going to colour things a little, that's not
> partticularly a bad thing, I can get into a yard with one of my bulls and I
> can go right up to him and pat him on the nose and rub him behind the ear but
> I always keep a wary eye on him.  That's not a bad thing, he's a Bull and
> Bulls do what Bulls will do.  It's just what it is.
>
> And so to the announcement, which right up front, I think is brilliant!!
>
>
>> There are (3) topics to look at.
>
> [..snip as irrelevant...]
>
>>
>> Notably, IBM announced it is ending its Symphony fork, the downstream fork
>> of OpenOffice, if you prefer to think of it that way. With the July 15,
>> 2011 announcement that IBM will contribute its Symphony source code to the
>> Apache OpenOffice project, it makes no sense to continue a separate
>> development effort. Instead, the entire Symphony development team will now
>> be focused on working in the Apache OpenOffice community.
>
> Excellent stuff, it has been a long time coming
>
>>
>> Second, new features and function, worthy of consideration by this
>> community as a 'Apache OpenOffice 4.0' release will be the primary focus
>> for the IBM volunteers working in the project at Apache, after the project
>> successfully completes the Apache 3.4 release.  See the AOO 4.0 Feature
>> Planning wiki page here: *http://s.apache.org/hW*
>
> IBM "volunteers?"  _I_  volunteer.  I don't get paid to be here, I come here
> only on my own time.  That's what volunteers do, if someone is picking up a
> salary to work on AOO code that's hardly volunteering, except maybe in
> "doublespeak". Tsk!   However, whatever they're called, it will be good to see
> them pushing along 4.0, we are at a point now, having been out of the market
> for such a lengthy time, that with the new release there needs to be a
> substantially different product.
>

Let me challenge your views on this.  Anyone who participates in this
project does so because they get more out of it than they put into it.
 Further, they would be insane to participate in the project under any
other conditions.  What they put in is obvious:  their time, their
skills, their experience, their care, their overly long emails, etc.
What they get out is less tangible, but it still exists.  In some
cases it is a salary, in other cases it is enjoyment, or experience,
reputation, etc.  Cash payments are they only form of reward.  Even
those who think they are participating for purely altruistic reasons
are doing so to enhance their self-image, imagining themselves to do
altruistic deeds.  This is just basic balance of energy.  An animal
will not survive long if it chases down and kills prey where the
returned calories are less then those expended in the hunt.  Since no
one has a gun to our heads, forcing them to work on this project,
everyone here is a volunteer.  Everyone is free to go or remain, or
participate to whatever level they feel gives them a sufficient reward
(of any form) for their investment in the project.   Even those who
are employed had and have a choice of jobs they could take.  Maybe
they took their current job because it gave them the opportunity to
continue participation in the project?  Any illusion about this basic
fact, such as the the project has self-less martyrs and course
mercenaries,  is just sentimentality and does not really promote clear
thinking.  The form of your personal reward for working in the project
has zero impact on your rights, abilities, prerogatives, status or (to
me at least) the weight of your arguments in this project.


>> - As part of the public
>> discussions at Lotusphere, our product manager announced a proposed 'Apache
>> OpenOffice 4 the IBM Edition' name. Yes, this is long and cumbersome. It is
>> intended to describe what will be a future free download of Apache
>> OpenOffice with extensions bundled in that are of interest to IBM
>> customers; e.g. an extension to connect Apache OpenOffice to IBM
>> Connections, a social networking offer (think Facebook for Business).
>>  Connections offers Profiles, Community, Blogs, Wikis, Files etc. So an
>> extension will enable users to save their documents directly to the 'Files'
>> repository for community sharing, etc. Other extensions are being
>> considered. All extensions will be no charge. There is no monetization play
>> for Apache OpenOffice the IBM Edition as there was never one for IBM Lotus
>> Symphony. We will need to seek the approval to use this proposed naming
>> from Apache Trademarks and this PPMC. Look for that request soon.
>
> I must admit this completely mystifies me.  I always tell small high street
> retailers who sell machines with OOo on them: "Charge for it!"
>
> The best test of value put on a product by the market is to sell against a
> free competition and frankly I think Symphony would sell well as a consumer
> product.  It looks good, it's interoperability, especially with MSO 07> file
> formats is excellent, better than both LO and OOo, and it has UI enhancements
> that I've been trying to get into OOo for years, especially Mail Merge and MDI
> (which was an old Star Office 5 thing) and others.  Go the Symphony team!
> Brilliant.   And yes I use and promote Symphony regularly.
>
>>
>> IBM is enthusiastic about the opportunity to collaborate with the community
>> in a balanced way. You'll hopefully see that there is no hidden 'puppeteer'
>> controlling our team member actions. Yes, we have individuals who are very
>> active in Rob Weir and Juergen Schmidt, but we hope to see other
>> individuals from our team contributing soon. Working in Apache is
>> especially a big change of culture for our Chinese team, so I hope
>> community members will be understanding and welcoming of this as you notice
>> them begin to more actively participate and contribute as individuals. We
>> believe there is an unusual and very exciting opportunity to bring new
>> ideas and innovation to Apache OpenOffice. We also believe that many other
>> like-minded companies and individuals will share this view, and step
>> forward to actively participate in the community in the coming months.
>
> [...snip...]
>
>>
>> Sorry about the long post. I do understand why it's easy to get caught up
>> in the 'blind man and the elephant' game, and miss the whole damn animal in
>> the process. IBM has often been accused of being an elephant, so I think
>> this metaphor works here. We are very excited about the future of Apache
>> OpenOffice, and will do our best to work to build a self-sustaining
>> community based on diversity and balance. At the same time, you will see
>> alot of energy and contributions coming forward over the coming months.
>
> Don't apologise, I'm grateful you took the time and I'm glad IBM paid for that
> time.  I am also glad you understand and I think the non-IBM community, even
> given the above reservations, will take what we are comfortable with, at face
> value and maybe over time a level of trust will emerge, it's just not going to
> happen in 5 minutes.
>
> I talked about power on the maillists way back at the beginning and the fact
> that he who has time at the keyboard wields a considerable amount of
> power despite the "Everyone has the same vote" rule and what holds true is
> "Some are more equal than others".  True, it also means that shit is getting
> done and that's the good side of the equation or at least you would hope so,
> certainly evidence would point that way at present.
>
> The problem tho is that the project starts to take on the personality of those
> who are most present in terms of volume,  that has been evidenced by the
> combative tenor of this maillist since the beginning.  The Community in the
> old OOo system had it's moments and it's personalities, but the general tenor
> was of a community doing what it loved, in the company of like minded people
> with a raft of different skillsets in different communities.  It was a
> community of communities.  Not saying it was perfect, but it was a lot more
> welcoming than this community is at present.
>
> Now IBM has zero to negative reputation in Open Source with a reputation of
> being the most guarded entity on the block.  Secret deals to start the whole
> Apache thing off first, but mouthing promises to be open.  Then the above
> announcement, that was discussed in secret with the TDF but not a whisper to
> the community or even so much as a heads up to the mentors.
>
> Leopards and spots come to mind.
>
> IBM staffers certainly seem to be making the most noise on the lists except
> when it counts.  Take this announcement as a for instance.  The response to
> concerns wrt the secrecy around this announcement from the top IBM guy here:
> "If you'd come up with a few more crazy conspiracy theories we would have
> talked to you!" and this to a mentor.
>
> So you'll forgive us for for feeling like the blind man in the room with the
> elephant wondering if and when it's going to take a dump..
>
> The other thing that has a certain irony to it is the constant pot shots at
> the Novell / SUSE guys, given Novell's long standing contributions to OOo and
> OpenSource in general in contrast to IBM's limited to non existent
> contribution.  And I realise that this is possibly more perception than
> reality, but you're a marketing / pr guy, so I don't need to tell you the
> connection between perception and everything.
>
> So, the Symphony contribution is pleasing, which I already stated back at the
> first announcement.
> The dropping of Symphony in favour of an IBM edition of AOO, I can see the
> value to the community from a marketing and brand recognition POV so that has
> positives.
>
> In general, I think, on the surface the positives outweigh the negatives and
> while the subtext takes a little translating at times, the ASF's positive
> actions with OOo give me a good feeling about the future.
>
> But there's that Bull Elephant again, so I keep a wary eye out.
>
>
> Cheers
> GL
>
>

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>]

On 25 January 2012 12:08, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday 20 Jan 2012 09:24:44 Donald Harbison wrote:

...

> Now IBM has zero to negative reputation in Open Source with a reputation of
> being the most guarded entity on the block.

This might be your opinion, but I can provide just as much evidence
that IBM play well in open source projects they choose to engage with.
It just so happens that those tend not to be copyleft projects.

OOo is in a different world now. I am constantly mystified that old
hands were happy with the way Sun managed OOo but are concerned that
IBM are not good players in an open source world. I'm mystified
because I have never liked copyleft and centralised IP management,
I've never liked benevolent dictatorships (Linux Torvalds being the
exception), I've never liked corporate owned open source. I've always
been a permissive kind of guy. In my world IBM has been an important
player for a long long time. As long as I benefit from their resources
and I can choose to challenge their role in the project I'm happy.

Whether player Foo is a good open source player is all about
perception. Perception is always coloured by experience. My experience
puts IBM in a different place than yours does (for context, I have no
affiliation with IBM, nor have I ever had one. I did receive a
generous award about 10 years ago, this enabled me to pack in my job
and do real open source work as an independent. I have never done
anything under contract, or otherwise, for IBM).

> Then the above
> announcement, that was discussed in secret with the TDF but not a whisper to
> the community or even so much as a heads up to the mentors.

I'd ask that until proven otherwise people here assume the best of all
our volunteers regardless of their employment status. If there is
evidence of less than honorable intentions then we can use the Apache
Way to address that on a case by case basis.

With respect to the specific case you raise I can add some clarity. I
don't know what went on with the TDF but I do know that I, as a
mentor, was contacted about the best way for IBMers to handle an
upcoming influx of code and contributors. This was not news to me as
we were told in July that the Symphony code would be donated if the
community wanted it. I said (to paraphrase) "just inform the public
list of your proposal, make sure you acknowledge the community and
don't try to force your opinions". This was a private communication
between myself and an IBMer. It was a single email in each direction.
There was no concern expressed by myself as a mentor and thus no need
for further discussion.

> IBM staffers certainly seem to be making the most noise on the lists except
> when it counts.  Take this announcement as a for instance.  The response to
> concerns wrt the secrecy around this announcement from the top IBM guy here:
> "If you'd come up with a few more crazy conspiracy theories we would have
> talked to you!" and this to a mentor.

Lets stick to the facts. That comment was not to a mentor. It was on
the private thread pre-announcing the Symphony fork termination to the
AOO community.  A community member asked if this had been discussed
with the mentors as well as the TDF. The full quote was "Nope. The
Apache mentors were not spinning crazy conspiracy theories about IBM
intentions with Symphony and Apache OpenOffice.  If you were then we
would have had a conversation on this." As you can see from my comment
above this statement is factual. If it were not then I, as a mentor,
would have expressed my concern when it was posted.

(appologies for pulling a second sentence from the private list to the
public list, I feel it is necessary in this instance since only half
the story is here at this point).

One could argue that nobody had asked me (and I assume other mentors)
about the specific intention to cease the Symphony fork. However, I
don't see this would have changed my opinion. Inside the ASF we don't
care about why people are here, we only care that they play by our
rules. I'm confident, thanks to the non-IBM presence here, in the
ability of the Apache Way to ensure the Symphony donation is managed
in the best interests of the community.

It is with great pleasure I see IBM talking about volunteers,
community, proposals etc. It might all be doublespeak, but it might
also be an indication of good intent. At this stage, IMHO, the
evidence indicates good intentions. However, rest assured that as a
mentor I will help the community deal with situations where that good
intent is put into question, but I only want facts, not speculation. I
feel sure all the other mentors here will do the same (even those with
an IBM pay check).

I acknowledge that my confidence comes from the fact that I have seen
the Apache Way work for hundreds of other projects. I understand that
the OOo community has been abused in the past and I understand that
this will register here as concerns over significant contributions
from large players. It's easy for me to say "trust the process", much
harder for others so to do so.

> In general, I think, on the surface the positives outweigh the negatives and
> while the subtext takes a little translating at times, the ASF's positive
> actions with OOo give me a good feeling about the future.
>
> But there's that Bull Elephant again, so I keep a wary eye out.

As a mentor I thank you for your cautionary observations. It is people
like you that will ensure this project is a success. Thank you.

Ross

[1] http://na11.apachecon.com/talks/19420
[2] http://lanyrd.com/profile/rgardler/audio/

-- 
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com>]

On Friday 20 Jan 2012 09:24:44 Donald Harbison wrote:

Sorry this took so long to reply to, I've been busy.


> (Wearing IBM Hat)  (Warning - long post )

Warning longer post!  :)

> 
> Here's an update on what was communicated this week at the annual
> Lotusphere event in Orlando, Florida. I hope this helps clarify
> misunderstandings, and resolves lingering concerns regarding IBM plans with
> respect to investments that directly support and benefit the overall Apache
> OpenOffice project. 

IBM, and it's staffers are going to have to get used to that.  Corporate 
doublespeak is something that we are all familiar with and so it is necessary 
for those of us outside the sphere of cogniscense to try to translate between 
the lines of the words that are put out front.  Transparency is an extremely 
unusual attribute in the corporate beast.  

A Corporation looks after it's shareholders first, it's own health second, but 
as a consequence of the former and then customers come third.  "Low cost, low 
profit"  centers come far down the list of priorities.  The corporate beast is 
sociopathic, has no sense of loyalty, except that which is bought and paid for 
and is completely nonempathic.   Every dealing therefore will be and should be 
scrutinised to deduce the motives behind.  Assumption of  Altruism however, 
would be extremely unlikely no matter what was said.  

Here's what it has looked like to me and many others, this is reinforced by 
IBMs past actions with regard to OOo.  Others were more succinct: "A Pox on 
IBM" was one.  IBM have some serious pr to do

Symphony development is/was expensive, certainly for a cost free product.  
Oracle showed very quickly after the purchase of SUN that they saw OOo as a 
burden.  They went through some motions and made announcements espousing their 
ongoing support for the project.  (There's that corporate doublespeak again 
and you wonder why some are a little less than trusting)  However IBM had a 
deal, signed with SUN back in '07 wrt OOo code (I would love to know how much 
changed hands with that deal) and to avoid any messy legal stuff sat down with  
Larry's people (a question that was always in my mind: Did Larry's people 
mistakenly figure they had an automatic buyer for the whole OOo thing in IBM 
before they bought SUN? Did IBM let them think that.  It would certainly have 
explained the confused messages.) and negotiated Oracle's gift of the OOo code 
to Apache and hence, via AL2, to allow IBM unfettered access to the code 
without any copyleft baggage, without any or only little cost to IBM and also 
without the need for costly infrastructure which would be picked up by the 
ASF.  And now,.... additionally...., ASF will host the Symphony code as well.  
Slicing a few more dollars out of IBM infrastructure overheads while at the 
same time giving them an easy, low cost, exit strategy if it becomes 
necessary.  

Now it is true that there has been some money pushed toward the ASF and a 
spend on devs, which is all great, but I would seriously doubt that it would 
be a negative sum game for IBM in the medium or long term, it's just not the 
corporate way.

So the above is always going to colour things a little, that's not 
partticularly a bad thing, I can get into a yard with one of my bulls and I 
can go right up to him and pat him on the nose and rub him behind the ear but 
I always keep a wary eye on him.  That's not a bad thing, he's a Bull and 
Bulls do what Bulls will do.  It's just what it is. 

And so to the announcement, which right up front, I think is brilliant!!  
 

> There are (3) topics to look at.

[..snip as irrelevant...]

> 
> Notably, IBM announced it is ending its Symphony fork, the downstream fork
> of OpenOffice, if you prefer to think of it that way. With the July 15,
> 2011 announcement that IBM will contribute its Symphony source code to the
> Apache OpenOffice project, it makes no sense to continue a separate
> development effort. Instead, the entire Symphony development team will now
> be focused on working in the Apache OpenOffice community.

Excellent stuff, it has been a long time coming

> 
> Second, new features and function, worthy of consideration by this
> community as a 'Apache OpenOffice 4.0' release will be the primary focus
> for the IBM volunteers working in the project at Apache, after the project
> successfully completes the Apache 3.4 release.  See the AOO 4.0 Feature
> Planning wiki page here: *http://s.apache.org/hW*   

IBM "volunteers?"  _I_  volunteer.  I don't get paid to be here, I come here 
only on my own time.  That's what volunteers do, if someone is picking up a 
salary to work on AOO code that's hardly volunteering, except maybe in  
"doublespeak". Tsk!   However, whatever they're called, it will be good to see 
them pushing along 4.0, we are at a point now, having been out of the market 
for such a lengthy time, that with the new release there needs to be a 
substantially different product. 

> - As part of the public
> discussions at Lotusphere, our product manager announced a proposed 'Apache
> OpenOffice 4 the IBM Edition' name. Yes, this is long and cumbersome. It is
> intended to describe what will be a future free download of Apache
> OpenOffice with extensions bundled in that are of interest to IBM
> customers; e.g. an extension to connect Apache OpenOffice to IBM
> Connections, a social networking offer (think Facebook for Business).
>  Connections offers Profiles, Community, Blogs, Wikis, Files etc. So an
> extension will enable users to save their documents directly to the 'Files'
> repository for community sharing, etc. Other extensions are being
> considered. All extensions will be no charge. There is no monetization play
> for Apache OpenOffice the IBM Edition as there was never one for IBM Lotus
> Symphony. We will need to seek the approval to use this proposed naming
> from Apache Trademarks and this PPMC. Look for that request soon.

I must admit this completely mystifies me.  I always tell small high street 
retailers who sell machines with OOo on them: "Charge for it!"

The best test of value put on a product by the market is to sell against a 
free competition and frankly I think Symphony would sell well as a consumer 
product.  It looks good, it's interoperability, especially with MSO 07> file 
formats is excellent, better than both LO and OOo, and it has UI enhancements 
that I've been trying to get into OOo for years, especially Mail Merge and MDI 
(which was an old Star Office 5 thing) and others.  Go the Symphony team!  
Brilliant.   And yes I use and promote Symphony regularly.  

> 
> IBM is enthusiastic about the opportunity to collaborate with the community
> in a balanced way. You'll hopefully see that there is no hidden 'puppeteer'
> controlling our team member actions. Yes, we have individuals who are very
> active in Rob Weir and Juergen Schmidt, but we hope to see other
> individuals from our team contributing soon. Working in Apache is
> especially a big change of culture for our Chinese team, so I hope
> community members will be understanding and welcoming of this as you notice
> them begin to more actively participate and contribute as individuals. We
> believe there is an unusual and very exciting opportunity to bring new
> ideas and innovation to Apache OpenOffice. We also believe that many other
> like-minded companies and individuals will share this view, and step
> forward to actively participate in the community in the coming months.

[...snip...]
 
> 
> Sorry about the long post. I do understand why it's easy to get caught up
> in the 'blind man and the elephant' game, and miss the whole damn animal in
> the process. IBM has often been accused of being an elephant, so I think
> this metaphor works here. We are very excited about the future of Apache
> OpenOffice, and will do our best to work to build a self-sustaining
> community based on diversity and balance. At the same time, you will see
> alot of energy and contributions coming forward over the coming months.

Don't apologise, I'm grateful you took the time and I'm glad IBM paid for that 
time.  I am also glad you understand and I think the non-IBM community, even 
given the above reservations, will take what we are comfortable with, at face 
value and maybe over time a level of trust will emerge, it's just not going to 
happen in 5 minutes.

I talked about power on the maillists way back at the beginning and the fact 
that he who has time at the keyboard wields a considerable amount of 
power despite the "Everyone has the same vote" rule and what holds true is  
"Some are more equal than others".  True, it also means that shit is getting 
done and that's the good side of the equation or at least you would hope so, 
certainly evidence would point that way at present.  

The problem tho is that the project starts to take on the personality of those 
who are most present in terms of volume,  that has been evidenced by the 
combative tenor of this maillist since the beginning.  The Community in the 
old OOo system had it's moments and it's personalities, but the general tenor 
was of a community doing what it loved, in the company of like minded people 
with a raft of different skillsets in different communities.  It was a 
community of communities.  Not saying it was perfect, but it was a lot more 
welcoming than this community is at present.

Now IBM has zero to negative reputation in Open Source with a reputation of 
being the most guarded entity on the block.  Secret deals to start the whole 
Apache thing off first, but mouthing promises to be open.  Then the above 
announcement, that was discussed in secret with the TDF but not a whisper to 
the community or even so much as a heads up to the mentors. 

Leopards and spots come to mind.

IBM staffers certainly seem to be making the most noise on the lists except 
when it counts.  Take this announcement as a for instance.  The response to 
concerns wrt the secrecy around this announcement from the top IBM guy here:  
"If you'd come up with a few more crazy conspiracy theories we would have 
talked to you!" and this to a mentor. 

So you'll forgive us for for feeling like the blind man in the room with the 
elephant wondering if and when it's going to take a dump..

The other thing that has a certain irony to it is the constant pot shots at 
the Novell / SUSE guys, given Novell's long standing contributions to OOo and 
OpenSource in general in contrast to IBM's limited to non existent 
contribution.  And I realise that this is possibly more perception than 
reality, but you're a marketing / pr guy, so I don't need to tell you the 
connection between perception and everything.    

So, the Symphony contribution is pleasing, which I already stated back at the 
first announcement.  
The dropping of Symphony in favour of an IBM edition of AOO, I can see the 
value to the community from a marketing and brand recognition POV so that has 
positives.

In general, I think, on the surface the positives outweigh the negatives and 
while the subtext takes a little translating at times, the ASF's positive 
actions with OOo give me a good feeling about the future.

But there's that Bull Elephant again, so I keep a wary eye out.


Cheers
GL   

Re: A question ad Lotus SmartSuite filters for AOO by IBM (Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

[Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>]

On Jan 19, 2012 3:47 PM, "Rony G. Flatscher (Apache)" <ro...@apache.org>
wrote:
>
> Don:
>
> thank you for your informative post, which caused me to think about Lotus
Smartsuite.
>
> Will IBM work/release Lotus SmartSuite filters for AOO, such that
WordPro, Freelance, Lotus 1-2-3
> (perhaps also Lotus Organizer) files can be imported to and exported from
AOO?
I will get you an answer. All I know is that IBM still has SmartSuite
customers on support. Seems like a good idea to me, but I don't get to
decide.
>
> TIA,
>
> ---rony
>

A question ad Lotus SmartSuite filters for AOO by IBM (Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff

["Rony G. Flatscher (Apache)" <ro...@apache.org>]

Don:

thank you for your informative post, which caused me to think about Lotus Smartsuite.

Will IBM work/release Lotus SmartSuite filters for AOO, such that WordPro, Freelance, Lotus 1-2-3
(perhaps also Lotus Organizer) files can be imported to and exported from AOO?

TIA,

---rony