LinuxTag 2012 Berlin

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

Hi,

last week I gave a talk about OpenOffice on the LinuxTag conference in
Berlin.

The attendance was moderate and I got the bad first slot in the morning
10:00am after the LinuxTag party on Thursday ;-) It was an interesting
interruption of my vacation.

My main goal was to express that OpenOffice was never dead and the
project have found a new home at Apache. I highlighted our achievements
and of course our release as important milestone. Presenting our nice
download numbers was also a pleasure for me ;-)

I also expressed my view that

OpenOffice.org = Apache OpenOffice
go-oo = LibreOffice

based on the facts that we own all rights on the name and the domains,
the source code. And we have reserved and migrated the whole infra
structure... And on www.go-oo.org you can see the relation to LibreOffice.

And that not the complete community have moved to LibreOffice.

But I have pointed out that it is my personal view ;-)

I also pointed out that we don't want to compete with LibreOffice (also
my personal opinion) and that our main focus and goal is to provide a
good, stable, high quality, free and intuitive office application.

A further point was that I tried to express that our users will decide
in the future which office they will prefer and that we will focus on
our users and their real demand.

Based on the discussion after my talk it is clear that many people don't
understand the split anymore and would appreciate if both projects would
work together. But that is a political question that can't be answered
easily. I think with the Apache license we provide a possible basement
but the license question is much more complicate for some people.


Juergen

Re: LinuxTag 2012 Berlin

[Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:18 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
<jo...@googlemail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> last week I gave a talk about OpenOffice on the LinuxTag conference in
> Berlin.
>
> The attendance was moderate and I got the bad first slot in the morning
> 10:00am after the LinuxTag party on Thursday ;-) It was an interesting
> interruption of my vacation.
>
> My main goal was to express that OpenOffice was never dead and the
> project have found a new home at Apache. I highlighted our achievements
> and of course our release as important milestone. Presenting our nice
> download numbers was also a pleasure for me ;-)
>
> I also expressed my view that
>
> OpenOffice.org = Apache OpenOffice
> go-oo = LibreOffice
>
> based on the facts that we own all rights on the name and the domains,
> the source code. And we have reserved and migrated the whole infra
> structure... And on www.go-oo.org you can see the relation to LibreOffice.
>
> And that not the complete community have moved to LibreOffice.
>
> But I have pointed out that it is my personal view ;-)
>
> I also pointed out that we don't want to compete with LibreOffice (also
> my personal opinion) and that our main focus and goal is to provide a
> good, stable, high quality, free and intuitive office application.
>
> A further point was that I tried to express that our users will decide
> in the future which office they will prefer and that we will focus on
> our users and their real demand.
>
> Based on the discussion after my talk it is clear that many people don't
> understand the split anymore and would appreciate if both projects would
> work together. But that is a political question that can't be answered
> easily. I think with the Apache license we provide a possible basement
> but the license question is much more complicate for some people.
>
>
> Juergen
>

Thanks for the update...I actually visited the LinuxTag site last week, but
didn't see that you were going to present! It seems like it was a
productive and engaging moment for Apache OpenOffice.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
                                 -- Mark Twain

Re: LinuxTag 2012 Berlin

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

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> As for the LO split, you could ask a dozen people "why?" and get a
> dozen different answers.  You could ask Keith Curtis "why?" and get 50
> answers ;-)  But the question and the answer is not really important.
> The only real question worth asking is "What do you want to do today?"

How about "What's LibreOffice?"

Re: LinuxTag 2012 Berlin

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

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
<jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> last week I gave a talk about OpenOffice on the LinuxTag conference in
> Berlin.
>

Cool.   It is a nice conference.  I presented there in 2010.

> The attendance was moderate and I got the bad first slot in the morning
> 10:00am after the LinuxTag party on Thursday ;-) It was an interesting
> interruption of my vacation.
>

But probably better than having the last speaking slot before the party ;-)

> My main goal was to express that OpenOffice was never dead and the
> project have found a new home at Apache. I highlighted our achievements
> and of course our release as important milestone. Presenting our nice
> download numbers was also a pleasure for me ;-)
>
> I also expressed my view that
>
> OpenOffice.org = Apache OpenOffice
> go-oo = LibreOffice
>
> based on the facts that we own all rights on the name and the domains,
> the source code. And we have reserved and migrated the whole infra
> structure... And on www.go-oo.org you can see the relation to LibreOffice.
>
> And that not the complete community have moved to LibreOffice.
>
> But I have pointed out that it is my personal view ;-)
>

Every tribe has their own founding myth.  I'm not sure they can be
debated rationally.   So it is good to stick to the facts.

> I also pointed out that we don't want to compete with LibreOffice (also
> my personal opinion) and that our main focus and goal is to provide a
> good, stable, high quality, free and intuitive office application.
>

Good.

> A further point was that I tried to express that our users will decide
> in the future which office they will prefer and that we will focus on
> our users and their real demand.
>
> Based on the discussion after my talk it is clear that many people don't
> understand the split anymore and would appreciate if both projects would
> work together. But that is a political question that can't be answered
> easily. I think with the Apache license we provide a possible basement
> but the license question is much more complicate for some people.
>

Asking "why" questions about complex group interactions is asking for
trouble.   Every day, when the stock market closes in New York, some
guy on TV is forced to come up with a story on why the market went up
or down or sideways.  He always has a reason: "The market closed
slightly down on fears of Greek defaults" or "The market closed
slightly up on easing fears of Greek defaults".  He never says, "It
beats me.  I have no clue what happened today.  It seems kind of
random".  He never lacks an answer for "why".   But he has no real
knowledge of "why".  It is just story telling, and it tells as much
about the story teller and his fears and concerns as it does the
market.

As for the LO split, you could ask a dozen people "why?" and get a
dozen different answers.  You could ask Keith Curtis "why?" and get 50
answers ;-)  But the question and the answer is not really important.
The only real question worth asking is "What do you want to do today?"

-Rob

>
> Juergen

Re: LinuxTag 2012 Berlin

[Kevin Grignon <ke...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com>wrote:

> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Graham Lauder <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > On 5/30/12 3:10 PM, Graham Lauder wrote:
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Juergen,
> > >
> > > Please don't see this as a criticism directed at you, this is simply a
> > > constructive critique of the content and suggestions for future
> > > interactions.
> > > Thanks is due for doing the presentation in any case.
> > >
> > > > > Please excuse if this seems a little abrupt, but I want to the
> > > > > message
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > > > > be precise.
> > > > >
> > > > >> last week I gave a talk about OpenOffice on the LinuxTag
> conference
> > > > >> in Berlin.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The attendance was moderate and I got the bad first slot in the
> > >
> > > morning
> > >
> > > > >> 10:00am after the LinuxTag party on Thursday ;-) It was an
> > > > >> interesting interruption of my vacation.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> My main goal was to express that OpenOffice was never dead and the
> > > > >> project have found a new home at Apache. I highlighted our
> > >
> > > achievements
> > >
> > > > >> and of course our release as important milestone. Presenting our
> > > > >> nice download numbers was also a pleasure for me ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > We should stop apologising for being who we are.
> > > >
> > > > nobody apologized for that and I simply pointed out the facts as I
> see
> > >
> > > it.
> > >
> > > My apologies, after burbling about being precise I use a metaphorical
> > > statement.  :/
> > >
> > > The point that I tried to make (badly) is that every time we consume
> our
> > > time
> > > and energy discussing our relationship with LO we reinforce a view that
> > > we exist only as an adjunct to LO. The subtext in any such conversation
> > > is "Sorry, but............"
> > >
> > > Anyway ignore
> > >
> > > > > We should not use any speaking opportunity allowed us to talk
> about /
> > >
> > > put
> > >
> > > > > down /  argue about LO.
> > > >
> > > > I don't have argued against LibreOffice, I respect it and pointed out
> > > > that the user will decide in the long term.
> > >
> > > But you were talking about it.  That's wasted energy, let's confine
> > > ourselves
> > > to speaking about AOO
> > >
> > > > > We do not need to mention the rumours of the project's demise, our
> > > > > actions give lie to that, mentioning it merely gives the rumour
> > > > > recognition that it does not deserve.
> > > >
> > > > well the abstract of my talk was submitted several month ago and I
> made
> > > > clear that I will clarify some misunderstandings.
> > > >
> > > > I haven't put too much pressure on this topic and simply highlighted
> > > > more the success of AOO.
> > > >
> > > > I was definitly the first and the last time where I have expressed
> the
> > > > difference between both from my point of view.
> > >
> > > Excellent
> > >
> > > > > We have had a release!  Even to the most nontechy folk that is
> proof
> > > > > of life.
> > > >
> > > > agree and I have highlighted this a lot ;-)
> > > >
> > > > > Let's not mention it ever again.
> > > > >
> > > > >> I also expressed my view that
> > > > >>
> > > > >> OpenOffice.org = Apache OpenOffice
> > > > >> go-oo = LibreOffice
> > > > >>
> > > > >> based on the facts that we own all rights on the name and the
> > > > >> domains, the source code. And we have reserved and migrated the
> > > > >> whole infra structure... And on www.go-oo.org you can see the
> > > > >> relation to LibreOffice.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> And that not the complete community have moved to LibreOffice.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But I have pointed out that it is my personal view ;-)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I also pointed out that we don't want to compete with LibreOffice
> > >
> > > (also
> > >
> > > > >> my personal opinion) and that our main focus and goal is to
> provide
> > > > >> a good, stable, high quality, free and intuitive office
> > > > >> application.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A further point was that I tried to express that our users will
> > > > >> decide in the future which office they will prefer and that we
> will
> > > > >> focus on our users and their real demand.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Based on the discussion after my talk it is clear that many people
> > >
> > > don't
> > >
> > > > >> understand the split anymore and would appreciate if both projects
> > >
> > > would
> > >
> > > > >> work together. But that is a political question that can't be
> > > > >> answered easily. I think with the Apache license we provide a
> > > > >> possible basement but the license question is much more complicate
> > > > >> for some people.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main reason that the post discussion revolved around the LO/AOO
> > > > > relationship is because it sounds like that was what your talk was
> > >
> > > about.
> > >
> > > > I don't think so but I think it is natural that this discussion comes
> > > > up again and again. And I haven't said that I have discussed the
> > > > details on this topic with anybody.
> > > >
> > > > > If asked then the answer short and to the point: "We have different
> > > > > licenses and we wish them well!"    That's it... no more.  We
> should
> > >
> > > not
> > >
> > > > > be discussing the detail.  If people need to know, both licenses
> are
> > > > > published and discussed on a million places on the web.  People can
> > > > > research it there.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have different names now, neither project is the original, Sun
> is
> > > > > gone!  LO is no more a SUSE project than AOO is an IBM project.
>  Both
> > > > > projects have corporate members.  That's all.
> > > >
> > > > well that is your personal opinion but not mine. For me it is clear
> > > > that AOO = OpenOffice.org. The fact that the project moved to Apache
> > > > doesn't change it. And we still download the product from the same
> > > > website as before, install it in the same directory, the visible name
> > > > change is currently a mix and we support both.
> > > >
> > > > If a project decides to rename it's name it is still the same
> project,
> > > > isn't it?
> > >
> > > The original project was funded by SUN, we don't have that any more.
>  The
> > > old
> > > project would never have IBM contributing.  No matter how you look at
> it,
> > > it
> > > is a different beast entirely, argument could be made, and is
> constantly,
> > > that
> > > LO is closer to the spirit of the original OOo because it retains the
> > > LGPL. The point I'm making is that even bringing up LO in any
> > > conversation is giving
> > > that argument credence.
> >
> > Yes, it's time to move forward. With over 2M downloads now, nobody in our
> > new user community cares a whit about what happened or didn't happen in
> the
> > past.
> > They want quality software that delivers value for the public good. We
> must
> > serve these users to our best ability. The past is no longer relevant
> > here....IMHO.
> >
> > Let's look forward.
>
> Yep, down our own road, nobody else's.
>
> Cheers
> GL
>
>
KG01

Indeed. In media relations and communications always keep ahead of the
story. drive the news cycle and always stay on message.

Kevin



> >
> > > The ownership of the original source code owned by SUN/Oracle was
> granted
> > > to
> > > this project along with the trademarks and so on.  Of that there is no
> > > argument.
> > >
> > > The merits or otherwise of this can be debated over a few beers and
> > > probably
> > > will be for years to come, but it should not be part of the greater
> > > conversation. It doesn't need to be and we simply demonstrate our own
> > > insecurities by going back to it.
> > >
> > > > > We need to move the conversation away from this nonproductive
> > >
> > > discussion.
> > >
> > > > > People need to know:
> > > > >
> > > > > The AOO community is growing and highly active
> > > >
> > > > I have expressed this a lot
> > > >
> > > > > We have had our first release
> > > >
> > > > I have highlighted this
> > > >
> > > > > Yes our downloads are lower than historical but we did that with
> > > > > virtually zero publicity
> > > >
> > > > but not bad and I highlighted this as well
> > > >
> > > > > We are very close to graduation to being an Apache Top Level
> Project
> > > > > We now have Symphony code moved over
> > > >
> > > > I talked about this as well ;-)
> > > >
> > > > > We will probably have a couple more incremental releases before 4.0
> > > > >
> > > > > We have sourceforge onside and other distribution channels are
> being
> > > > > looked at.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4.0 will be killer!
> > > > >
> > > > > Those are the messages we need to go out.
> > > > >
> > > > > We do not define this project by LO.  We can be a little grateful
> to
> > > > > LO for keeping OOo and ODF out there in the public eye and
> > > > > maintaining our brand recognition, but that does not extend to
> > > > > allowing their brand to intrude into our conversation.
> > > >
> > > > nobody or better I don't do it, I simply pointed out my based on
> facts.
> > > > And again it was the first time that I did it public in talk and it
> was
> > > > of course the last time.
> > > >
> > > > > No more please.  We need to be on message
> > > >
> > > > I am interested to hear from you how you spread the message, where
> and
> > > > when.
> > >
> > > Me? I would like to share the message at a Microsoft Partners
> conference,
> > > at a
> > > Government procurement agencies conference, at any Educators
> conference,
> > > local
> > > Chambers of Commerce, Any Corporate Board Room and so on.
> > > Linux Tag is interesting and I will advocate at next years LCA in
> > > Canberra, but this market impact is reflected in the present proportion
> > > of downloads. Yes, these are great sources for developer recruitment
> but
> > > the debate then is
> > > not about brands but AL2 vs GPL,
> > >
> > > My target is endusers and enduser organisations including enterprise
> > > users.
> > >
> > > Either way the message needs to be consistent and never about anyone
> > > else.
> > >
> > > Right now it's muddled and that is acceptable because the project is
> > > still finding it's feet.  I don't however, want to have a fixed
> > > presentation that is
> > > the only one that can be used.  What I'd like to see is people using
> > > something
> > > like the above headlines that have been agreed to by consensus with
> their
> > > own
> > > personal style but with a totally AOO focus.
> > >
> > > We carefully vet and worry about press releases and interviews but
> people
> > > can
> > > do a presentation anywhere to any audience without review.  One gets
> > > asked or
> > > is provided with a slot, to speak about AOO because one has a standing
> in
> > > the
> > > project.  The view that is then presented no matter what we say about
> > > "Personal View Only", becomes an AOO view.
> > >
> > > So care is needed not to let discussion/debate on LO pollute the
> > > conversation.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > GL
>

Re: LinuxTag 2012 Berlin

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

> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Graham Lauder <yo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On 5/30/12 3:10 PM, Graham Lauder wrote:
> > > >> Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Juergen,
> > 
> > Please don't see this as a criticism directed at you, this is simply a
> > constructive critique of the content and suggestions for future
> > interactions.
> > Thanks is due for doing the presentation in any case.
> > 
> > > > Please excuse if this seems a little abrupt, but I want to the
> > > > message
> > 
> > to
> > 
> > > > be precise.
> > > > 
> > > >> last week I gave a talk about OpenOffice on the LinuxTag conference
> > > >> in Berlin.
> > > >> 
> > > >> The attendance was moderate and I got the bad first slot in the
> > 
> > morning
> > 
> > > >> 10:00am after the LinuxTag party on Thursday ;-) It was an
> > > >> interesting interruption of my vacation.
> > > >> 
> > > >> My main goal was to express that OpenOffice was never dead and the
> > > >> project have found a new home at Apache. I highlighted our
> > 
> > achievements
> > 
> > > >> and of course our release as important milestone. Presenting our
> > > >> nice download numbers was also a pleasure for me ;-)
> > > > 
> > > > We should stop apologising for being who we are.
> > > 
> > > nobody apologized for that and I simply pointed out the facts as I see
> > 
> > it.
> > 
> > My apologies, after burbling about being precise I use a metaphorical
> > statement.  :/
> > 
> > The point that I tried to make (badly) is that every time we consume our
> > time
> > and energy discussing our relationship with LO we reinforce a view that
> > we exist only as an adjunct to LO. The subtext in any such conversation
> > is "Sorry, but............"
> > 
> > Anyway ignore
> > 
> > > > We should not use any speaking opportunity allowed us to talk about /
> > 
> > put
> > 
> > > > down /  argue about LO.
> > > 
> > > I don't have argued against LibreOffice, I respect it and pointed out
> > > that the user will decide in the long term.
> > 
> > But you were talking about it.  That's wasted energy, let's confine
> > ourselves
> > to speaking about AOO
> > 
> > > > We do not need to mention the rumours of the project's demise, our
> > > > actions give lie to that, mentioning it merely gives the rumour
> > > > recognition that it does not deserve.
> > > 
> > > well the abstract of my talk was submitted several month ago and I made
> > > clear that I will clarify some misunderstandings.
> > > 
> > > I haven't put too much pressure on this topic and simply highlighted
> > > more the success of AOO.
> > > 
> > > I was definitly the first and the last time where I have expressed the
> > > difference between both from my point of view.
> > 
> > Excellent
> > 
> > > > We have had a release!  Even to the most nontechy folk that is proof
> > > > of life.
> > > 
> > > agree and I have highlighted this a lot ;-)
> > > 
> > > > Let's not mention it ever again.
> > > > 
> > > >> I also expressed my view that
> > > >> 
> > > >> OpenOffice.org = Apache OpenOffice
> > > >> go-oo = LibreOffice
> > > >> 
> > > >> based on the facts that we own all rights on the name and the
> > > >> domains, the source code. And we have reserved and migrated the
> > > >> whole infra structure... And on www.go-oo.org you can see the
> > > >> relation to LibreOffice.
> > > >> 
> > > >> And that not the complete community have moved to LibreOffice.
> > > >> 
> > > >> But I have pointed out that it is my personal view ;-)
> > > >> 
> > > >> I also pointed out that we don't want to compete with LibreOffice
> > 
> > (also
> > 
> > > >> my personal opinion) and that our main focus and goal is to provide
> > > >> a good, stable, high quality, free and intuitive office
> > > >> application.
> > > >> 
> > > >> A further point was that I tried to express that our users will
> > > >> decide in the future which office they will prefer and that we will
> > > >> focus on our users and their real demand.
> > > >> 
> > > >> Based on the discussion after my talk it is clear that many people
> > 
> > don't
> > 
> > > >> understand the split anymore and would appreciate if both projects
> > 
> > would
> > 
> > > >> work together. But that is a political question that can't be
> > > >> answered easily. I think with the Apache license we provide a
> > > >> possible basement but the license question is much more complicate
> > > >> for some people.
> > > > 
> > > > The main reason that the post discussion revolved around the LO/AOO
> > > > relationship is because it sounds like that was what your talk was
> > 
> > about.
> > 
> > > I don't think so but I think it is natural that this discussion comes
> > > up again and again. And I haven't said that I have discussed the
> > > details on this topic with anybody.
> > > 
> > > > If asked then the answer short and to the point: "We have different
> > > > licenses and we wish them well!"    That's it... no more.  We should
> > 
> > not
> > 
> > > > be discussing the detail.  If people need to know, both licenses are
> > > > published and discussed on a million places on the web.  People can
> > > > research it there.
> > > > 
> > > > We have different names now, neither project is the original, Sun is
> > > > gone!  LO is no more a SUSE project than AOO is an IBM project.  Both
> > > > projects have corporate members.  That's all.
> > > 
> > > well that is your personal opinion but not mine. For me it is clear
> > > that AOO = OpenOffice.org. The fact that the project moved to Apache
> > > doesn't change it. And we still download the product from the same
> > > website as before, install it in the same directory, the visible name
> > > change is currently a mix and we support both.
> > > 
> > > If a project decides to rename it's name it is still the same project,
> > > isn't it?
> > 
> > The original project was funded by SUN, we don't have that any more.  The
> > old
> > project would never have IBM contributing.  No matter how you look at it,
> > it
> > is a different beast entirely, argument could be made, and is constantly,
> > that
> > LO is closer to the spirit of the original OOo because it retains the
> > LGPL. The point I'm making is that even bringing up LO in any
> > conversation is giving
> > that argument credence.
> 
> Yes, it's time to move forward. With over 2M downloads now, nobody in our
> new user community cares a whit about what happened or didn't happen in the
> past.
> They want quality software that delivers value for the public good. We must
> serve these users to our best ability. The past is no longer relevant
> here....IMHO.
> 
> Let's look forward.

Yep, down our own road, nobody else's.

Cheers
GL 

> 
> > The ownership of the original source code owned by SUN/Oracle was granted
> > to
> > this project along with the trademarks and so on.  Of that there is no
> > argument.
> > 
> > The merits or otherwise of this can be debated over a few beers and
> > probably
> > will be for years to come, but it should not be part of the greater
> > conversation. It doesn't need to be and we simply demonstrate our own
> > insecurities by going back to it.
> > 
> > > > We need to move the conversation away from this nonproductive
> > 
> > discussion.
> > 
> > > > People need to know:
> > > > 
> > > > The AOO community is growing and highly active
> > > 
> > > I have expressed this a lot
> > > 
> > > > We have had our first release
> > > 
> > > I have highlighted this
> > > 
> > > > Yes our downloads are lower than historical but we did that with
> > > > virtually zero publicity
> > > 
> > > but not bad and I highlighted this as well
> > > 
> > > > We are very close to graduation to being an Apache Top Level Project
> > > > We now have Symphony code moved over
> > > 
> > > I talked about this as well ;-)
> > > 
> > > > We will probably have a couple more incremental releases before 4.0
> > > > 
> > > > We have sourceforge onside and other distribution channels are being
> > > > looked at.
> > > > 
> > > > 4.0 will be killer!
> > > > 
> > > > Those are the messages we need to go out.
> > > > 
> > > > We do not define this project by LO.  We can be a little grateful to
> > > > LO for keeping OOo and ODF out there in the public eye and
> > > > maintaining our brand recognition, but that does not extend to
> > > > allowing their brand to intrude into our conversation.
> > > 
> > > nobody or better I don't do it, I simply pointed out my based on facts.
> > > And again it was the first time that I did it public in talk and it was
> > > of course the last time.
> > > 
> > > > No more please.  We need to be on message
> > > 
> > > I am interested to hear from you how you spread the message, where and
> > > when.
> > 
> > Me? I would like to share the message at a Microsoft Partners conference,
> > at a
> > Government procurement agencies conference, at any Educators conference,
> > local
> > Chambers of Commerce, Any Corporate Board Room and so on.
> > Linux Tag is interesting and I will advocate at next years LCA in
> > Canberra, but this market impact is reflected in the present proportion
> > of downloads. Yes, these are great sources for developer recruitment but
> > the debate then is
> > not about brands but AL2 vs GPL,
> > 
> > My target is endusers and enduser organisations including enterprise
> > users.
> > 
> > Either way the message needs to be consistent and never about anyone
> > else.
> > 
> > Right now it's muddled and that is acceptable because the project is
> > still finding it's feet.  I don't however, want to have a fixed
> > presentation that is
> > the only one that can be used.  What I'd like to see is people using
> > something
> > like the above headlines that have been agreed to by consensus with their
> > own
> > personal style but with a totally AOO focus.
> > 
> > We carefully vet and worry about press releases and interviews but people
> > can
> > do a presentation anywhere to any audience without review.  One gets
> > asked or
> > is provided with a slot, to speak about AOO because one has a standing in
> > the
> > project.  The view that is then presented no matter what we say about
> > "Personal View Only", becomes an AOO view.
> > 
> > So care is needed not to let discussion/debate on LO pollute the
> > conversation.
> > 
> > 
> > Cheers
> > GL

Re: LinuxTag 2012 Berlin

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

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Graham Lauder <yo...@apache.org> wrote:

> > On 5/30/12 3:10 PM, Graham Lauder wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >
> > > Hi Juergen,
> > >
>
>
> Please don't see this as a criticism directed at you, this is simply a
> constructive critique of the content and suggestions for future
> interactions.
> Thanks is due for doing the presentation in any case.
>
>
> > > Please excuse if this seems a little abrupt, but I want to the message
> to
> > > be precise.
> > >
> > >> last week I gave a talk about OpenOffice on the LinuxTag conference in
> > >> Berlin.
> > >>
> > >> The attendance was moderate and I got the bad first slot in the
> morning
> > >> 10:00am after the LinuxTag party on Thursday ;-) It was an interesting
> > >> interruption of my vacation.
> > >>
> > >> My main goal was to express that OpenOffice was never dead and the
> > >> project have found a new home at Apache. I highlighted our
> achievements
> > >> and of course our release as important milestone. Presenting our nice
> > >> download numbers was also a pleasure for me ;-)
> > >
> > > We should stop apologising for being who we are.
> >
> > nobody apologized for that and I simply pointed out the facts as I see
> it.
>
> My apologies, after burbling about being precise I use a metaphorical
> statement.  :/
>
> The point that I tried to make (badly) is that every time we consume our
> time
> and energy discussing our relationship with LO we reinforce a view that we
> exist only as an adjunct to LO. The subtext in any such conversation is
> "Sorry, but............"
>
> Anyway ignore
>
>
> >
> > > We should not use any speaking opportunity allowed us to talk about /
> put
> > > down /  argue about LO.
> >
> > I don't have argued against LibreOffice, I respect it and pointed out
> > that the user will decide in the long term.
>
> But you were talking about it.  That's wasted energy, let's confine
> ourselves
> to speaking about AOO
>
>
> >
> > > We do not need to mention the rumours of the project's demise, our
> > > actions give lie to that, mentioning it merely gives the rumour
> > > recognition that it does not deserve.
> >
> > well the abstract of my talk was submitted several month ago and I made
> > clear that I will clarify some misunderstandings.
> >
> > I haven't put too much pressure on this topic and simply highlighted
> > more the success of AOO.
> >
> > I was definitly the first and the last time where I have expressed the
> > difference between both from my point of view.
>
> Excellent
>
> >
> > > We have had a release!  Even to the most nontechy folk that is proof of
> > > life.
> >
> > agree and I have highlighted this a lot ;-)
> >
> > > Let's not mention it ever again.
> > >
> > >> I also expressed my view that
> > >>
> > >> OpenOffice.org = Apache OpenOffice
> > >> go-oo = LibreOffice
> > >>
> > >> based on the facts that we own all rights on the name and the domains,
> > >> the source code. And we have reserved and migrated the whole infra
> > >> structure... And on www.go-oo.org you can see the relation to
> > >> LibreOffice.
> > >>
> > >> And that not the complete community have moved to LibreOffice.
> > >>
> > >> But I have pointed out that it is my personal view ;-)
> > >>
> > >> I also pointed out that we don't want to compete with LibreOffice
> (also
> > >> my personal opinion) and that our main focus and goal is to provide a
> > >> good, stable, high quality, free and intuitive office application.
> > >>
> > >> A further point was that I tried to express that our users will decide
> > >> in the future which office they will prefer and that we will focus on
> > >> our users and their real demand.
> > >>
> > >> Based on the discussion after my talk it is clear that many people
> don't
> > >> understand the split anymore and would appreciate if both projects
> would
> > >> work together. But that is a political question that can't be answered
> > >> easily. I think with the Apache license we provide a possible basement
> > >> but the license question is much more complicate for some people.
> > >
> > > The main reason that the post discussion revolved around the LO/AOO
> > > relationship is because it sounds like that was what your talk was
> about.
> >
> > I don't think so but I think it is natural that this discussion comes up
> > again and again. And I haven't said that I have discussed the details on
> > this topic with anybody.
> >
> > > If asked then the answer short and to the point: "We have different
> > > licenses and we wish them well!"    That's it... no more.  We should
> not
> > > be discussing the detail.  If people need to know, both licenses are
> > > published and discussed on a million places on the web.  People can
> > > research it there.
> > >
> > > We have different names now, neither project is the original, Sun is
> > > gone!  LO is no more a SUSE project than AOO is an IBM project.  Both
> > > projects have corporate members.  That's all.
> >
> > well that is your personal opinion but not mine. For me it is clear that
> > AOO = OpenOffice.org. The fact that the project moved to Apache doesn't
> > change it. And we still download the product from the same website as
> > before, install it in the same directory, the visible name change is
> > currently a mix and we support both.
> >
> > If a project decides to rename it's name it is still the same project,
> > isn't it?
>
>
> The original project was funded by SUN, we don't have that any more.  The
> old
> project would never have IBM contributing.  No matter how you look at it,
> it
> is a different beast entirely, argument could be made, and is constantly,
> that
> LO is closer to the spirit of the original OOo because it retains the LGPL.
> The point I'm making is that even bringing up LO in any conversation is
> giving
> that argument credence.
>
>
Yes, it's time to move forward. With over 2M downloads now, nobody in our
new user community cares a whit about what happened or didn't happen in the
past.
They want quality software that delivers value for the public good. We must
serve these users to our best ability. The past is no longer relevant
here....IMHO.

Let's look forward.


> The ownership of the original source code owned by SUN/Oracle was granted
> to
> this project along with the trademarks and so on.  Of that there is no
> argument.
>
> The merits or otherwise of this can be debated over a few beers and
> probably
> will be for years to come, but it should not be part of the greater
> conversation. It doesn't need to be and we simply demonstrate our own
> insecurities by going back to it.
>
>
>
> >
> > > We need to move the conversation away from this nonproductive
> discussion.
> > >
> > > People need to know:
> > >
> > > The AOO community is growing and highly active
> >
> > I have expressed this a lot
> >
> > > We have had our first release
> >
> > I have highlighted this
> >
> > > Yes our downloads are lower than historical but we did that with
> > > virtually zero publicity
> >
> > but not bad and I highlighted this as well
> >
> > > We are very close to graduation to being an Apache Top Level Project
> > > We now have Symphony code moved over
> >
> > I talked about this as well ;-)
> >
> > > We will probably have a couple more incremental releases before 4.0
> > >
> > > We have sourceforge onside and other distribution channels are being
> > > looked at.
> > >
> > > 4.0 will be killer!
> > >
> > > Those are the messages we need to go out.
> > >
> > > We do not define this project by LO.  We can be a little grateful to LO
> > > for keeping OOo and ODF out there in the public eye and maintaining our
> > > brand recognition, but that does not extend to allowing their brand to
> > > intrude into our conversation.
> >
> > nobody or better I don't do it, I simply pointed out my based on facts.
> > And again it was the first time that I did it public in talk and it was
> > of course the last time.
> >
> > > No more please.  We need to be on message
> >
> > I am interested to hear from you how you spread the message, where and
> > when.
>
> Me? I would like to share the message at a Microsoft Partners conference,
> at a
> Government procurement agencies conference, at any Educators conference,
> local
> Chambers of Commerce, Any Corporate Board Room and so on.
> Linux Tag is interesting and I will advocate at next years LCA in Canberra,
> but this market impact is reflected in the present proportion of downloads.
> Yes, these are great sources for developer recruitment but the debate then
> is
> not about brands but AL2 vs GPL,
>
> My target is endusers and enduser organisations including enterprise users.
>
> Either way the message needs to be consistent and never about anyone else.
>
> Right now it's muddled and that is acceptable because the project is still
> finding it's feet.  I don't however, want to have a fixed presentation
> that is
> the only one that can be used.  What I'd like to see is people using
> something
> like the above headlines that have been agreed to by consensus with their
> own
> personal style but with a totally AOO focus.
>
> We carefully vet and worry about press releases and interviews but people
> can
> do a presentation anywhere to any audience without review.  One gets asked
> or
> is provided with a slot, to speak about AOO because one has a standing in
> the
> project.  The view that is then presented no matter what we say about
> "Personal View Only", becomes an AOO view.
>
> So care is needed not to let discussion/debate on LO pollute the
> conversation.
>
>
> Cheers
> GL
>

Re: LinuxTag 2012 Berlin

[Graham Lauder <yo...@apache.org>]

> On 5/30/12 3:10 PM, Graham Lauder wrote:
> >> Hi,
> > 
> > Hi Juergen,
> > 


Please don't see this as a criticism directed at you, this is simply a 
constructive critique of the content and suggestions for future interactions.  
Thanks is due for doing the presentation in any case.


> > Please excuse if this seems a little abrupt, but I want to the message to
> > be precise.
> > 
> >> last week I gave a talk about OpenOffice on the LinuxTag conference in
> >> Berlin.
> >> 
> >> The attendance was moderate and I got the bad first slot in the morning
> >> 10:00am after the LinuxTag party on Thursday ;-) It was an interesting
> >> interruption of my vacation.
> >> 
> >> My main goal was to express that OpenOffice was never dead and the
> >> project have found a new home at Apache. I highlighted our achievements
> >> and of course our release as important milestone. Presenting our nice
> >> download numbers was also a pleasure for me ;-)
> > 
> > We should stop apologising for being who we are.
> 
> nobody apologized for that and I simply pointed out the facts as I see it.

My apologies, after burbling about being precise I use a metaphorical 
statement.  :/

The point that I tried to make (badly) is that every time we consume our time 
and energy discussing our relationship with LO we reinforce a view that we 
exist only as an adjunct to LO. The subtext in any such conversation is 
"Sorry, but............"

Anyway ignore  


> 
> > We should not use any speaking opportunity allowed us to talk about / put
> > down /  argue about LO.
> 
> I don't have argued against LibreOffice, I respect it and pointed out
> that the user will decide in the long term.

But you were talking about it.  That's wasted energy, let's confine ourselves 
to speaking about AOO


> 
> > We do not need to mention the rumours of the project's demise, our
> > actions give lie to that, mentioning it merely gives the rumour
> > recognition that it does not deserve.
> 
> well the abstract of my talk was submitted several month ago and I made
> clear that I will clarify some misunderstandings.
> 
> I haven't put too much pressure on this topic and simply highlighted
> more the success of AOO.
> 
> I was definitly the first and the last time where I have expressed the
> difference between both from my point of view.

Excellent

> 
> > We have had a release!  Even to the most nontechy folk that is proof of
> > life.
> 
> agree and I have highlighted this a lot ;-)
> 
> > Let's not mention it ever again.
> > 
> >> I also expressed my view that
> >> 
> >> OpenOffice.org = Apache OpenOffice
> >> go-oo = LibreOffice
> >> 
> >> based on the facts that we own all rights on the name and the domains,
> >> the source code. And we have reserved and migrated the whole infra
> >> structure... And on www.go-oo.org you can see the relation to
> >> LibreOffice.
> >> 
> >> And that not the complete community have moved to LibreOffice.
> >> 
> >> But I have pointed out that it is my personal view ;-)
> >> 
> >> I also pointed out that we don't want to compete with LibreOffice (also
> >> my personal opinion) and that our main focus and goal is to provide a
> >> good, stable, high quality, free and intuitive office application.
> >> 
> >> A further point was that I tried to express that our users will decide
> >> in the future which office they will prefer and that we will focus on
> >> our users and their real demand.
> >> 
> >> Based on the discussion after my talk it is clear that many people don't
> >> understand the split anymore and would appreciate if both projects would
> >> work together. But that is a political question that can't be answered
> >> easily. I think with the Apache license we provide a possible basement
> >> but the license question is much more complicate for some people.
> > 
> > The main reason that the post discussion revolved around the LO/AOO
> > relationship is because it sounds like that was what your talk was about.
> 
> I don't think so but I think it is natural that this discussion comes up
> again and again. And I haven't said that I have discussed the details on
> this topic with anybody.
> 
> > If asked then the answer short and to the point: "We have different
> > licenses and we wish them well!"    That's it... no more.  We should not
> > be discussing the detail.  If people need to know, both licenses are
> > published and discussed on a million places on the web.  People can
> > research it there.
> > 
> > We have different names now, neither project is the original, Sun is
> > gone!  LO is no more a SUSE project than AOO is an IBM project.  Both
> > projects have corporate members.  That's all.
> 
> well that is your personal opinion but not mine. For me it is clear that
> AOO = OpenOffice.org. The fact that the project moved to Apache doesn't
> change it. And we still download the product from the same website as
> before, install it in the same directory, the visible name change is
> currently a mix and we support both.
> 
> If a project decides to rename it's name it is still the same project,
> isn't it?


The original project was funded by SUN, we don't have that any more.  The old 
project would never have IBM contributing.  No matter how you look at it, it 
is a different beast entirely, argument could be made, and is constantly, that 
LO is closer to the spirit of the original OOo because it retains the LGPL.  
The point I'm making is that even bringing up LO in any conversation is giving 
that argument credence.
 
The ownership of the original source code owned by SUN/Oracle was granted to 
this project along with the trademarks and so on.  Of that there is no 
argument. 

The merits or otherwise of this can be debated over a few beers and probably 
will be for years to come, but it should not be part of the greater 
conversation. It doesn't need to be and we simply demonstrate our own 
insecurities by going back to it.



> 
> > We need to move the conversation away from this nonproductive discussion.
> > 
> > People need to know:
> > 
> > The AOO community is growing and highly active
> 
> I have expressed this a lot
> 
> > We have had our first release
> 
> I have highlighted this
> 
> > Yes our downloads are lower than historical but we did that with
> > virtually zero publicity
> 
> but not bad and I highlighted this as well
> 
> > We are very close to graduation to being an Apache Top Level Project
> > We now have Symphony code moved over
> 
> I talked about this as well ;-)
> 
> > We will probably have a couple more incremental releases before 4.0
> > 
> > We have sourceforge onside and other distribution channels are being
> > looked at.
> > 
> > 4.0 will be killer!
> > 
> > Those are the messages we need to go out.
> > 
> > We do not define this project by LO.  We can be a little grateful to LO
> > for keeping OOo and ODF out there in the public eye and maintaining our
> > brand recognition, but that does not extend to allowing their brand to
> > intrude into our conversation.
> 
> nobody or better I don't do it, I simply pointed out my based on facts.
> And again it was the first time that I did it public in talk and it was
> of course the last time.
> 
> > No more please.  We need to be on message
> 
> I am interested to hear from you how you spread the message, where and
> when.

Me? I would like to share the message at a Microsoft Partners conference, at a 
Government procurement agencies conference, at any Educators conference, local 
Chambers of Commerce, Any Corporate Board Room and so on.  
Linux Tag is interesting and I will advocate at next years LCA in Canberra, 
but this market impact is reflected in the present proportion of downloads. 
Yes, these are great sources for developer recruitment but the debate then is 
not about brands but AL2 vs GPL, 

My target is endusers and enduser organisations including enterprise users.  

Either way the message needs to be consistent and never about anyone else.

Right now it's muddled and that is acceptable because the project is still 
finding it's feet.  I don't however, want to have a fixed presentation that is 
the only one that can be used.  What I'd like to see is people using something 
like the above headlines that have been agreed to by consensus with their own 
personal style but with a totally AOO focus.

We carefully vet and worry about press releases and interviews but people can 
do a presentation anywhere to any audience without review.  One gets asked or 
is provided with a slot, to speak about AOO because one has a standing in the 
project.  The view that is then presented no matter what we say about 
"Personal View Only", becomes an AOO view. 

So care is needed not to let discussion/debate on LO pollute the conversation.


Cheers
GL

Re: LinuxTag 2012 Berlin

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

On 5/30/12 3:10 PM, Graham Lauder wrote:
>> Hi,
> 
> Hi Juergen,
> 
> Please excuse if this seems a little abrupt, but I want to the message to be 
> precise. 
> 
>>
>> last week I gave a talk about OpenOffice on the LinuxTag conference in
>> Berlin.
>>
>> The attendance was moderate and I got the bad first slot in the morning
>> 10:00am after the LinuxTag party on Thursday ;-) It was an interesting
>> interruption of my vacation.
>>
>> My main goal was to express that OpenOffice was never dead and the
>> project have found a new home at Apache. I highlighted our achievements
>> and of course our release as important milestone. Presenting our nice
>> download numbers was also a pleasure for me ;-)
> 
> We should stop apologising for being who we are.  

nobody apologized for that and I simply pointed out the facts as I see it.

> We should not use any speaking opportunity allowed us to talk about / put down 
> /  argue about LO.  

I don't have argued against LibreOffice, I respect it and pointed out
that the user will decide in the long term.

> 
> We do not need to mention the rumours of the project's demise, our actions 
> give lie to that, mentioning it merely gives the rumour recognition that it 
> does not deserve.

well the abstract of my talk was submitted several month ago and I made
clear that I will clarify some misunderstandings.

I haven't put too much pressure on this topic and simply highlighted
more the success of AOO.

I was definitly the first and the last time where I have expressed the
difference between both from my point of view.

> 
> We have had a release!  Even to the most nontechy folk that is proof of life.  

agree and I have highlighted this a lot ;-)

> Let's not mention it ever again.  
> 
> 
>>
>> I also expressed my view that
>>
>> OpenOffice.org = Apache OpenOffice
>> go-oo = LibreOffice
>>
>> based on the facts that we own all rights on the name and the domains,
>> the source code. And we have reserved and migrated the whole infra
>> structure... And on www.go-oo.org you can see the relation to LibreOffice.
>>
>> And that not the complete community have moved to LibreOffice.
>>
>> But I have pointed out that it is my personal view ;-)
>>
>> I also pointed out that we don't want to compete with LibreOffice (also
>> my personal opinion) and that our main focus and goal is to provide a
>> good, stable, high quality, free and intuitive office application.
>>
>> A further point was that I tried to express that our users will decide
>> in the future which office they will prefer and that we will focus on
>> our users and their real demand.
>>
>> Based on the discussion after my talk it is clear that many people don't
>> understand the split anymore and would appreciate if both projects would
>> work together. But that is a political question that can't be answered
>> easily. I think with the Apache license we provide a possible basement
>> but the license question is much more complicate for some people.
> 
> The main reason that the post discussion revolved around the LO/AOO 
> relationship is because it sounds like that was what your talk was about.  

I don't think so but I think it is natural that this discussion comes up
again and again. And I haven't said that I have discussed the details on
this topic with anybody.

> 
> If asked then the answer short and to the point: "We have different licenses 
> and we wish them well!"    That's it... no more.  We should not be discussing 
> the detail.  If people need to know, both licenses are published and discussed 
> on a million places on the web.  People can research it there.
> 
> We have different names now, neither project is the original, Sun is gone!  LO 
> is no more a SUSE project than AOO is an IBM project.  Both projects have 
> corporate members.  That's all.  

well that is your personal opinion but not mine. For me it is clear that
AOO = OpenOffice.org. The fact that the project moved to Apache doesn't
change it. And we still download the product from the same website as
before, install it in the same directory, the visible name change is
currently a mix and we support both.

If a project decides to rename it's name it is still the same project,
isn't it?

> 
> We need to move the conversation away from this nonproductive discussion.
> 
> People need to know:
> 
> The AOO community is growing and highly active
I have expressed this a lot

> We have had our first release
I have highlighted this

> Yes our downloads are lower than historical but we did that with virtually 
> zero publicity
but not bad and I highlighted this as well

> We are very close to graduation to being an Apache Top Level Project
> We now have Symphony code moved over
I talked about this as well ;-)

> We will probably have a couple more incremental releases before 4.0
> 
> We have sourceforge onside and other distribution channels are being looked 
> at.
> 
> 4.0 will be killer!
> 
> Those are the messages we need to go out.
> 
> We do not define this project by LO.  We can be a little grateful to LO for
> keeping OOo and ODF out there in the public eye and maintaining our brand 
> recognition, but that does not extend to allowing their brand to intrude into 
> our conversation.
nobody or better I don't do it, I simply pointed out my based on facts.
And again it was the first time that I did it public in talk and it was
of course the last time.

> 
> No more please.  We need to be on message
> 

I am interested to hear from you how you spread the message, where and when.

Juergen

Re: LinuxTag 2012 Berlin

[Graham Lauder <yo...@apache.org>]

> Hi,

Hi Juergen,

Please excuse if this seems a little abrupt, but I want to the message to be 
precise. 

> 
> last week I gave a talk about OpenOffice on the LinuxTag conference in
> Berlin.
> 
> The attendance was moderate and I got the bad first slot in the morning
> 10:00am after the LinuxTag party on Thursday ;-) It was an interesting
> interruption of my vacation.
> 
> My main goal was to express that OpenOffice was never dead and the
> project have found a new home at Apache. I highlighted our achievements
> and of course our release as important milestone. Presenting our nice
> download numbers was also a pleasure for me ;-)

We should stop apologising for being who we are.  
We should not use any speaking opportunity allowed us to talk about / put down 
/  argue about LO.  

We do not need to mention the rumours of the project's demise, our actions 
give lie to that, mentioning it merely gives the rumour recognition that it 
does not deserve.

We have had a release!  Even to the most nontechy folk that is proof of life.  
Let's not mention it ever again.  


> 
> I also expressed my view that
> 
> OpenOffice.org = Apache OpenOffice
> go-oo = LibreOffice
> 
> based on the facts that we own all rights on the name and the domains,
> the source code. And we have reserved and migrated the whole infra
> structure... And on www.go-oo.org you can see the relation to LibreOffice.
> 
> And that not the complete community have moved to LibreOffice.
> 
> But I have pointed out that it is my personal view ;-)
> 
> I also pointed out that we don't want to compete with LibreOffice (also
> my personal opinion) and that our main focus and goal is to provide a
> good, stable, high quality, free and intuitive office application.
> 
> A further point was that I tried to express that our users will decide
> in the future which office they will prefer and that we will focus on
> our users and their real demand.
> 
> Based on the discussion after my talk it is clear that many people don't
> understand the split anymore and would appreciate if both projects would
> work together. But that is a political question that can't be answered
> easily. I think with the Apache license we provide a possible basement
> but the license question is much more complicate for some people.

The main reason that the post discussion revolved around the LO/AOO 
relationship is because it sounds like that was what your talk was about.  

If asked then the answer short and to the point: "We have different licenses 
and we wish them well!"    That's it... no more.  We should not be discussing 
the detail.  If people need to know, both licenses are published and discussed 
on a million places on the web.  People can research it there.

We have different names now, neither project is the original, Sun is gone!  LO 
is no more a SUSE project than AOO is an IBM project.  Both projects have 
corporate members.  That's all.  

We need to move the conversation away from this nonproductive discussion.

People need to know:

The AOO community is growing and highly active
We have had our first release
Yes our downloads are lower than historical but we did that with virtually 
zero publicity
We are very close to graduation to being an Apache Top Level Project
We now have Symphony code moved over
We will probably have a couple more incremental releases before 4.0

We have sourceforge onside and other distribution channels are being looked 
at.

4.0 will be killer!

Those are the messages we need to go out.

We do not define this project by LO.  We can be a little grateful to LO for 
keeping OOo and ODF out there in the public eye and maintaining our brand 
recognition, but that does not extend to allowing their brand to intrude into 
our conversation.

No more please.  We need to be on message


Cheers
GL