Discussion:
Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
(too old to reply)
Raphael Bircher
2017-01-14 05:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Hi at all

If we compare AOO to day with the good old OpenOffice.org Project in 2006,
we have now a tiny community. Well, we will be able to maintain the
project, make some bugfix and maybe some features too. But we will never
track down the work who is in our issue tracker.

But surprisingly we have still a very height download number. If you read
comments on social media you see, that many are really happy with the
programm. The problem is, tat this user simply are looked out from the
product development. The Enduser can only watch and pray.

While most bigger Apache Projects has a well working business model
behind, OpenOffice has nothing. In fact we never cared about it. I believe
it's rely time to change this. There are maybe at the moment no big
investors, but maybe more individuals who love the idea.

I know, we have to stick within the Apache rules, but this should be
possible. So let's collect ideas here.

Regards, Raphael

--
Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Peter Kovacs
2017-01-14 08:24:57 UTC
Permalink
We see in Star citizen how mighty crowd can be.

Maybe a platform would be great where people can pledge money for something
they need.
If the needed budget is reached, payed developers implement it.
Or we could do it as a bonus system. You pledge money on a bug/enhancement,
if the bug gets included in the release the developers get a payout.

This is just an idea. I am not sure if we can do business within the ASF or
if we have to found a 3rd party entity for this.
If we have to go 3rd party I prefer a cooperative society as a legal form.
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/social-economy/cooperatives/european-cooperative-society_de

All the best
Peter

Raphael Bircher <***@gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 14. Jan. 2017,
06:32:

> Hi at all
>
> If we compare AOO to day with the good old OpenOffice.org Project in 2006,
> we have now a tiny community. Well, we will be able to maintain the
> project, make some bugfix and maybe some features too. But we will never
> track down the work who is in our issue tracker.
>
> But surprisingly we have still a very height download number. If you read
> comments on social media you see, that many are really happy with the
> programm. The problem is, tat this user simply are looked out from the
> product development. The Enduser can only watch and pray.
>
> While most bigger Apache Projects has a well working business model
> behind, OpenOffice has nothing. In fact we never cared about it. I believe
> it's rely time to change this. There are maybe at the moment no big
> investors, but maybe more individuals who love the idea.
>
> I know, we have to stick within the Apache rules, but this should be
> possible. So let's collect ideas here.
>
> Regards, Raphael
>
> --
> Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>
> --

Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprÃŒft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wÃŒnschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.
Raphael Bircher
2017-01-14 09:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Am .01.2017, 09:24 Uhr, schrieb Peter Kovacs <***@gmail.com>:

> We see in Star citizen how mighty crowd can be.
>
> Maybe a platform would be great where people can pledge money for =

> something
> they need.
> If the needed budget is reached, payed developers implement it.
> Or we could do it as a bonus system. You pledge money on a =

> bug/enhancement,
> if the bug gets included in the release the developers get a payout.

I will ask, on community, how other Apache projects deal with this =

problem. I have some similar things in mind.

>
> This is just an idea. I am not sure if we can do business within the A=
SF =

> or
> if we have to found a 3rd party entity for this.

It definitely need a external instance.

> If we have to go 3rd party I prefer a cooperative society as a legal =

> form.
> https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/social-economy/cooperatives/europe=
an-cooperative-society_de
>
> All the best
> Peter
>
> Raphael Bircher <***@gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 14. Jan. 20=
17,
> 06:32:
>
>> Hi at all
>>
>> If we compare AOO to day with the good old OpenOffice.org Project in =
=

>> 2006,
>> we have now a tiny community. Well, we will be able to maintain the
>> project, make some bugfix and maybe some features too. But we will ne=
ver
>> track down the work who is in our issue tracker.
>>
>> But surprisingly we have still a very height download number. If you =
=

>> read
>> comments on social media you see, that many are really happy with the=

>> programm. The problem is, tat this user simply are looked out from th=
e
>> product development. The Enduser can only watch and pray.
>>
>> While most bigger Apache Projects has a well working business model
>> behind, OpenOffice has nothing. In fact we never cared about it. I =

>> believe
>> it's rely time to change this. There are maybe at the moment no big
>> investors, but maybe more individuals who love the idea.
>>
>> I know, we have to stick within the Apache rules, but this should be
>> possible. So let's collect ideas here.
>>
>> Regards, Raphael
>>
>> --
>> Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------=

>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>> --
>
> Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antw=
ort
> wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwec=
ks
> werbeana=F6ysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschlie=DFen das ih=
re
> Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter gepr=FCft wird. Durch
> kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
> Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Goo=
gle
> konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nich=
t
> w=FCnschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen z=
u
> verhandeln.


-- =

Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-14 10:06:50 UTC
Permalink
> From: Raphael Bircher [mailto:***@gmail.com]

> > This is just an idea. I am not sure if we can do business
> within the ASF
> > or
> > if we have to found a 3rd party entity for this.
>
> It definitely need a external instance.

In this case, it is inappropriate to discuss the subject here.

I personally think the topic belongs here and an external instance does not help
us because we have to push "OpenOffice" and not a product that is only based on
OpenOffice. The rights to "OpenOffice", however, holds Apache.


Greetings
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-14 10:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:***@gmail.com]

> We see in Star citizen how mighty crowd can be.
>
> Maybe a platform would be great where people can pledge money
> for something
> they need.
> If the needed budget is reached, payed developers implement it.
> Or we could do it as a bonus system. You pledge money on a
> bug/enhancement,
> if the bug gets included in the release the developers get a payout.



> This is just an idea. I am not sure if we can do business
> within the ASF or
> if we have to found a 3rd party entity for this.
> If we have to go 3rd party I prefer a cooperative society as
> a legal form.
> https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/social-economy/cooperative
> s/european-cooperative-society_de

You are basically right, but let me give the following information.

Team OpenOffice was such a project. The participants were mainly experienced OpenOffice developers from SUN Microsystems.

See:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120107200702/http://teamopenoffice.org/de/the-team-de.html

But Apache made a front against this project and so it was no chance. The only short-term result was "White Label Office", see for example:
http://www.chip.de/downloads/White-Label-Office_53492033.html

I do not want to criticize one-sidedly, here is a different view:
http://www.golem.de/1112/88663.html

But Apache is the larger party and it would be the task of Apache to recognize opportunities and bundle forces.

This is unfortunately the truth and it is a central problem for OpenOffice.



btw:
A project such as "Team OpenOffice" did not necessarily need a commercial orientation (eg in Germany a gGmbH https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinn%C3%BCtzige_GmbH one possibility), but such a project needs the recognition of Apache.



Greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
mabdul
2017-01-14 10:55:16 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

On 14.01.2017 11:00, Jörg Schmidt wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:***@gmail.com]
>
>> We see in Star citizen how mighty crowd can be.
>>
>> Maybe a platform would be great where people can pledge money
>> for something
>> they need.
>> If the needed budget is reached, payed developers implement it.
>> Or we could do it as a bonus system. You pledge money on a
>> bug/enhancement,
>> if the bug gets included in the release the developers get a payout.
>
>
>
>> This is just an idea. I am not sure if we can do business
>> within the ASF or
>> if we have to found a 3rd party entity for this.
>> If we have to go 3rd party I prefer a cooperative society as
>> a legal form.
>> https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/social-economy/cooperative
>> s/european-cooperative-society_de
>
> You are basically right, but let me give the following information.
>
> Team OpenOffice was such a project. The participants were mainly experienced OpenOffice developers from SUN Microsystems.
>
> See:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20120107200702/http://teamopenoffice.org/de/the-team-de.html
>
> But Apache made a front against this project and so it was no chance. The only short-term result was "White Label Office", see for example:
> http://www.chip.de/downloads/White-Label-Office_53492033.html
>
> I do not want to criticize one-sidedly, here is a different view:
> http://www.golem.de/1112/88663.html
>
> But Apache is the larger party and it would be the task of Apache to recognize opportunities and bundle forces.
>
> This is unfortunately the truth and it is a central problem for OpenOffice.
>
>
>
> btw:
> A project such as "Team OpenOffice" did not necessarily need a commercial orientation (eg in Germany a gGmbH https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinn%C3%BCtzige_GmbH one possibility), but such a project needs the recognition of Apache.
A bit more "neutral" information lived in the English Wikipedia (by an
article of mine) before it was converted to a redirect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Label_Office&oldid=549769989


> Greetings,
> Jörg

Regards,

mabdul



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-14 13:01:26 UTC
Permalink
> From: mabdul [mailto:***@eclipso.de]

> > You are basically right, but let me give the following information.
> >
> > Team OpenOffice was such a project. The participants were
> mainly experienced OpenOffice developers from SUN Microsystems.
> >
> > See:
> >
> https://web.archive.org/web/20120107200702/http://teamopenoffi
> ce.org/de/the-team-de.html
> >
> > But Apache made a front against this project and so it was
> no chance. The only short-term result was "White Label
> Office", see for example:
> > http://www.chip.de/downloads/White-Label-Office_53492033.html
> >
> > I do not want to criticize one-sidedly, here is a different view:
> > http://www.golem.de/1112/88663.html
> >
> > But Apache is the larger party and it would be the task of
> Apache to recognize opportunities and bundle forces.
> >
> > This is unfortunately the truth and it is a central problem
> for OpenOffice.
> >
> >
> >
> > btw:
> > A project such as "Team OpenOffice" did not necessarily
> need a commercial orientation (eg in Germany a gGmbH
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinn%C3%BCtzige_GmbH one
> possibility), but such a project needs the recognition of Apache.
> A bit more "neutral" information lived in the English Wikipedia (by an
> article of mine) before it was converted to a redirect:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Label_Office&
> oldid=549769989

Thank you very much for this important addition.


Greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Raphael Bircher
2017-01-16 21:59:54 UTC
Permalink
Am .01.2017, 11:00 Uhr, schrieb J=F6rg Schmidt <***@j-m-schmidt.de>:

> Hello,
>
>> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:***@gmail.com]
>
>> We see in Star citizen how mighty crowd can be.
>>
>> Maybe a platform would be great where people can pledge money
>> for something
>> they need.
>> If the needed budget is reached, payed developers implement it.
>> Or we could do it as a bonus system. You pledge money on a
>> bug/enhancement,
>> if the bug gets included in the release the developers get a payout.
>
>
>
>> This is just an idea. I am not sure if we can do business
>> within the ASF or
>> if we have to found a 3rd party entity for this.
>> If we have to go 3rd party I prefer a cooperative society as
>> a legal form.
>> https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/social-economy/cooperative
>> s/european-cooperative-society_de
>
> You are basically right, but let me give the following information.
>
> Team OpenOffice was such a project. The participants were mainly =

> experienced OpenOffice developers from SUN Microsystems.
I think, the real problem there was this text =

http://www.opensourceforbusiness.info/openoffice-org-droht-das-aus/

>
> See:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20120107200702/http://teamopenoffice.org/d=
e/the-team-de.html
>
> But Apache made a front against this project and so it was no chance. =
=

> The only short-term result was "White Label Office", see for example:
> http://www.chip.de/downloads/White-Label-Office_53492033.html
>
> I do not want to criticize one-sidedly, here is a different view:
> http://www.golem.de/1112/88663.html
>
> But Apache is the larger party and it would be the task of Apache to =

> recognize opportunities and bundle forces.
>
> This is unfortunately the truth and it is a central problem for =

> OpenOffice.

The only restriction the ASF have is, that you can not collect money in =
=

the name of a project as a third party. And Apache itself does not found=
=

defelopment.

But you can collect money for Features or major bugfixes as a third part=
y. =

This model is vor sure easyer to setup, if you have some big company who=
=

put a load of money to it. In my mind is a collaboration with Source =

Forge. They rich a load of OpenOffice users.

Regards Raphael
-- =

Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Dave Fisher
2017-01-16 22:54:30 UTC
Permalink
A third party like a Team OpenOffice under a name that avoids users confusion with Apache OpenOffice could raise money and fund development as a separate, independent entity. That's what IBM did. The entity just needs to be careful about guaranteeing the work will be taken by Apache OpenOffice.

It really is that simple now. I suppose it was much more confusing while the project was in the Incubator and all email threads became so emotionally charged and frenetic.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 16, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Raphael Bircher <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Am .01.2017, 11:00 Uhr, schrieb Jörg Schmidt <***@j-m-schmidt.de>:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>>> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:***@gmail.com]
>>
>>> We see in Star citizen how mighty crowd can be.
>>>
>>> Maybe a platform would be great where people can pledge money
>>> for something
>>> they need.
>>> If the needed budget is reached, payed developers implement it.
>>> Or we could do it as a bonus system. You pledge money on a
>>> bug/enhancement,
>>> if the bug gets included in the release the developers get a payout.
>>
>>
>>
>>> This is just an idea. I am not sure if we can do business
>>> within the ASF or
>>> if we have to found a 3rd party entity for this.
>>> If we have to go 3rd party I prefer a cooperative society as
>>> a legal form.
>>> https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/social-economy/cooperative
>>> s/european-cooperative-society_de
>>
>> You are basically right, but let me give the following information.
>>
>> Team OpenOffice was such a project. The participants were mainly experienced OpenOffice developers from SUN Microsystems.
> I think, the real problem there was this text http://www.opensourceforbusiness.info/openoffice-org-droht-das-aus/
>
>>
>> See:
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20120107200702/http://teamopenoffice.org/de/the-team-de.html
>>
>> But Apache made a front against this project and so it was no chance. The only short-term result was "White Label Office", see for example:
>> http://www.chip.de/downloads/White-Label-Office_53492033.html
>>
>> I do not want to criticize one-sidedly, here is a different view:
>> http://www.golem.de/1112/88663.html
>>
>> But Apache is the larger party and it would be the task of Apache to recognize opportunities and bundle forces.
>>
>> This is unfortunately the truth and it is a central problem for OpenOffice.
>
> The only restriction the ASF have is, that you can not collect money in the name of a project as a third party. And Apache itself does not found defelopment.
>
> But you can collect money for Features or major bugfixes as a third party. This model is vor sure easyer to setup, if you have some big company who put a load of money to it. In my mind is a collaboration with Source Forge. They rich a load of OpenOffice users.
>
> Regards Raphael
> --
> Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-17 10:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

> From: Raphael Bircher [mailto:***@gmail.com]


> > Team OpenOffice was such a project. The participants were mainly
> > experienced OpenOffice developers from SUN Microsystems.
> I think, the real problem there was this text
> http://www.opensourceforbusiness.info/openoffice-org-droht-das-aus/

Yes you are absolutely right.

But I do not see any great difference to my links.


> The only restriction the ASF have is, that you can not
> collect money in
> the name of a project as a third party.

This is not the whole truth. Also as an Apache member, I can not collect donations
for Apache OpenOffice and this is a very real problem, because almost nobody of
the OO used for Apache generally donate, for AOO concretely many would donate.

> And Apache itself
> does not found
> defelopment.

And that's imho bad. Where would the problem be if the users voluntarily donated
and OO with these donations further developed?

I can not see a reasonable reason why I, as a project member, are forced to act
separately when it comes to donations instead of within the project itself.
It would be better for me to act within the project, because any activity outside
weakens, indirectly, the project as such.

> But you can collect money for Features or major bugfixes as a
> third party.

Yes we can. But I believe that this is a fragmentation of the forces and would
rather be done within the project.


Greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Peter Kovacs
2017-01-18 03:39:15 UTC
Permalink
If a member can not collect for the hole project, I think the ASF should
do. That would be the simplest solution.
Can we ask the ASF what they think? Are they against a simple OpenOffice
development specific fund?
After all this is a end user product, not some IT component.

Maybe we think and speculate to much, and should talk with the ASF first,
asking them for help.

After all the donation text does not sound like ASF is against something
like this.
And they have seen what it means if no core team is availabe.

I guess they are open for ideas.

Jörg Schmidt <***@j-m-schmidt.de> schrieb am Di., 17. Jan. 2017, 11:44:

> Hello,
>
> > From: Raphael Bircher [mailto:***@gmail.com]
>
>
> > > Team OpenOffice was such a project. The participants were mainly
> > > experienced OpenOffice developers from SUN Microsystems.
> > I think, the real problem there was this text
> > http://www.opensourceforbusiness.info/openoffice-org-droht-das-aus/
>
> Yes you are absolutely right.
>
> But I do not see any great difference to my links.
>
>
> > The only restriction the ASF have is, that you can not
> > collect money in
> > the name of a project as a third party.
>
> This is not the whole truth. Also as an Apache member, I can not collect
> donations
> for Apache OpenOffice and this is a very real problem, because almost
> nobody of
> the OO used for Apache generally donate, for AOO concretely many would
> donate.
>
> > And Apache itself
> > does not found
> > defelopment.
>
> And that's imho bad. Where would the problem be if the users voluntarily
> donated
> and OO with these donations further developed?
>
> I can not see a reasonable reason why I, as a project member, are forced
> to act
> separately when it comes to donations instead of within the project itself.
> It would be better for me to act within the project, because any activity
> outside
> weakens, indirectly, the project as such.
>
> > But you can collect money for Features or major bugfixes as a
> > third party.
>
> Yes we can. But I believe that this is a fragmentation of the forces and
> would
> rather be done within the project.
>
>
> Greetings,
> Jörg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>
> --

Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprÃŒft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wÃŒnschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.
Dennis E. Hamilton
2017-01-18 04:31:03 UTC
Permalink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:***@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 19:39
> To: ***@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
>
> If a member can not collect for the hole project, I think the ASF should
> do. That would be the simplest solution.
> Can we ask the ASF what they think? Are they against a simple OpenOffice
> development specific fund?
> After all this is a end user product, not some IT component.
[orcmid]

It is possible that targeted donations might have an arrangement. They would not be for small sums, I think.
It would be up to the AOO Project Management Committee to make such requests.

However, there is a different aspect here. The ASF does not pay developers. None. Not any. Of course, contributors might make their contributions as part of their employment, but it is not paid by the ASF.

So targeted donations would pay for other things needed by the project that are beyond what ASF normally provides.

Both of these factors are related to the non-profit status of the ASF and how it defines its mission and what its policies are for achieving that mission.

We talked through much of this probably one year ago.

Other projects do have downstream producers who create distributions or forks and may be commercial. But they contribute back upstream, and may have people who provide those contributions and work with the project on fixes, etc.

We can dig up that conversation if you like.

- Dennis

>
> Maybe we think and speculate to much, and should talk with the ASF
> first,
> asking them for help.
>
> After all the donation text does not sound like ASF is against something
> like this.
> And they have seen what it means if no core team is availabe.
>
> I guess they are open for ideas.
>
> Jörg Schmidt <***@j-m-schmidt.de> schrieb am Di., 17. Jan. 2017,
> 11:44:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > > From: Raphael Bircher [mailto:***@gmail.com]
> >
> >
> > > > Team OpenOffice was such a project. The participants were mainly
> > > > experienced OpenOffice developers from SUN Microsystems.
> > > I think, the real problem there was this text
> > > http://www.opensourceforbusiness.info/openoffice-org-droht-das-aus/
> >
> > Yes you are absolutely right.
> >
> > But I do not see any great difference to my links.
> >
> >
> > > The only restriction the ASF have is, that you can not
> > > collect money in
> > > the name of a project as a third party.
> >
> > This is not the whole truth. Also as an Apache member, I can not
> collect
> > donations
> > for Apache OpenOffice and this is a very real problem, because almost
> > nobody of
> > the OO used for Apache generally donate, for AOO concretely many would
> > donate.
> >
> > > And Apache itself
> > > does not found
> > > defelopment.
> >
> > And that's imho bad. Where would the problem be if the users
> voluntarily
> > donated
> > and OO with these donations further developed?
> >
> > I can not see a reasonable reason why I, as a project member, are
> forced
> > to act
> > separately when it comes to donations instead of within the project
> itself.
> > It would be better for me to act within the project, because any
> activity
> > outside
> > weakens, indirectly, the project as such.
> >
> > > But you can collect money for Features or major bugfixes as a
> > > third party.
> >
> > Yes we can. But I believe that this is a fragmentation of the forces
> and
> > would
> > rather be done within the project.
> >
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Jörg
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> > --
>
> Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre
> Antwort
> wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
> werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
> Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
> kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
> Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu
> Google
> konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
> wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
> verhandeln.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Raphael Bircher
2017-01-18 05:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Am .01.2017, 05:31 Uhr, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton <***@apache.org>:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:***@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 19:39
>> To: ***@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
>>
>> If a member can not collect for the hole project, I think the ASF should
>> do. That would be the simplest solution.
>> Can we ask the ASF what they think? Are they against a simple OpenOffice
>> development specific fund?
>> After all this is a end user product, not some IT component.
> [orcmid]
>
> It is possible that targeted donations might have an arrangement. They
> would not be for small sums, I think.
> It would be up to the AOO Project Management Committee to make such
> requests.
>
> However, there is a different aspect here. The ASF does not pay
> developers. None. Not any. Of course, contributors might make their
> contributions as part of their employment, but it is not paid by the ASF.
>
> So targeted donations would pay for other things needed by the project
> that are beyond what ASF normally provides.
>
> Both of these factors are related to the non-profit status of the ASF
> and how it defines its mission and what its policies are for achieving
> that mission.
>
> We talked through much of this probably one year ago.
>
> Other projects do have downstream producers who create distributions or
> forks and may be commercial. But they contribute back upstream, and may
> have people who provide those contributions and work with the project on
> fixes, etc.

I personaly don't believe in that model for Apache OpenOffice. There is no
need for a customized version of Apache OpenOffice. And the people who
fork, do it normaly to have there own product. They don't want to
upstream. But Yes, it is one model, who exist within ASF. Not that I'm
completely against this way... If someone finds a way, to generate money
to contribute back, it would be nice. But I don't think it's the right way.

I'm more with the payed feature model

>
> We can dig up that conversation if you like.
I would be interested, where the discussion ends ;-)

Regards Raphael
--
Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Dennis E. Hamilton
2017-01-18 16:36:13 UTC
Permalink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raphael Bircher [mailto:***@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 21:36
> To: ***@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
>
> Am .01.2017, 05:31 Uhr, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton <***@apache.org>:
>
[ ... ]
>
> I personaly don't believe in that model for Apache OpenOffice. There is
> no
> need for a customized version of Apache OpenOffice. And the people who
> fork, do it normaly to have there own product. They don't want to
> upstream. But Yes, it is one model, who exist within ASF. Not that I'm
> completely against this way... If someone finds a way, to generate money
> to contribute back, it would be nice. But I don't think it's the right
> way.
>
> I'm more with the payed feature model
[orcmid]

That was also discussed - creation of an external organization that would arrange paid features and contribute to Apache OpenOffice. That must be external to ASF. And either (1) there are AOO committers who participate in both or (2) AOO committer and PMC must accept the changes and the AOO project incorporates features in AOO releases.

So the feature organization would need to be able to do everything but make distributions to provide tested, quality features. Or have AOO committers in the feature organization to work on feature branches of AOO SVN.

In all cases, there must be *no* payment process or fund-raising process that involves the ASF. That is key requirement #1. I see that Bertrand Delacretaz has provided a good answer about this on ***@community.apache.org.

AND

The greatest barrier of all is key requirement #2: finding already-capable OpenOffice developers who have the capacity and willingness to do such work. The fees that an OpenOffice features organization would pay must be enough. Someone with the required at-hand skills can already earn $100,000 per year and more (in US), with all benefits available where they work. I do not know comparable salaries in EU. I believe it is still expensive in terms of how much money feature-organization must raise. Also, providing contract agreements for performance of feature delivery is also complicated.

There is a great misunderstanding in the user community of how much feature development costs using developers with professional, at-hand skills.

- Dennis

>
> >
> > We can dig up that conversation if you like.
> I would be interested, where the discussion ends ;-)
>
> Regards Raphael
> --
> Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Peter Kovacs
2017-01-19 07:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Star Citizen proofed that a community can follow developers intend and
raise the money needed.
Even if we can not use the business model, we can learn something from
their communication model they have developed.

Also what becomes clear to me is that we can not operate with a single
entity. If I consider that we need to position us global right from the
start, this is not so bad.

Maybe it would be better if we lay out a white paper on some model. Then we
talk about this. We can then check for concerns. Note them down and find a
solution for it.
@Raphael do you like to write your idea in a document? I think we have a
similar idea. Maybe I can put my idea as variation suggestion next to it
afterwards.
Then we can see if we can refine the document.
I think we need to focus on reaching a goal somehow, this discussion
dissolves somewhat because we focus to much on the ASF and bugs. Then on
goals concepts and stuff.

When we have a clear view, we can reach out to the ASF and hear their
concerns, update the concept based on their feedback. I assume this way we
will find a solution that works for everybody.

In Germany it is said that to lay out a business model takes 8 -16 month.
So IMHO we have time, does not need to be perfect.

All the best
Peter

Dennis E. Hamilton <***@apache.org> schrieb am Mi., 18. Jan. 2017, 17:36:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Raphael Bircher [mailto:***@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 21:36
> > To: ***@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
> >
> > Am .01.2017, 05:31 Uhr, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton <***@apache.org>:
> >
> [ ... ]
> >
> > I personaly don't believe in that model for Apache OpenOffice. There is
> > no
> > need for a customized version of Apache OpenOffice. And the people who
> > fork, do it normaly to have there own product. They don't want to
> > upstream. But Yes, it is one model, who exist within ASF. Not that I'm
> > completely against this way... If someone finds a way, to generate money
> > to contribute back, it would be nice. But I don't think it's the right
> > way.
> >
> > I'm more with the payed feature model
> [orcmid]
>
> That was also discussed - creation of an external organization that would
> arrange paid features and contribute to Apache OpenOffice. That must be
> external to ASF. And either (1) there are AOO committers who participate
> in both or (2) AOO committer and PMC must accept the changes and the AOO
> project incorporates features in AOO releases.
>
> So the feature organization would need to be able to do everything but
> make distributions to provide tested, quality features. Or have AOO
> committers in the feature organization to work on feature branches of AOO
> SVN.
>
> In all cases, there must be *no* payment process or fund-raising process
> that involves the ASF. That is key requirement #1. I see that Bertrand
> Delacretaz has provided a good answer about this on
> ***@community.apache.org.
>
> AND
>
> The greatest barrier of all is key requirement #2: finding already-capable
> OpenOffice developers who have the capacity and willingness to do such
> work. The fees that an OpenOffice features organization would pay must be
> enough. Someone with the required at-hand skills can already earn $100,000
> per year and more (in US), with all benefits available where they work. I
> do not know comparable salaries in EU. I believe it is still expensive in
> terms of how much money feature-organization must raise. Also, providing
> contract agreements for performance of feature delivery is also complicated.
>
> There is a great misunderstanding in the user community of how much
> feature development costs using developers with professional, at-hand
> skills.
>
> - Dennis
>
> >
> > >
> > > We can dig up that conversation if you like.
> > I would be interested, where the discussion ends ;-)
> >
> > Regards Raphael
> > --
> > Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>
> --

Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprÃŒft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wÃŒnschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.
Dennis E. Hamilton
2017-01-19 16:14:57 UTC
Permalink
I have comments in-line.

Also, let us speak of chicken and egg.

I observe that the Board and the Offices of ASF do not wish to deal with hypothetical cases. Exceptions must be specific and actionable. Also, exceptions do not create precedents. If one project sees something they want as exception for them, they must create specific exception of their own. (AOO has exception for bundling some writing tools in binaries only, not in source code, because licenses are incompatible. It is very specific and not a precedent for other projects. When details of another exception are worked out, it is often revealed that the cases are not the same. The ASF avoids common risk of others seeing more "precedent" for their case than there actually is.)

It seems to me that if there is a request for some sort of external relationship(s), the external parties must already exist and be prepared to provide detailed agreement on how it will partner with AOO project in a way that preserves the principles and purpose of the ASF in how AOO participates in the arrangement. This is not hard.

I do not think making exceptions about hypothetical arrangements and then seeking external parties will work.

That is why it may be better for external party to be created first, operating as good downstream citizen, before requiring anything of the AOO PMC and ASF Board. Ideally, no significant attention will be required. The only thing external entity cannot do, and PMC would have to intervene, is make use of Apache trademarks in other than allowed ways. Since it is not proposed that the external entity release any software product, this should be agreeable.

Also, the external party should not promise others that requested features will be incorporated in AOO in the manner they desire. They will never have the authority to control AOO project actions, even though by mutual work, there may often be good alignment.

Only my thoughts, not thoughts from any PMC or Board discussion.

- Dennis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:***@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 23:08
> To: ***@openoffice.apache.org; ***@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
>
> Star Citizen proofed that a community can follow developers intend and
> raise the money needed.
> Even if we can not use the business model, we can learn something from
> their communication model they have developed.
>
> Also what becomes clear to me is that we can not operate with a single
> entity. If I consider that we need to position us global right from the
> start, this is not so bad.
>
> Maybe it would be better if we lay out a white paper on some model. Then
> we talk about this. We can then check for concerns. Note them down and
> find a solution for it.
> @Raphael do you like to write your idea in a document? I think we have a
> similar idea. Maybe I can put my idea as variation suggestion next to it
> afterwards.
[orcmid]


Raphael raised his questions on ***@community.apache.org. The responses are informative.

> Then we can see if we can refine the document.
> I think we need to focus on reaching a goal somehow, this discussion
> dissolves somewhat because we focus to much on the ASF and bugs. Then on
> goals concepts and stuff.
>
> When we have a clear view, we can reach out to the ASF and hear their
> concerns, update the concept based on their feedback. I assume this way
> we will find a solution that works for everybody.
[orcmid]

If you do not understand the concerns of the ASF and that AOO is ASF project, you may waste your time. It works best to operate in models of external support that have worked well.

Please consider this document now in draft, meant to be aligned with detailed documents it refers to:
<http://www.apache.org/dev/project-requirements>.

I recommend that all developers interested in this discussion also subscribe to ***@communit.apache.org where good discussion can be held.

Also, it is the PMC that must communicate with ASF Board. The PMC is responsible for the care of the project in terms of satisfying and preserving ASF spirit for projects.

Discussion and creation on dev@ is fine. But PMC must as a body agree to some proposal if it is so exceptional that Board approval is required.
>
> In Germany it is said that to lay out a business model takes 8 -16
> month. So IMHO we have time, does not need to be perfect.
>
> All the best
> Peter
>
> Dennis E. Hamilton <***@apache.org <mailto:***@apache.org> >
> schrieb am Mi., 18. Jan. 2017, 17:36:
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Raphael Bircher [mailto:***@gmail.com
> <mailto:***@gmail.com> ]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 21:36
> > To: ***@openoffice.apache.org <mailto:***@openoffice.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to
> contribute!
> >
> > Am .01.2017, 05:31 Uhr, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton
> <***@apache.org <mailto:***@apache.org> >:
> >
> [ ... ]
> >
> > I personaly don't believe in that model for Apache OpenOffice.
> There is
> > no
> > need for a customized version of Apache OpenOffice. And the
> people who
> > fork, do it normaly to have there own product. They don't want to
> > upstream. But Yes, it is one model, who exist within ASF. Not
> that I'm
> > completely against this way... If someone finds a way, to
> generate money
> > to contribute back, it would be nice. But I don't think it's the
> right
> > way.
> >
> > I'm more with the payed feature model
> [orcmid]
>
> That was also discussed - creation of an external organization that
> would arrange paid features and contribute to Apache OpenOffice. That
> must be external to ASF. And either (1) there are AOO committers who
> participate in both or (2) AOO committer and PMC must accept the changes
> and the AOO project incorporates features in AOO releases.
>
> So the feature organization would need to be able to do everything
> but make distributions to provide tested, quality features. Or have AOO
> committers in the feature organization to work on feature branches of
> AOO SVN.
>
> In all cases, there must be *no* payment process or fund-raising
> process that involves the ASF. That is key requirement #1. I see that
> Bertrand Delacretaz has provided a good answer about this on
> ***@community.apache.org <mailto:***@community.apache.org> .
>
> AND
>
> The greatest barrier of all is key requirement #2: finding already-
> capable OpenOffice developers who have the capacity and willingness to
> do such work. The fees that an OpenOffice features organization would
> pay must be enough. Someone with the required at-hand skills can already
> earn $100,000 per year and more (in US), with all benefits available
> where they work. I do not know comparable salaries in EU. I believe it
> is still expensive in terms of how much money feature-organization must
> raise. Also, providing contract agreements for performance of feature
> delivery is also complicated.
>
> There is a great misunderstanding in the user community of how much
> feature development costs using developers with professional, at-hand
> skills.
>
> - Dennis
>
> >
> > >
> > > We can dig up that conversation if you like.
> > I would be interested, where the discussion ends ;-)
> >
> > Regards Raphael
> > --
> > Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> <mailto:dev-***@openoffice.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> <mailto:dev-***@openoffice.apache.org>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> <mailto:dev-***@openoffice.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> <mailto:dev-***@openoffice.apache.org>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre
> Antwort wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google
> Algorythmen zwecks werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht
> auszuschließen das ihre Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter
> geprüft wird. Durch kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das
> ihre Mail, ihre Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren
> online zu Google konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird.
> Sollten sie dies nicht wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um
> z.B. alternativen zu verhandeln.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Dennis Hamilton
2017-01-19 17:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Peter Kovacs
2017-01-20 07:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Dennis, I agree that the PMC has to take the discussion in the end.
However for me as a noob, the PMC is a Part of the ASF.
I also agree on the beeing specific part. Thats why I would like to have
better layout, because I believe that centers the discussion more
solution finding.

This is also a topic that in my eyes is a PMC core point. We have a
unique Community structure, because a lot of our community are none IT
knowlegeable folks.
And currently we do only little work in community building. Plus we
realy suck from the dev side in communicating with our community.

I personally do not care so much if we have 100 entities following up on
the goal.
But in my eyes we need a way to ensure project health and turn towards
the community we have. We were last year at the edge of project
retirement. We are slowly fighting our way out by pure voluntary work of
people that belive in the market name Open Office.
How long can we keep this up? Especially with the constant annoyance of
Libre Office shooting at our faulty structures.
We need ways to build strebgthen our core, and that goes beyond what we
do now. How we can achieve this I do not know.

I think LibreOffice are to a certain degree correct. The ASF is not
capable to do the Project Open Office at this Point. The structure of
Libre Office is a much more healthy one for the kind of Project
Libre/Open Office is.
However I think we can build a similar powerfull structure if not more
powerfull. At the same time we must walk in Sync with the ASF.

This is what the Discussion is all about. If we move in the wrong
direction, please suggest a better one.

At least this is my view on the topic. I declare also that I personally
have no interest in payed dev work. I switch my employee soon, and my
future employee restricts my codeing work towards my contract with the
ASF. I am currently enjoy more freedom. I am doing this out of love
towards Open Office. I say this so no one gets the wrong thoughts.

All the best
Peter

On 19.01.2017 17:14, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I have comments in-line.
>
> Also, let us speak of chicken and egg.
>
> I observe that the Board and the Offices of ASF do not wish to deal with hypothetical cases. Exceptions must be specific and actionable. Also, exceptions do not create precedents. If one project sees something they want as exception for them, they must create specific exception of their own. (AOO has exception for bundling some writing tools in binaries only, not in source code, because licenses are incompatible. It is very specific and not a precedent for other projects. When details of another exception are worked out, it is often revealed that the cases are not the same. The ASF avoids common risk of others seeing more "precedent" for their case than there actually is.)
>
> It seems to me that if there is a request for some sort of external relationship(s), the external parties must already exist and be prepared to provide detailed agreement on how it will partner with AOO project in a way that preserves the principles and purpose of the ASF in how AOO participates in the arrangement. This is not hard.
>
> I do not think making exceptions about hypothetical arrangements and then seeking external parties will work.
>
> That is why it may be better for external party to be created first, operating as good downstream citizen, before requiring anything of the AOO PMC and ASF Board. Ideally, no significant attention will be required. The only thing external entity cannot do, and PMC would have to intervene, is make use of Apache trademarks in other than allowed ways. Since it is not proposed that the external entity release any software product, this should be agreeable.
>
> Also, the external party should not promise others that requested features will be incorporated in AOO in the manner they desire. They will never have the authority to control AOO project actions, even though by mutual work, there may often be good alignment.
>
> Only my thoughts, not thoughts from any PMC or Board discussion.
>
> - Dennis
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:***@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 23:08
>> To: ***@openoffice.apache.org; ***@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
>>
>> Star Citizen proofed that a community can follow developers intend and
>> raise the money needed.
>> Even if we can not use the business model, we can learn something from
>> their communication model they have developed.
>>
>> Also what becomes clear to me is that we can not operate with a single
>> entity. If I consider that we need to position us global right from the
>> start, this is not so bad.
>>
>> Maybe it would be better if we lay out a white paper on some model. Then
>> we talk about this. We can then check for concerns. Note them down and
>> find a solution for it.
>> @Raphael do you like to write your idea in a document? I think we have a
>> similar idea. Maybe I can put my idea as variation suggestion next to it
>> afterwards.
> [orcmid]
>
>
> Raphael raised his questions on ***@community.apache.org. The responses are informative.
>
>> Then we can see if we can refine the document.
>> I think we need to focus on reaching a goal somehow, this discussion
>> dissolves somewhat because we focus to much on the ASF and bugs. Then on
>> goals concepts and stuff.
>>
>> When we have a clear view, we can reach out to the ASF and hear their
>> concerns, update the concept based on their feedback. I assume this way
>> we will find a solution that works for everybody.
> [orcmid]
>
> If you do not understand the concerns of the ASF and that AOO is ASF project, you may waste your time. It works best to operate in models of external support that have worked well.
>
> Please consider this document now in draft, meant to be aligned with detailed documents it refers to:
> <http://www.apache.org/dev/project-requirements>.
>
> I recommend that all developers interested in this discussion also subscribe to ***@communit.apache.org where good discussion can be held.
>
> Also, it is the PMC that must communicate with ASF Board. The PMC is responsible for the care of the project in terms of satisfying and preserving ASF spirit for projects.
>
> Discussion and creation on dev@ is fine. But PMC must as a body agree to some proposal if it is so exceptional that Board approval is required.
>> In Germany it is said that to lay out a business model takes 8 -16
>> month. So IMHO we have time, does not need to be perfect.
>>
>> All the best
>> Peter
>>
>> Dennis E. Hamilton <***@apache.org <mailto:***@apache.org> >
>> schrieb am Mi., 18. Jan. 2017, 17:36:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Raphael Bircher [mailto:***@gmail.com
>> <mailto:***@gmail.com> ]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 21:36
>> > To: ***@openoffice.apache.org <mailto:***@openoffice.apache.org>
>> > Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to
>> contribute!
>> >
>> > Am .01.2017, 05:31 Uhr, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <***@apache.org <mailto:***@apache.org> >:
>> >
>> [ ... ]
>> >
>> > I personaly don't believe in that model for Apache OpenOffice.
>> There is
>> > no
>> > need for a customized version of Apache OpenOffice. And the
>> people who
>> > fork, do it normaly to have there own product. They don't want to
>> > upstream. But Yes, it is one model, who exist within ASF. Not
>> that I'm
>> > completely against this way... If someone finds a way, to
>> generate money
>> > to contribute back, it would be nice. But I don't think it's the
>> right
>> > way.
>> >
>> > I'm more with the payed feature model
>> [orcmid]
>>
>> That was also discussed - creation of an external organization that
>> would arrange paid features and contribute to Apache OpenOffice. That
>> must be external to ASF. And either (1) there are AOO committers who
>> participate in both or (2) AOO committer and PMC must accept the changes
>> and the AOO project incorporates features in AOO releases.
>>
>> So the feature organization would need to be able to do everything
>> but make distributions to provide tested, quality features. Or have AOO
>> committers in the feature organization to work on feature branches of
>> AOO SVN.
>>
>> In all cases, there must be *no* payment process or fund-raising
>> process that involves the ASF. That is key requirement #1. I see that
>> Bertrand Delacretaz has provided a good answer about this on
>> ***@community.apache.org <mailto:***@community.apache.org> .
>>
>> AND
>>
>> The greatest barrier of all is key requirement #2: finding already-
>> capable OpenOffice developers who have the capacity and willingness to
>> do such work. The fees that an OpenOffice features organization would
>> pay must be enough. Someone with the required at-hand skills can already
>> earn $100,000 per year and more (in US), with all benefits available
>> where they work. I do not know comparable salaries in EU. I believe it
>> is still expensive in terms of how much money feature-organization must
>> raise. Also, providing contract agreements for performance of feature
>> delivery is also complicated.
>>
>> There is a great misunderstanding in the user community of how much
>> feature development costs using developers with professional, at-hand
>> skills.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > We can dig up that conversation if you like.
>> > I would be interested, where the discussion ends ;-)
>> >
>> > Regards Raphael
>> > --
>> > Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch
>> >
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>> <mailto:dev-***@openoffice.apache.org>
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>> <mailto:dev-***@openoffice.apache.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>> <mailto:dev-***@openoffice.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>> <mailto:dev-***@openoffice.apache.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre
>> Antwort wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google
>> Algorythmen zwecks werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht
>> auszuschließen das ihre Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter
>> geprüft wird. Durch kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das
>> ihre Mail, ihre Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren
>> online zu Google konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird.
>> Sollten sie dies nicht wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um
>> z.B. alternativen zu verhandeln.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-20 11:38:30 UTC
Permalink
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:***@gmail.com]

> But in my eyes we need a way to ensure project health and
> turn towards
> the community we have. We were last year at the edge of project
> retirement. We are slowly fighting our way out by pure
> voluntary work of
> people that belive in the market name Open Office.

+1

> I think LibreOffice are to a certain degree correct. The ASF is not
> capable to do the Project Open Office at this Point. The structure of
> Libre Office is a much more healthy one for the kind of Project
> Libre/Open Office is.

Yes, unfortunately, the relevant criticism of LO is correct.

But one thing should be quite clear:
The solution is not to join LO, but the solution is: we need to improve ourselves.

> However I think we can build a similar powerfull structure if
> not more
> powerfull. At the same time we must walk in Sync with the ASF.

+1


Peter has said a lot about what I find right.

Likewise, I believe that it is necessary to use time to clarify these things, even if this time is initially missing for the programming.
The point is, the better structures will improve our efficiency in the long run.


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



Greetings,
Jörg



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Dr. Michael Stehmann
2017-01-20 16:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Am 20.01.2017 um 12:38 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
>
>
>> I think LibreOffice are to a certain degree correct. The ASF is not
>> capable to do the Project Open Office at this Point. The structure of
>> Libre Office is a much more healthy one for the kind of Project
>> Libre/Open Office is.
>
> Yes, unfortunately, the relevant criticism of LO is correct.
>
Ok, I have another opinion. Today LO looks very well.

But there are only 2 or 3 companies paying for most of the professionell
developers. That they do so, is fine and I really hope they do so in
future. And 3 companies are better than one.

But we have seen large companies searching for a business model for a
free office suite. SUN, Oracle, Suse (Novell), IBM and others. Did they
found one?

So LO only can hope, that the supporting companies will ever find paying
developers as enough profitable or promising. The TDF is not able to pay
developers for longer periods.

Just my 2 cents.
Michael
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-20 21:07:37 UTC
Permalink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:***@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 5:13 PM
> To: ***@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
>
> Am 20.01.2017 um 12:38 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
> >
> >
> >> I think LibreOffice are to a certain degree correct. The
> ASF is not
> >> capable to do the Project Open Office at this Point. The
> structure of
> >> Libre Office is a much more healthy one for the kind of Project
> >> Libre/Open Office is.
> >
> > Yes, unfortunately, the relevant criticism of LO is correct.
> >
> Ok, I have another opinion. Today LO looks very well.
>
> But there are only 2 or 3 companies paying for most of the
> professionell
> developers. That they do so, is fine and I really hope they do so in
> future. And 3 companies are better than one.
>
> But we have seen large companies searching for a business model for a
> free office suite. SUN, Oracle, Suse (Novell), IBM and
> others. Did they
> found one?
>
> So LO only can hope, that the supporting companies will ever
> find paying
> developers as enough profitable or promising. The TDF is not
> able to pay
> developers for longer periods.

I do not think your opinion is _so_ different, because _I share your opinion_.

What you describe is exactly my criticism of the TDF and substantial reason that I am not a member of the TDF, because the TDF is not the kind foundation which the OpenOffice.org community once wanted, but a foundation in the interests of companies.

I also see this because I see the many who have done important parts of the work in the last few years, where TDF is only in the second row and others have pushed themselves to the fore.



Greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-20 21:44:39 UTC
Permalink
> From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:***@j-m-schmidt.de]

> I do not think your opinion is _so_ different, because _I
> share your opinion_.

Sorry, I think that's too short and not understandable.

What I meant when I said positively to the LO/TDF-organizational-model is the willingness to offer good conditions to commercial contributors.
I agree, however with your (Michael) criticism of the possible dependence on companies.

But I also see a different perspective:
There is a significant difference between the interest of a 'normal' company (for which OO (or LO) is only one part of its activity) and an organization (in the sense of a company) in which programmers of the community work together and make money together, by writing code for OO.

The difference is that the community-programmers want OO to move forward, but need money for their livelihood.
A normal company, on the other hand, needs profit, but it does not matter if she makes it with OO or other software.

I hope it will be understandable what I mean.
And I think Apache should help such community-programmers, because if they have success, this is of direct benefit to Apache OpenOffice.
The help that Apache should give is not money but the confidence in the good intentions of such programmers.


Greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Dave Fisher
2017-01-20 21:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Hi -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 20, 2017, at 3:38 AM, Jörg Schmidt <***@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
>
>
>> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:***@gmail.com]
>
>> But in my eyes we need a way to ensure project health and
>> turn towards
>> the community we have. We were last year at the edge of project
>> retirement. We are slowly fighting our way out by pure
>> voluntary work of
>> people that belive in the market name Open Office.
>
> +1
>
>> I think LibreOffice are to a certain degree correct. The ASF is not
>> capable to do the Project Open Office at this Point. The structure of
>> Libre Office is a much more healthy one for the kind of Project
>> Libre/Open Office is.
>
> Yes, unfortunately, the relevant criticism of LO is correct.
>
> But one thing should be quite clear:
> The solution is not to join LO, but the solution is: we need to improve ourselves.
>
>> However I think we can build a similar powerfull structure if
>> not more
>> powerfull. At the same time we must walk in Sync with the ASF.
>
> +1
>
>
> Peter has said a lot about what I find right.
>
> Likewise, I believe that it is necessary to use time to clarify these things, even if this time is initially missing for the programming.
> The point is, the better structures will improve our efficiency in the long run.
>
>
> and one more note:
> Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal to the ASF and the OpenOffice project.
> If, however, there are single points that are contentious, then the PMC must first represent the interests of OpenOffice.
>
>
>
> Greetings,
> Jörg
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>
Peter Kovacs
2017-01-21 00:16:16 UTC
Permalink
Hmm, the discussion moves in a wrong direction, with wrong assumptions.
I am against a status quo solution. For me status quo directly transfers
to nothing happens.

I am not talking of creating one Investor that provides Money. I aim at
mobilizing as much as possible Open Office users has as Investors.

What I propose is a open crowd infrastructure. I do not believe Apache
is capable of this, today. I do believe this is a near future, game
changing model in general.


For me the model should respect:

# Fundraising itself is neutral (i.e. funds are not raised for
developers but for tasks / actions)

# nonprofit (Funds are not ment to provide any profit to the
organisation itself and are bound by activity. investor decided on.)

# Openess of the Infra (other Apache Project have acces to the same
infra if they whish.)

# Openess in the community ( the funds on a task is open to all
commiters if they manage to satisfy the requirement for a payout.)


This is just a rough outline, so you understand the direction (vision) I
am thinking. Also please note that a lot question have to be answered.
This is maybe 1% of a business plan.

I try to make a graph on the weekend. However I am not sure if I manage
this on the weekend. (Thats why I have asked Raphael to give his vision).


I do not see any reason why this cannot be done by Apache itseslf. Also
One or more 3rd Party supplier can provide the Infra in full or in
parts. For me this question is an issue we need to deal with at a later
stage. And I stress this point: It needs to happen in sync with Apache.
A crowd funding community is a dragon. And as Dragons are, they can be
difficult in times. You do well to be prepared.

I hope all are at least courious and support this with their hopes and
fears. It would be so powerfull if we can make this work.


Stay agile, keep Chalanging

Peter

On 20.01.2017 22:56, Dave Fisher wrote:
> Hi -
>
> Read to the bottom. Don't mistake my opposition to the following statement as opposition to a way forward to funding of a third party.
>
>> and one more note:
>> Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal to the ASF and the OpenOffice project.
>> If, however, there are single points that are contentious, then the PMC must first represent the interests of OpenOffice.
> Not true. I am a Member of the Apache Software Foundation. That is just like a shareholder. For me that comes first. Then come PMC memberships and AOO is but one of mine.
>
> In all this discussion please keep in mind that the ASF is a nonprofit and must not play favorites with anyone whether individual or corporation.
>
> The ASF will protect its trademarks and expects that PMC does so.
>
> If by negotiation there was some way the AOO project proposed funding for third parties to the ASF many questions would need to be answered including keeping the arrangement open to others, allocation of funds, auditing etc. This would be expensive. So, you can see that it just does not happen.
>
> A clear separation between the third party and the ASF and the project MUST be kept.
>
> I am ALL for a third party. Any developers and other employees/volunteers from that group who demonstrate merit here would have my support for committer status.
>
> A third party might have a distribution powered by Apache OpenOffice. That could solicit. The project could decide to use a Powered By verification as a way to validate the downstream.
>
> Something like that could work. It is close to the status quo.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jan 20, 2017, at 3:38 AM, Jörg Schmidt <***@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:***@gmail.com]
>>> But in my eyes we need a way to ensure project health and
>>> turn towards
>>> the community we have. We were last year at the edge of project
>>> retirement. We are slowly fighting our way out by pure
>>> voluntary work of
>>> people that belive in the market name Open Office.
>> +1
>>
>>> I think LibreOffice are to a certain degree correct. The ASF is not
>>> capable to do the Project Open Office at this Point. The structure of
>>> Libre Office is a much more healthy one for the kind of Project
>>> Libre/Open Office is.
>> Yes, unfortunately, the relevant criticism of LO is correct.
>>
>> But one thing should be quite clear:
>> The solution is not to join LO, but the solution is: we need to improve ourselves.
>>
>>> However I think we can build a similar powerfull structure if
>>> not more
>>> powerfull. At the same time we must walk in Sync with the ASF.
>> +1
>>
>>
>> Peter has said a lot about what I find right.
>>
>> Likewise, I believe that it is necessary to use time to clarify these things, even if this time is initially missing for the programming.
>> The point is, the better structures will improve our efficiency in the long run.
>>
>>
>> and one more note:
>> Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal to the ASF and the OpenOffice project.
>> If, however, there are single points that are contentious, then the PMC must first represent the interests of OpenOffice.
>>
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Jörg
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Dave Fisher
2017-01-21 00:48:46 UTC
Permalink
Hi -

Go ahead, but you are missing my point. Managing money like you propose is not something Apache Members want to do.

Having a good working relationship with a third party is something the ASF does all the time.

The AOO project could find a way to work out a program that would serve to make a relationship that benefits the public. Call your org A. If an org B came along that met the criteria of our relationship with B then they would get the same benefit. This is expansion.

It could be that third parties meet a standard of open source, Apache licensed code that is always contributed back to AOO for us to choose to incorporate.

We already have groups that are like this.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 20, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Peter Kovacs <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hmm, the discussion moves in a wrong direction, with wrong assumptions. I am against a status quo solution. For me status quo directly transfers to nothing happens.
>
> I am not talking of creating one Investor that provides Money. I aim at mobilizing as much as possible Open Office users has as Investors.
>
> What I propose is a open crowd infrastructure. I do not believe Apache is capable of this, today. I do believe this is a near future, game changing model in general.
>
>
> For me the model should respect:
>
> # Fundraising itself is neutral (i.e. funds are not raised for developers but for tasks / actions)
>
> # nonprofit (Funds are not ment to provide any profit to the organisation itself and are bound by activity. investor decided on.)
>
> # Openess of the Infra (other Apache Project have acces to the same infra if they whish.)
>
> # Openess in the community ( the funds on a task is open to all commiters if they manage to satisfy the requirement for a payout.)
>
>
> This is just a rough outline, so you understand the direction (vision) I am thinking. Also please note that a lot question have to be answered. This is maybe 1% of a business plan.
>
> I try to make a graph on the weekend. However I am not sure if I manage this on the weekend. (Thats why I have asked Raphael to give his vision).
>
>
> I do not see any reason why this cannot be done by Apache itseslf. Also One or more 3rd Party supplier can provide the Infra in full or in parts. For me this question is an issue we need to deal with at a later stage. And I stress this point: It needs to happen in sync with Apache. A crowd funding community is a dragon. And as Dragons are, they can be difficult in times. You do well to be prepared.
>
> I hope all are at least courious and support this with their hopes and fears. It would be so powerfull if we can make this work.
>
>
> Stay agile, keep Chalanging
>
> Peter
>
>> On 20.01.2017 22:56, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> Hi -
>>
>> Read to the bottom. Don't mistake my opposition to the following statement as opposition to a way forward to funding of a third party.
>>
>>> and one more note:
>>> Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal to the ASF and the OpenOffice project.
>>> If, however, there are single points that are contentious, then the PMC must first represent the interests of OpenOffice.
>> Not true. I am a Member of the Apache Software Foundation. That is just like a shareholder. For me that comes first. Then come PMC memberships and AOO is but one of mine.
>>
>> In all this discussion please keep in mind that the ASF is a nonprofit and must not play favorites with anyone whether individual or corporation.
>>
>> The ASF will protect its trademarks and expects that PMC does so.
>>
>> If by negotiation there was some way the AOO project proposed funding for third parties to the ASF many questions would need to be answered including keeping the arrangement open to others, allocation of funds, auditing etc. This would be expensive. So, you can see that it just does not happen.
>>
>> A clear separation between the third party and the ASF and the project MUST be kept.
>>
>> I am ALL for a third party. Any developers and other employees/volunteers from that group who demonstrate merit here would have my support for committer status.
>>
>> A third party might have a distribution powered by Apache OpenOffice. That could solicit. The project could decide to use a Powered By verification as a way to validate the downstream.
>>
>> Something like that could work. It is close to the status quo.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Jan 20, 2017, at 3:38 AM, Jörg Schmidt <***@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:***@gmail.com]
>>>> But in my eyes we need a way to ensure project health and
>>>> turn towards
>>>> the community we have. We were last year at the edge of project
>>>> retirement. We are slowly fighting our way out by pure
>>>> voluntary work of
>>>> people that belive in the market name Open Office.
>>> +1
>>>
>>>> I think LibreOffice are to a certain degree correct. The ASF is not
>>>> capable to do the Project Open Office at this Point. The structure of
>>>> Libre Office is a much more healthy one for the kind of Project
>>>> Libre/Open Office is.
>>> Yes, unfortunately, the relevant criticism of LO is correct.
>>>
>>> But one thing should be quite clear:
>>> The solution is not to join LO, but the solution is: we need to improve ourselves.
>>>
>>>> However I think we can build a similar powerfull structure if
>>>> not more
>>>> powerfull. At the same time we must walk in Sync with the ASF.
>>> +1
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter has said a lot about what I find right.
>>>
>>> Likewise, I believe that it is necessary to use time to clarify these things, even if this time is initially missing for the programming.
>>> The point is, the better structures will improve our efficiency in the long run.
>>>
>>>
>>> and one more note:
>>> Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal to the ASF and the OpenOffice project.
>>> If, however, there are single points that are contentious, then the PMC must first represent the interests of OpenOffice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Jörg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-21 11:47:54 UTC
Permalink
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:***@comcast.net]

> Go ahead, but you are missing my point. Managing money like
> you propose is not something Apache Members want to do.

Ok, clear.

I myself will continue to try to convince, so this opinion changes.

> Having a good working relationship with a third party is
> something the ASF does all the time.

OK, but: I have no great interest in a third party, I want to help improve the original (=OpenOffice).


But a question:
Is it right that the ASF would _absolutely not accept_ an incubator project which is the goal of running crowfunding to pay developers to develop OpenOffice? I mean an incubator project, which might be called "Apache Developers for OpenOffice".

Please note: This is not a concrete plan, but I would like a response if this way is completely excluded.


Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Dennis E. Hamilton
2017-01-21 20:48:44 UTC
Permalink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:***@j-m-schmidt.de]
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 03:48
> To: ***@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
>
>
> > From: Dave Fisher [mailto:***@comcast.net]
>
> > Go ahead, but you are missing my point. Managing money like
> > you propose is not something Apache Members want to do.
>
> Ok, clear.
>
> I myself will continue to try to convince, so this opinion changes.
>
> > Having a good working relationship with a third party is
> > something the ASF does all the time.
>
> OK, but: I have no great interest in a third party, I want to help
> improve the original (=OpenOffice).
>
>
> But a question:
> Is it right that the ASF would _absolutely not accept_ an incubator
> project which is the goal of running crowfunding to pay developers to
> develop OpenOffice? I mean an incubator project, which might be called
> "Apache Developers for OpenOffice".
[orcmid]

Apache Projects all produce software free to the public. Nothing more. Coming into the Incubator means operating under the Incubator PMC with an existing *software* project that can stand on its feet better as part of Apache Community.

I think it is appropriate to find the simplest thing that can possibly work.

I recommend following Raphael's recommendation. If at least that can work, then one has a foundation for something.


>
> Please note: This is not a concrete plan, but I would like a response if
> this way is completely excluded.
>
>
> Jörg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-21 21:16:43 UTC
Permalink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:***@apache.org]

> Apache Projects all produce software free to the public.
> Nothing more.

Is a office-programming-projekt under Apache Licence not a free project?

> Coming into the Incubator means operating
> under the Incubator PMC with an existing *software* project
> that can stand on its feet better as part of Apache Community.

yes, clear

> I think it is appropriate to find the simplest thing that can
> possibly work.
>
> I recommend following Raphael's recommendation.

Sorry, but my interest is the original (= Openoffice) and no third party project.

I do not think the ASF would allow a crowd funding campaign for AOO <TM> and a crowd funding campaign war Raphaels suggestion.

> If at least
> that can work, then one has a foundation for something.

Yes, for a third party project ... for that I have no interest.



My summary is:
I am absolutely incomprehensible why in an Apache project always to point to the way out of a third party project, instead of thinking about developing own rules further.

If we continue to do so, we will weaken the "OpenOffice" brand, although we should strengthen this brand.


Greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Raphael Bircher
2017-01-21 23:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Hi J=F6rg

Am .01.2017, 22:16 Uhr, schrieb J=F6rg Schmidt <***@j-m-schmidt.de>:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:***@apache.org]
>
>> Apache Projects all produce software free to the public.
>> Nothing more.
>
> Is a office-programming-projekt under Apache Licence not a free projec=
t?
>
>> Coming into the Incubator means operating
>> under the Incubator PMC with an existing *software* project
>> that can stand on its feet better as part of Apache Community.
>
> yes, clear
>
>> I think it is appropriate to find the simplest thing that can
>> possibly work.
>>
>> I recommend following Raphael's recommendation.
>
> Sorry, but my interest is the original (=3D Openoffice) and no third p=
arty =

> project.
>
> I do not think the ASF would allow a crowd funding campaign for AOO <T=
M> =

> and a crowd funding campaign war Raphaels suggestion.
>
>> If at least
>> that can work, then one has a foundation for something.
>
> Yes, for a third party project ... for that I have no interest.

You got here something wrong. It's not needed to make a fork. You can do=
=

the whole work at Apache OpenOffice. You have only to follow the =

Development guide lines of OpenOffice. But that's not a problem I think.=


The only thing that has to be done outside ASF is the founding. And you =
=

don't collect Money for OpenOffice itself. You collect money to develop =
=

some features or to fix a list of bugs. This is a small bat important =

difference. And you collect the money not as the ASF or Apache OpenOffic=
e, =

you collect it as an individual.

The development will go the ordinary way. there is no difference between=
=

paid work and volunteered work.

Regards, Raphael


-- =

Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Dr. Michael Stehmann
2017-01-22 07:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

IMO Raphael's suggestion will work under Apache rules. It is normal that
developers of Apache projects are paid by companies etc. to contribute
to the project.

Whether Raphael`s plan will work as a "business model", we will see.

Kind regards
Michael
Matthias Seidel
2017-01-22 08:24:31 UTC
Permalink
It CAN work!
Indeed it does in an even smaller community for several years...

We should have a talk together with Raphael and Peter at FOSDEM 17.

Kind regards

Matthias


Am 22.01.2017 um 08:26 schrieb Dr. Michael Stehmann:
> Hi,
>
> IMO Raphael's suggestion will work under Apache rules. It is normal that
> developers of Apache projects are paid by companies etc. to contribute
> to the project.
>
> Whether Raphael`s plan will work as a "business model", we will see.
>
> Kind regards
> Michael
>
>
Peter Kovacs
2017-01-23 10:10:46 UTC
Permalink
+1, yeah we should talk in person.
You can always only build communities by meeting.

Matthias Seidel <***@hamburg.de> schrieb am So., 22. Jan. 2017,
09:25:

> It CAN work!
> Indeed it does in an even smaller community for several years...
>
> We should have a talk together with Raphael and Peter at FOSDEM 17.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Matthias
>
>
> Am 22.01.2017 um 08:26 schrieb Dr. Michael Stehmann:
> > Hi,
> >
> > IMO Raphael's suggestion will work under Apache rules. It is normal that
> > developers of Apache projects are paid by companies etc. to contribute
> > to the project.
> >
> > Whether Raphael`s plan will work as a "business model", we will see.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Michael
> >
> >
>
>
> --

Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprÃŒft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wÃŒnschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-22 10:28:37 UTC
Permalink
> From: Matthias Seidel [mailto:***@hamburg.de]

> It CAN work!

Yes. But it takes very good ideas to have success.

> We should have a talk together with Raphael and Peter at FOSDEM 17.

Talking together is always good



Greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-22 10:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Hallo Raphael,

> From: Raphael Bircher [mailto:***@gmail.com]

> You got here something wrong. It's not needed to make a fork.
> You can do
> the whole work at Apache OpenOffice. You have only to follow the
> Development guide lines of OpenOffice. But that's not a
> problem I think.
>
> The only thing that has to be done outside ASF is the
> founding. And you
> don't collect Money for OpenOffice itself. You collect money
> to develop
> some features or to fix a list of bugs. This is a small bat
> important
> difference. And you collect the money not as the ASF or
> Apache OpenOffice,
> you collect it as an individual.

Yes, that is correctly described.
And so I have a problem, because it means sailing under the wrong flag.

At least that is _my_ opinion. Opinion - no question of right or wrong.

> The development will go the ordinary way. there is no
> difference between
> paid work and volunteered work.

I think there is a difference. When users pay for programming, they have a right
to be programmed for what they pay for.

But how do you guarantee that if the whole process does not take place in the
project? What if the AOO community specific programmed features contradicts?



By the way:
What is your personal opinion as a AOO-PMC member? Does your loyalty first
OpenOffice or Apache?

My problem is that I still until recently believed that all AOO-PMC members are
loyal to OpenOffice, but Dave's statement makes me thoughtful.



Greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-22 10:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:***@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]

> IMO Raphael's suggestion will work under Apache rules. It is
> normal that
> developers of Apache projects are paid by companies etc. to contribute
> to the project.

I have no doubt about that.

But is this the best way? Why are we not ready to expand rules when they brake us?


> Whether Raphael`s plan will work as a "business model", we will see.

This is concretely _especially_ Raphaels thing.

Please understand me correctly, I fear Raphael believes he must convince us, but
he must convince the market, must convince the sponsors.
Personally, I do not have a plan _for this_, so I can not help Raphael.


Greetings,
Jörg



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Dennis E. Hamilton
2017-01-22 21:20:01 UTC
Permalink
I am puzzled a little bit about the idea of "loyalty to the original" OpenOffice.

1. The original OpenOffice.org was operated by a proprietary company, although the code was made available as open-source. But ownership was held by Sun Microsystems for their proprietary purposes. There was great value to OpenOffice.org, but not so much because it was open-source. I think key benefits were support for ODF format, multiple-platform support, and degree of support for Microsoft formats. There was no open-source governance in this arrangement.

When LibreOffice forked that code, as the license allowed, some were unhappy in any case.

2. When Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems, OpenOffice.org became their property in the same manner as at Sun.

3. When Oracle concluded that continuation of OpenOffice.org was not in their interests, they chose to grant the ASF a license to use the code base and to provide it under a license of the ASF's choosing (always Apache License of course). This is how Apache OpenOffice arose. AOO became Apache Project after being in Apache Incubator. People interested in supporting OpenOffice.org signed-up to contribute to the incubator and some formed the original Project Management Committee for AOO. AOO has always been an Apache Project.

What "original OpenOffice" is thought of here?

- Dennis



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:***@j-m-schmidt.de]
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 13:17
> To: ***@openoffice.apache.org; ***@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:***@apache.org]
>
> > Apache Projects all produce software free to the public.
> > Nothing more.
>
> Is a office-programming-projekt under Apache Licence not a free project?
>
> > Coming into the Incubator means operating
> > under the Incubator PMC with an existing *software* project
> > that can stand on its feet better as part of Apache Community.
>
> yes, clear
>
> > I think it is appropriate to find the simplest thing that can
> > possibly work.
> >
> > I recommend following Raphael's recommendation.
>
> Sorry, but my interest is the original (= Openoffice) and no third party
> project.
>
> I do not think the ASF would allow a crowd funding campaign for AOO <TM>
> and a crowd funding campaign war Raphaels suggestion.
>
> > If at least
> > that can work, then one has a foundation for something.
>
> Yes, for a third party project ... for that I have no interest.
>
>
>
> My summary is:
> I am absolutely incomprehensible why in an Apache project always to
> point to the way out of a third party project, instead of thinking about
> developing own rules further.
>
> If we continue to do so, we will weaken the "OpenOffice" brand, although
> we should strengthen this brand.
>
>
> Greetings,
> Jörg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Mathias Röllig
2017-01-22 21:38:33 UTC
Permalink
> I am puzzled a little bit about the idea of "loyalty to the original"
> OpenOffice.
>
> 1. The original OpenOffice.org was operated by a proprietary company,
> although the code was made available as open-source. But ownership
> was held by Sun Microsystems for their proprietary purposes. There
> was great value to OpenOffice.org, but not so much because it was
> open-source. I think key benefits were support for ODF format,
> multiple-platform support, and degree of support for Microsoft
> formats. There was no open-source governance in this arrangement.
>
> When LibreOffice forked that code, as the license allowed, some were
> unhappy in any case.
>
> 2. When Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems, OpenOffice.org became their
> property in the same manner as at Sun.
>
> 3. When Oracle concluded that continuation of OpenOffice.org was not
> in their interests, they chose to grant the ASF a license to use the
> code base and to provide it under a license of the ASF's choosing
> (always Apache License of course). This is how Apache OpenOffice
> arose. AOO became Apache Project after being in Apache Incubator.
> People interested in supporting OpenOffice.org signed-up to
> contribute to the incubator and some formed the original Project
> Management Committee for AOO. AOO has always been an Apache
> Project.
>
> What "original OpenOffice" is thought of here?

The „original“ was StarOffice. And yes, you described right the way of
the „original“ OpenOffice – as I understand it as a user (with many
contacts to StarDivision/Sun/Oracle) using StarOffice/OpenOffice for
over 20 years.

Regards, Mathias

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-22 23:23:12 UTC
Permalink
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:***@apache.org]

> I am puzzled a little bit about the idea of "loyalty to the
> original" OpenOffice.
>
> 1. The original OpenOffice.org was operated by a proprietary
> company, although the code was made available as open-source.
> But ownership was held by Sun Microsystems for their
> proprietary purposes. There was great value to
> OpenOffice.org, but not so much because it was open-source.
> I think key benefits were support for ODF format,
> multiple-platform support, and degree of support for
> Microsoft formats. There was no open-source governance in
> this arrangement.
>
> When LibreOffice forked that code, as the license
> allowed, some were unhappy in any case.
>
> 2. When Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems, OpenOffice.org
> became their property in the same manner as at Sun.
>
> 3. When Oracle concluded that continuation of OpenOffice.org
> was not in their interests, they chose to grant the ASF a
> license to use the code base and to provide it under a
> license of the ASF's choosing (always Apache License of
> course). This is how Apache OpenOffice arose. AOO became
> Apache Project after being in Apache Incubator. People
> interested in supporting OpenOffice.org signed-up to
> contribute to the incubator and some formed the original
> Project Management Committee for AOO. AOO has always been an
> Apache Project.
>
> What "original OpenOffice" is thought of here?

This is simply the current OpenOffice, under a free license, no matter who owns the name rights.

The owners of the name rights (Sun, Orcle, Apache) come and go, but OpenOffice remains.



Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-22 23:35:18 UTC
Permalink
> From: Mathias Röllig [mailto:***@gmx.net]

> > What "original OpenOffice" is thought of here?
>
> The „original“ was StarOffice. And yes, you described right
> the way of
> the „original“ OpenOffice – as I understand it as a user (with many
> contacts to StarDivision/Sun/Oracle) using StarOffice/OpenOffice for
> over 20 years.

StarOffice was StarOffice (and original), but the story of the "original OpenOffice" begins formally with OOo 1.0.0. At least that's what _I_ mean by "original OpenOffice".

And _maybe_ I would say that the "original StarOffice" was only the StarOffice to version 5.2 and the StarOffice from 6.0 is a new generation of StarOffice.


Jörg



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
toki
2017-01-23 02:00:57 UTC
Permalink
On 01/22/2017 09:20 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> When LibreOffice forked that code, as the license allowed, some were unhappy in any case.

The sequence was:
* Star Office: Owned by StarDivision, a German corporation;

* Sun Office & OpenOffice.org: Acquired by Sun, INC. as a result of
purchasing StarDivision;

* NeoOffice: One man operation. A fork from OpenOffice.Org, to provide
that software on the Mac OS. This program limps on;

* OpenOffice Professional: One man operation. A fork of OpenOffice.org
that contributed code upstream. The focus was including extensions,
templates, and other things that OOo either couldn't, or wouldn't include;

* GoOo: The fork that wasn't. This was the version of OpenOffice.org,
that was distributed on Linux systems. This is where most of the
original LibreOffice code originated;

* EuroOffice: Owned by MultiRáció (^2). This started life as a
commercially supported fork of OOo 3.0. Since then, its code base has
wandered between GoOo OOo, AOo, and LibO. As appropriate, it has
contributed code upstream. Currently, it is focused on the Android platform.

* Symphony: IBM's reincarnation of their desktop office suite. This was
OOo with code that provided better integration with other IBM software
solutions;

* Oracle Office: Oracle, INC. purchased Sun, INC. As a consequence,
Oracle acquired both SunOffice, and OpenOffice.org;

* LibreOffice: After years of increasing frustration with Oracle's
active neglect, a group of developers formed The Document Foundation, to
create LibreOffice;

* CollabreOffice: Owned by Collabra, this fork focuses upon the SMB and
larger corporate market;

* Apache OpenOffice: Roughly a year after TDF was created, Oracle, with
the help of IBM, forced (^1) The Apache Software Foundation to accept
OpenOffice.org. IBM developers merge Symphony code into Apache OpenOffice;

*Android Open Office: This is a fork of Apache OpenOffice, for the
Android operating system. In theory, bug fixes, and the like are sent
upstream to Apache OpenOffice;

> What "original OpenOffice" is thought of here?

Probably StarOffice 1.0, albeit the code base of StarOffice 6.0 bore no
code from that version. OTOH, it might be the first public release of
OpenOffice.org, which, IIRC, was OOo 0.9.1

^1: In going through the code acceptance policies of projects that have
graduated from the Incubator, OOo consistently checked the boxes that
raised red flags, suggesting that the code should not be accepted by the
project. Furthermore, there is also the issue that OOo is
consumer/end-user oriented, whilst all the other Apache projects are
either developer or infrastructure orientated.

^2: If I got the name wrong, blame the corporate website
(http://www.multiracio.com ) for inconsistent spelling of its name.

jonathon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Dr. Michael Stehmann
2017-01-23 05:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Am 23.01.2017 um 03:00 schrieb toki:
> On 01/22/2017 09:20 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> When LibreOffice forked that code, as the license allowed, some were unhappy in any case.
>
> The sequence was:
> * Star Office: Owned by StarDivision, a German corporation;

AFAIK the story started with Star Writer.

Kind regards
Michael
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-23 05:21:37 UTC
Permalink
> From: toki [mailto:***@gmail.com]

> * GoOo: The fork that wasn't.

Oh, that was a fork! A fork against OpenOffice. Let's not forget the involvement of Novell and the Novell-Microsoft-deal.

I will never forget how Michael Meek's SUN and OpenOffice.org attacked and later his attacks against Apache OpenOffice and Rob Weir.



Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Simon Phipps
2017-01-23 10:30:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Jörg Schmidt <***@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:

>
> > From: toki [mailto:***@gmail.com]
>
> > * GoOo: The fork that wasn't.
>
> Oh, that was a fork! A fork against OpenOffice.
>

In fact Go-OO was started by Ximian in 2003, long before Novell bought
them, as a convenient build system for developers not working within Sun.
The difficulty of getting the Sun team to accept patches, and the
complexity of the Sun build system, meant that most developers external to
Sun used Go-OO as their repository.

There were indeed strong words spoken by many people (including me on Sun's
behalf) but for the most part Go-OO maintained its role as a downstream
convenience for non-Sun contributors and played a positive role developing
a developer community around the code. I think we would all be well served
by dropping the decade-old hostility to it at this point.

S.
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-25 08:07:41 UTC
Permalink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Phipps [mailto:***@webmink.com]


> In fact Go-OO was started by Ximian in 2003, long before Novell bought
> them, as a convenient build system for developers not working
> within Sun.
> The difficulty of getting the Sun team to accept patches, and the
> complexity of the Sun build system, meant that most
> developers external to
> Sun used Go-OO as their repository.
>
> There were indeed strong words spoken by many people
> (including me on Sun's
> behalf) but for the most part Go-OO maintained its role as a
> downstream
> convenience for non-Sun contributors and played a positive
> role developing
> a developer community around the code. I think we would all
> be well served
> by dropping the decade-old hostility to it at this point.

For me, the one who is working against OpenOffice, or members of the OpenOffice community offended, an opponent of OpenOffice.

I will never forgive what Michael Meeks said against OpenOffice! No way


Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Dennis E. Hamilton
2017-01-27 19:04:14 UTC
Permalink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:***@j-m-schmidt.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 00:08
> To: ***@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Phipps [mailto:***@webmink.com]
>
>
> > In fact Go-OO was started by Ximian in 2003, long before Novell bought
> > them, as a convenient build system for developers not working
> > within Sun.
> > The difficulty of getting the Sun team to accept patches, and the
> > complexity of the Sun build system, meant that most
> > developers external to
> > Sun used Go-OO as their repository.
> >
> > There were indeed strong words spoken by many people
> > (including me on Sun's
> > behalf) but for the most part Go-OO maintained its role as a
> > downstream
> > convenience for non-Sun contributors and played a positive
> > role developing
> > a developer community around the code. I think we would all
> > be well served
> > by dropping the decade-old hostility to it at this point.
>
> For me, the one who is working against OpenOffice, or members of the
> OpenOffice community offended, an opponent of OpenOffice.
>
> I will never forgive what Michael Meeks said against OpenOffice! No way
>
>
> Jörg
[orcmid]

Let me confirm my understanding of what I know of the friction.

The Ximian/Novell developers could not contribute significant improvements without providing copyright transfer to Sun Microsystems. And that would have permitted Sun to use the contribution in their own *closed-source* released and to license OpenOffice.org code to others for production of *closed-source*, non-FOSS releases. For example, the IBM Symphony software.

And for this, you fault those (by then Novell) contributors being very unhappy with the arrangement and refusing to enter into such agreements. Instead, they worked toward their own license-faithful fork of the LGPL code, ultimately the LibreOffice one?

While there was much heat, I don't think Sun was pure in this matter. Not by any means. Whatever the case, when Apache OpenOffice was founded, it was as an Apache Project, not any other kind. The "original" that you speak of exists no longer.


- Dennis

PS: It is an interesting irony that Sun (and then Oracle) having secured those rights is what made it possible to contribute OpenOffice.org to Apache without requiring agreement of contributors. This allowed rebasing of LibreOffice for the same reason for MPL-licensed distributions based on the Apache-licensed source.


>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Louis Suárez-Potts
2017-01-27 20:33:05 UTC
Permalink
> On 2017-01-27, at 14:04, Dennis E. Hamilton <***@apache.org> wrote:
>
> While there was much heat, I don't think Sun was pure in this matter. Not by any means. Whatever the case, when Apache OpenOffice was founded, it was as an Apache Project, not any other kind. The "original" that you speak of exists no longer.

Indeed.
Which tabula rasa state could lead us to imagine a more collaborative world.

louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Dennis E. Hamilton
2017-01-21 01:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Dave Fisher has posted a valuable comment while I was writing this. I completely support his views on this topic.

In addition, it seems to me that you propose a change in how the ASF itself works.

This is not the place to do that.

I suggest you take such discussion to the ***@community.apache.org mailing list.

In addition, even though there is a complaint about it such thing, this proposal is also a case of wanting someone [else] to do something. That will never get anywhere here.

Any collection of funds for targeted purposes and then commitments to delivering on those targets is *not* going to happen here. That is a business activity, whether or not there is profit. Members of the ASF board have already stated while that will not be done.

More in-line.

Again, I do not speak for the ASF or the AOO PMC. I do notice that, although members of the PMC have also participated in this list discussion, I see no consideration on the part of the PMC itself.

- Dennis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:***@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 16:16
> To: ***@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
>
> Hmm, the discussion moves in a wrong direction, with wrong assumptions.
> I am against a status quo solution. For me status quo directly transfers
> to nothing happens.
>
> I am not talking of creating one Investor that provides Money. I aim at
> mobilizing as much as possible Open Office users has as Investors.
>
> What I propose is a open crowd infrastructure. I do not believe Apache
> is capable of this, today. I do believe this is a near future, game
> changing model in general.
>
>
> For me the model should respect:
>
> # Fundraising itself is neutral (i.e. funds are not raised for
> developers but for tasks / actions)
>
> # nonprofit (Funds are not ment to provide any profit to the
> organisation itself and are bound by activity. investor decided on.)
[orcmid]

The ASF is not *just* a non-profit organization. It is a *charity*. As part of being a charity, there is no "investor," only contributors, and contributors might be able to target contributions to some area, there will not be delivering activities chosen by investors. It is unimaginable. You have to find a means that does not involve the ASF or any ASF project in such an arrangement.

>
> # Openess of the Infra (other Apache Project have acces to the same
> infra if they whish.)
[orcmid]

Now you are proposing a different support and arrangement of Apache Infrastructure. That is too ill-defined and would not be the prerogative of a PMC anyhow.
>
> # Openess in the community ( the funds on a task is open to all
> commiters if they manage to satisfy the requirement for a payout.)
[orcmid]

Again, this is not going to happen. It is a form of commerce and the ASF considers this to be completely incompatible with its charter and mission in everything I can find.
>
>
> This is just a rough outline, so you understand the direction (vision) I
> am thinking. Also please note that a lot question have to be answered.
> This is maybe 1% of a business plan.
>
> I try to make a graph on the weekend. However I am not sure if I manage
> this on the weekend. (Thats why I have asked Raphael to give his
> vision).
>
>
> I do not see any reason why this cannot be done by Apache itseslf. Also
> One or more 3rd Party supplier can provide the Infra in full or in
> parts. For me this question is an issue we need to deal with at a later
> stage. And I stress this point: It needs to happen in sync with Apache.
> A crowd funding community is a dragon. And as Dragons are, they can be
> difficult in times. You do well to be prepared.
>
> I hope all are at least courious and support this with their hopes and
> fears. It would be so powerfull if we can make this work.
[orcmid]

The *only* way to embark on this is to see how to create an external entity that arranges contributions to ASF Projects.

You should find a way to do that. You must find people willing to contribute much effort. And people providing funds must have confidence in dealing with that entity. Changing the charter of the ASF is the wrong way around.

If no one steps forward, then that shows this opportunity is not a constructive one.

In the past, some people offered to make small donations (smaller that $50 USD). That is not effective.

Another time, crowd funding and creation of a Kickstarter was discussed. No one did that.

And last year, a conversation about an organization that could fund work was introduced. No action occurred.

This conversation has continued over one week, and there are no actions.

Perhaps the details that Peter Kovacs will produce something that others can work on.

I assure you, the way ahead is not by expecting the ASF to somehow do the work. It is contributors to ASF Projects that do work. All volunteers. *Volunteers* If no one volunteers and takes steps, you have your answer.

And Dave Fisher is correct. The AOO PMC is accountable to the ASF. While it should and does reflect the larger community, it cannot act outside of the ASF structure, even if some contributors (and maybe PMC members) prefer otherwise.

- Dennis
>
>
> Stay agile, keep Chalanging
>
> Peter
>
> On 20.01.2017 22:56, Dave Fisher wrote:
> > Hi -
> >
> > Read to the bottom. Don't mistake my opposition to the following
> statement as opposition to a way forward to funding of a third party.
> >
> >> and one more note:
> >> Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal to the ASF
> and the OpenOffice project.
> >> If, however, there are single points that are contentious, then the
> PMC must first represent the interests of OpenOffice.
> > Not true. I am a Member of the Apache Software Foundation. That is
> just like a shareholder. For me that comes first. Then come PMC
> memberships and AOO is but one of mine.
> >
> > In all this discussion please keep in mind that the ASF is a nonprofit
> and must not play favorites with anyone whether individual or
> corporation.
> >
> > The ASF will protect its trademarks and expects that PMC does so.
> >
> > If by negotiation there was some way the AOO project proposed funding
> for third parties to the ASF many questions would need to be answered
> including keeping the arrangement open to others, allocation of funds,
> auditing etc. This would be expensive. So, you can see that it just does
> not happen.
> >
> > A clear separation between the third party and the ASF and the project
> MUST be kept.
> >
> > I am ALL for a third party. Any developers and other
> employees/volunteers from that group who demonstrate merit here would
> have my support for committer status.
> >
> > A third party might have a distribution powered by Apache OpenOffice.
> That could solicit. The project could decide to use a Powered By
> verification as a way to validate the downstream.
> >
> > Something like that could work. It is close to the status quo.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Jan 20, 2017, at 3:38 AM, Jörg Schmidt <***@j-m-schmidt.de>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:***@gmail.com]
> >>> But in my eyes we need a way to ensure project health and
> >>> turn towards
> >>> the community we have. We were last year at the edge of project
> >>> retirement. We are slowly fighting our way out by pure
> >>> voluntary work of
> >>> people that belive in the market name Open Office.
> >> +1
> >>
> >>> I think LibreOffice are to a certain degree correct. The ASF is not
> >>> capable to do the Project Open Office at this Point. The structure
> of
> >>> Libre Office is a much more healthy one for the kind of Project
> >>> Libre/Open Office is.
> >> Yes, unfortunately, the relevant criticism of LO is correct.
> >>
> >> But one thing should be quite clear:
> >> The solution is not to join LO, but the solution is: we need to
> improve ourselves.
> >>
> >>> However I think we can build a similar powerfull structure if
> >>> not more
> >>> powerfull. At the same time we must walk in Sync with the ASF.
> >> +1
> >>
> >>
> >> Peter has said a lot about what I find right.
> >>
> >> Likewise, I believe that it is necessary to use time to clarify these
> things, even if this time is initially missing for the programming.
> >> The point is, the better structures will improve our efficiency in
> the long run.
> >>
> >>
> >> and one more note:
> >> Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal to the ASF
> and the OpenOffice project.
> >> If, however, there are single points that are contentious, then the
> PMC must first represent the interests of OpenOffice.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Greetings,
> >> Jörg
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Peter Kovacs
2017-01-21 09:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Dave and Dennis for the explanations. I did not consider it this way.
I hope I did not upset you in any ways. I am sorry, I have started to talk
ahead without profound research. I will have to think about it.
This might sound strange but I agree with you.

@Dave can you name one of this group you refer to?

I would like to learn how they have build their project organisation. If
they have such structures they might be close to what AOO needs.

Also I will check out the mailing list. Maybe I can get an insight on how
community build within Apache Foundation is done. I think I have the wrong
picture here.

And while I am at it, is there a picture how our community currently works?

Thanks for all your time. I appreciate you efforts!

All the best
Peter

Dennis E. Hamilton <***@apache.org> schrieb am Sa., 21. Jan. 2017, 02:20:

> Dave Fisher has posted a valuable comment while I was writing this. I
> completely support his views on this topic.
>
> In addition, it seems to me that you propose a change in how the ASF
> itself works.
>
> This is not the place to do that.
>
> I suggest you take such discussion to the ***@community.apache.org
> mailing list.
>
> In addition, even though there is a complaint about it such thing, this
> proposal is also a case of wanting someone [else] to do something. That
> will never get anywhere here.
>
> Any collection of funds for targeted purposes and then commitments to
> delivering on those targets is *not* going to happen here. That is a
> business activity, whether or not there is profit. Members of the ASF
> board have already stated while that will not be done.
>
> More in-line.
>
> Again, I do not speak for the ASF or the AOO PMC. I do notice that,
> although members of the PMC have also participated in this list discussion,
> I see no consideration on the part of the PMC itself.
>
> - Dennis
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:***@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 16:16
> > To: ***@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
> >
> > Hmm, the discussion moves in a wrong direction, with wrong assumptions.
> > I am against a status quo solution. For me status quo directly transfers
> > to nothing happens.
> >
> > I am not talking of creating one Investor that provides Money. I aim at
> > mobilizing as much as possible Open Office users has as Investors.
> >
> > What I propose is a open crowd infrastructure. I do not believe Apache
> > is capable of this, today. I do believe this is a near future, game
> > changing model in general.
> >
> >
> > For me the model should respect:
> >
> > # Fundraising itself is neutral (i.e. funds are not raised for
> > developers but for tasks / actions)
> >
> > # nonprofit (Funds are not ment to provide any profit to the
> > organisation itself and are bound by activity. investor decided on.)
> [orcmid]
>
> The ASF is not *just* a non-profit organization. It is a *charity*. As
> part of being a charity, there is no "investor," only contributors, and
> contributors might be able to target contributions to some area, there will
> not be delivering activities chosen by investors. It is unimaginable. You
> have to find a means that does not involve the ASF or any ASF project in
> such an arrangement.
>
> >
> > # Openess of the Infra (other Apache Project have acces to the same
> > infra if they whish.)
> [orcmid]
>
> Now you are proposing a different support and arrangement of Apache
> Infrastructure. That is too ill-defined and would not be the prerogative
> of a PMC anyhow.
> >
> > # Openess in the community ( the funds on a task is open to all
> > commiters if they manage to satisfy the requirement for a payout.)
> [orcmid]
>
> Again, this is not going to happen. It is a form of commerce and the ASF
> considers this to be completely incompatible with its charter and mission
> in everything I can find.
> >
> >
> > This is just a rough outline, so you understand the direction (vision) I
> > am thinking. Also please note that a lot question have to be answered.
> > This is maybe 1% of a business plan.
> >
> > I try to make a graph on the weekend. However I am not sure if I manage
> > this on the weekend. (Thats why I have asked Raphael to give his
> > vision).
> >
> >
> > I do not see any reason why this cannot be done by Apache itseslf. Also
> > One or more 3rd Party supplier can provide the Infra in full or in
> > parts. For me this question is an issue we need to deal with at a later
> > stage. And I stress this point: It needs to happen in sync with Apache.
> > A crowd funding community is a dragon. And as Dragons are, they can be
> > difficult in times. You do well to be prepared.
> >
> > I hope all are at least courious and support this with their hopes and
> > fears. It would be so powerfull if we can make this work.
> [orcmid]
>
> The *only* way to embark on this is to see how to create an external
> entity that arranges contributions to ASF Projects.
>
> You should find a way to do that. You must find people willing to
> contribute much effort. And people providing funds must have confidence in
> dealing with that entity. Changing the charter of the ASF is the wrong way
> around.
>
> If no one steps forward, then that shows this opportunity is not a
> constructive one.
>
> In the past, some people offered to make small donations (smaller that $50
> USD). That is not effective.
>
> Another time, crowd funding and creation of a Kickstarter was discussed.
> No one did that.
>
> And last year, a conversation about an organization that could fund work
> was introduced. No action occurred.
>
> This conversation has continued over one week, and there are no actions.
>
> Perhaps the details that Peter Kovacs will produce something that others
> can work on.
>
> I assure you, the way ahead is not by expecting the ASF to somehow do the
> work. It is contributors to ASF Projects that do work. All volunteers.
> *Volunteers* If no one volunteers and takes steps, you have your answer.
>
> And Dave Fisher is correct. The AOO PMC is accountable to the ASF. While
> it should and does reflect the larger community, it cannot act outside of
> the ASF structure, even if some contributors (and maybe PMC members) prefer
> otherwise.
>
> - Dennis
> >
> >
> > Stay agile, keep Chalanging
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > On 20.01.2017 22:56, Dave Fisher wrote:
> > > Hi -
> > >
> > > Read to the bottom. Don't mistake my opposition to the following
> > statement as opposition to a way forward to funding of a third party.
> > >
> > >> and one more note:
> > >> Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal to the ASF
> > and the OpenOffice project.
> > >> If, however, there are single points that are contentious, then the
> > PMC must first represent the interests of OpenOffice.
> > > Not true. I am a Member of the Apache Software Foundation. That is
> > just like a shareholder. For me that comes first. Then come PMC
> > memberships and AOO is but one of mine.
> > >
> > > In all this discussion please keep in mind that the ASF is a nonprofit
> > and must not play favorites with anyone whether individual or
> > corporation.
> > >
> > > The ASF will protect its trademarks and expects that PMC does so.
> > >
> > > If by negotiation there was some way the AOO project proposed funding
> > for third parties to the ASF many questions would need to be answered
> > including keeping the arrangement open to others, allocation of funds,
> > auditing etc. This would be expensive. So, you can see that it just does
> > not happen.
> > >
> > > A clear separation between the third party and the ASF and the project
> > MUST be kept.
> > >
> > > I am ALL for a third party. Any developers and other
> > employees/volunteers from that group who demonstrate merit here would
> > have my support for committer status.
> > >
> > > A third party might have a distribution powered by Apache OpenOffice.
> > That could solicit. The project could decide to use a Powered By
> > verification as a way to validate the downstream.
> > >
> > > Something like that could work. It is close to the status quo.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > >> On Jan 20, 2017, at 3:38 AM, Jörg Schmidt <***@j-m-schmidt.de>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:***@gmail.com]
> > >>> But in my eyes we need a way to ensure project health and
> > >>> turn towards
> > >>> the community we have. We were last year at the edge of project
> > >>> retirement. We are slowly fighting our way out by pure
> > >>> voluntary work of
> > >>> people that belive in the market name Open Office.
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >>> I think LibreOffice are to a certain degree correct. The ASF is not
> > >>> capable to do the Project Open Office at this Point. The structure
> > of
> > >>> Libre Office is a much more healthy one for the kind of Project
> > >>> Libre/Open Office is.
> > >> Yes, unfortunately, the relevant criticism of LO is correct.
> > >>
> > >> But one thing should be quite clear:
> > >> The solution is not to join LO, but the solution is: we need to
> > improve ourselves.
> > >>
> > >>> However I think we can build a similar powerfull structure if
> > >>> not more
> > >>> powerfull. At the same time we must walk in Sync with the ASF.
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Peter has said a lot about what I find right.
> > >>
> > >> Likewise, I believe that it is necessary to use time to clarify these
> > things, even if this time is initially missing for the programming.
> > >> The point is, the better structures will improve our efficiency in
> > the long run.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> and one more note:
> > >> Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal to the ASF
> > and the OpenOffice project.
> > >> If, however, there are single points that are contentious, then the
> > PMC must first represent the interests of OpenOffice.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Greetings,
> > >> Jörg
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> > >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>
> --

Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprÃŒft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wÃŒnschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-21 11:20:50 UTC
Permalink
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:***@comcast.net]

> Read to the bottom. Don't mistake my opposition to the
> following statement as opposition to a way forward to funding
> of a third party.
>
> > and one more note:
> > Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal
> to the ASF and the OpenOffice project.
> > If, however, there are single points that are contentious,
> then the PMC must first represent the interests of OpenOffice.
>
> Not true.

Are you clear what the difference is between different opinions and the determination that someone says something untrue?

My opinion is my opinion and not the untruth, because my opinion is not a representation of facts, but only describes what I want or prefer.

> I am a Member of the Apache Software Foundation.
> That is just like a shareholder. For me that comes first.
> Then come PMC memberships and AOO is but one of mine.

OK, I'll remember.

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

Exactly so _I_ see this synonymous and therefore I want the OpenOffice _within_ the ASF Apache is further developed. Others see it differently and I have to accept it.

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

OK.

> A third party might have a distribution powered by Apache
> OpenOffice. That could solicit.

yes, clear ... but:

_Absolutely no interest on my part._

I want help to improve the original (=OpenOffice) and not a software only based on OO. Otherwise, I could also work for LibreOffice.



Greetings
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-20 12:10:43 UTC
Permalink
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:***@apache.org]

> I observe that the Board and the Offices of ASF do not wish
> to deal with hypothetical cases. Exceptions must be specific
> and actionable. Also, exceptions do not create precedents.
> If one project sees something they want as exception for
> them, they must create specific exception of their own. (AOO
> has exception for bundling some writing tools in binaries
> only, not in source code, because licenses are incompatible.
> It is very specific and not a precedent for other projects.
> When details of another exception are worked out, it is often
> revealed that the cases are not the same. The ASF avoids
> common risk of others seeing more "precedent" for their case
> than there actually is.)
>
> It seems to me that if there is a request for some sort of
> external relationship(s), the external parties must already
> exist and be prepared to provide detailed agreement on how it
> will partner with AOO project in a way that preserves the
> principles and purpose of the ASF in how AOO participates in
> the arrangement. This is not hard.
>
> I do not think making exceptions about hypothetical
> arrangements and then seeking external parties will work.
>
> That is why it may be better for external party to be created
> first, operating as good downstream citizen, before requiring
> anything of the AOO PMC and ASF Board. Ideally, no
> significant attention will be required. The only thing
> external entity cannot do, and PMC would have to intervene,
> is make use of Apache trademarks in other than allowed ways.
> Since it is not proposed that the external entity release any
> software product, this should be agreeable.

Yes, you are right, this is an important other perspective of the subject. I had not seen this perspective until now.

> Only my thoughts, not thoughts from any PMC or Board discussion.

Accepted.

But in a specific case, it needed clear statements. That means it has to be clarified which way is the right one.

(A)
first create a concrete external party and then seek the reconciliation with Apache.

or:

(B)
first discuss with AA how such an external party must be constituted and then establish this party.


At the moment I can not say which way I find better. I can see that Dennis personally (A) preferred.


The question is which way does the ASF and the OO PMC prefer?
I think this requires official answers before we can continue the discussion in a goal-oriented manner.



Greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Patricia Shanahan
2017-01-14 12:14:36 UTC
Permalink
We also need to split tasks out into those that primarily need
OpenOffice user skills, and those that require digging deeply into the
implementation code.

In the long term, I think I may be on the leading edge of a major future
source of open software developers - retirees.



On 1/14/2017 12:24 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
> We see in Star citizen how mighty crowd can be.
>
> Maybe a platform would be great where people can pledge money for something
> they need.
> If the needed budget is reached, payed developers implement it.
> Or we could do it as a bonus system. You pledge money on a bug/enhancement,
> if the bug gets included in the release the developers get a payout.
>
> This is just an idea. I am not sure if we can do business within the ASF or
> if we have to found a 3rd party entity for this.
> If we have to go 3rd party I prefer a cooperative society as a legal form.
> https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/social-economy/cooperatives/european-cooperative-society_de
>
> All the best
> Peter
>
> Raphael Bircher <***@gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 14. Jan. 2017,
> 06:32:
>
>> Hi at all
>>
>> If we compare AOO to day with the good old OpenOffice.org Project in 2006,
>> we have now a tiny community. Well, we will be able to maintain the
>> project, make some bugfix and maybe some features too. But we will never
>> track down the work who is in our issue tracker.
>>
>> But surprisingly we have still a very height download number. If you read
>> comments on social media you see, that many are really happy with the
>> programm. The problem is, tat this user simply are looked out from the
>> product development. The Enduser can only watch and pray.
>>
>> While most bigger Apache Projects has a well working business model
>> behind, OpenOffice has nothing. In fact we never cared about it. I believe
>> it's rely time to change this. There are maybe at the moment no big
>> investors, but maybe more individuals who love the idea.
>>
>> I know, we have to stick within the Apache rules, but this should be
>> possible. So let's collect ideas here.
>>
>> Regards, Raphael
>>
>> --
>> Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>> --
>
> Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
> wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
> werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
> Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
> kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
> Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
> konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
> wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
> verhandeln.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
esh1907
2017-01-14 10:53:26 UTC
Permalink
No chance as long as Microsoft is a platinum sponsor of Apache.
The best thing that can happen to wonderful OpenOffice is to ditch Apache
for an independent commercial company.

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Raphael Bircher <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi at all
>
> If we compare AOO to day with the good old OpenOffice.org Project in 2006,
> we have now a tiny community. Well, we will be able to maintain the
> project, make some bugfix and maybe some features too. But we will never
> track down the work who is in our issue tracker.
>
> But surprisingly we have still a very height download number. If you read
> comments on social media you see, that many are really happy with the
> programm. The problem is, tat this user simply are looked out from the
> product development. The Enduser can only watch and pray.
>
> While most bigger Apache Projects has a well working business model
> behind, OpenOffice has nothing. In fact we never cared about it. I believe
> it's rely time to change this. There are maybe at the moment no big
> investors, but maybe more individuals who love the idea.
>
> I know, we have to stick within the Apache rules, but this should be
> possible. So let's collect ideas here.
>
> Regards, Raphael
>
> --
> Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
mabdul
2017-01-14 10:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Hi esh,

On 14.01.2017 11:53, esh1907 wrote:
> No chance as long as Microsoft is a platinum sponsor of Apache.
> The best thing that can happen to wonderful OpenOffice is to ditch Apache
> for an independent commercial company.

Believe me: MS doesn't follow Apache OpenOffice any longer as they know
that in the next ~10 years OpenOffice cannot hurt MS. Moreover they have
switched to a subscription based model (Office365) latetly to secure
their userbase and even increase the earned money by monthly/yearly
subscription fees. ("mobile first, cloud first" is their main model now!)


mabdul





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Hagar Delest
2017-01-15 13:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Le 14/01/2017 à 11:58, mabdul a écrit :
> Believe me: MS doesn't follow Apache OpenOffice any longer as they know
> that in the next ~10 years OpenOffice cannot hurt MS. Moreover they have
> switched to a subscription based model (Office365) latetly to secure
> their userbase and even increase the earned money by monthly/yearly
> subscription fees. ("mobile first, cloud first" is their main model now!)
+1.
I think that the situation was different at the beginning (2001-2010). OOo moved the lines by supporting ODF. It offered users an alternative to vendor lock-in policy. MS Office was also more expansive in those days I think.

Now it's rather different. MS Office (not 365) is not that expansive. The price of a low cost smartphone. And let's face it, the MS Office features are way ahead of AOO. I use both at work but AOO for a limited part of my work. Calc is definitively not viable for work in my case, charting in Excel is really good. Even the Calc user interface is not... user friendly.

So basically, what is the user base? Who should AOO focus on? For a company I doubt the price of MS Office is really a problem (they negotiate fees for sure). Since documents are mostly shared in .docx/.xlsx formats, why bother with applications like AOO/LO that are not fully compatible? Is there any big player willing to invest in something to compete with MS Office to avoid buying it? Doesn't seem very likely.

So AOO is left with households, perhaps very very small companies and education sector. I think that AOO should be the simple choice for schools. It should offer the peace of mind with no license issue, no need of a package full of features not really needed but sold efficiently by MS. No need of permanent internet access, just install it locally.
It should say: here is a rock solid application that can prepare pupils/student to office software. It is not MS Office but there are enough similarities to make it a good tool to learn. Like your driving license: you learn on a car but you can buy something (very) different. You just have to adapt.
If there is something to make clear, it is the effort needed to adapt from AOO to MS Office. I'm not saying it should be a clone but just make the transition as smooth as possible, user point of view.

As long as there is no consensus on the user base or on the purpose of AOO, it will be difficult to set priorities.
I think that LO success is due to the new features because it's a developer oriented project: it's fun, like a big sandbox. But for users, it may be different (for example, we see in the forum a high number of topics about the SAXParse error due to bad .docx export in LO).
Note: even if it takes time to get the direction, any effort to eliminate the major bugs will improve AOO reputation (for example: spell check problem with the user profile and the file content replaced with ####). It should remain the default target of developers.

Another idea: since users like to customize the appearance of their applications, providing a way to easily edit/change the user interface (buttons) could bring back some interest. Like themes in FF/TB.

Hagar
PS: can't bear teachers asking my kids to provide homeworks in .docx/.xlsx.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Guy Waterval
2017-01-15 14:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,

2017-01-15 14:18 GMT+01:00 Hagar Delest <***@gmail.com>:

> Le 14/01/2017 à 11:58, mabdul a écrit :
>
>> Believe me: MS doesn't follow Apache OpenOffice any longer as they know
>> that in the next ~10 years OpenOffice cannot hurt MS. Moreover they have
>> switched to a subscription based model (Office365) latetly to secure
>> their userbase and even increase the earned money by monthly/yearly
>> subscription fees. ("mobile first, cloud first" is their main model now!)
>>
> +1.
>
> [...]

>
> So AOO is left with households, perhaps very very small companies and
> education sector. I think that AOO should be the simple choice for schools.
> It should offer the peace of mind with no license issue, no need of a
> package full of features not really needed but sold efficiently by MS. No
> need of permanent internet access, just install it locally.
> It should say: here is a rock solid application that can prepare
> pupils/student to office software. It is not MS Office but there are enough
> similarities to make it a good tool to learn. Like your driving license:
> you learn on a car but you can buy something (very) different. You just
> have to adapt.
> If there is something to make clear, it is the effort needed to adapt from
> AOO to MS Office. I'm not saying it should be a clone but just make the
> transition as smooth as possible, user point of view.
>

+1

I think AOO should more promote its modularity and therefore promote the
development/maintain of a a set of important extensions which bring really
important functionnalities, such as, for example : Organon, Anaphraseus
(CAT Tool), extensions to write chemical formulas, administrativ tools,
etc. There is perhaps here an opportunity to mark its difference with MS
Office : a basis (AOO) + important new functions in the form of stable
extensions. Perhaps to go more in the same direction as EuroOffice. There
are already a lot of extensions, but they are not always maintained or have
never reach a real professionnel level or stability. The same with Gallery
extensions for special areas : medicine, botanic, technics etc. which could
be made together through a collaboration with different universities. I
think this could make the difference, giving to AOO an "own personnality"
and therefore an own position on the market.

Regards
--
gw

>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Mathias Röllig
2017-01-15 14:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

You all talking about the standalone product. It is a good point but
only a piece.
Many companies need to import MS document formats. They don't have the
choice to teach all customers to send an other document format.
So for the acceptance there is a big need to improve the import filters.
As I remember this was the most important topic before IMB left the AOO
community.
And this is also a big problem for many, many users and companies
(government, insurance, advocate, handicraft and so on), who are working
with special software which is producing files in MS document formats.
Many software uses explicit MSO to produce this files.
For this clientele mostly all features that AOO provides is enough,
mostly more as enough - BUT import of MS document format and/or using
AOO as front-end for the specialised software is missing and is the main
reason against AOO.

Regards
Mathias

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Dr. Michael Stehmann
2017-01-15 17:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

there are 3 items stated:

- fixing major bugs
- improving import filters
- improving and creating new extensions

IMO all 3 points are important.

Topic one and two have to be done by core developers.

Topic three can also be done by others and in collaboration with LO people.

So IMO we have to discuss, what has to be done in these items.

And how user contributions may help us.

Kind regards
Michael
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-15 18:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:***@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]

> there are 3 items stated:

And I have a fourth:
We should maintain the high quality standards of OO.

> - improving import filters

+1



Greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Guy Waterval
2017-01-15 21:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

I could involve me in Gallery extensions as I'm already active in Wikipedia
in macro/microphotography (User:Softenpoche).
As I'm not a coder, I can not help for other extensions.

Regards
--
gw

2017-01-15 18:59 GMT+01:00 Dr. Michael Stehmann <
***@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>:

> Hello,
>
> there are 3 items stated:
>
> - fixing major bugs
> - improving import filters
> - improving and creating new extensions
>
> IMO all 3 points are important.
>
> Topic one and two have to be done by core developers.
>
> Topic three can also be done by others and in collaboration with LO people.
>
> So IMO we have to discuss, what has to be done in these items.
>
> And how user contributions may help us.
>
> Kind regards
> Michael
>
>
>
Peter Kovacs
2017-01-16 05:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Maybe the title is misleading, but this thread is about how to build a
developer team that advocates in user interest.
Shouldn't we focus on this?

For me MS has nothing to do with the conflict between ASF and Team
OpenOffice. I think the core conflict was about market names. They should
not have released their own open office, plus they have Open Office in
their name.

Also I do not believe in Forks. Our main goal should always be to release a
next AOO version.

Guy Waterval <***@gmail.com> schrieb am So., 15. Jan. 2017, 22:39:

> Hello,
>
> I could involve me in Gallery extensions as I'm already active in Wikipedia
> in macro/microphotography (User:Softenpoche).
> As I'm not a coder, I can not help for other extensions.
>
> Regards
> --
> gw
>
> 2017-01-15 18:59 GMT+01:00 Dr. Michael Stehmann <
> ***@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > there are 3 items stated:
> >
> > - fixing major bugs
> > - improving import filters
> > - improving and creating new extensions
> >
> > IMO all 3 points are important.
> >
> > Topic one and two have to be done by core developers.
> >
> > Topic three can also be done by others and in collaboration with LO
> people.
> >
> > So IMO we have to discuss, what has to be done in these items.
> >
> > And how user contributions may help us.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
>
--

Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprÃŒft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wÃŒnschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.
Jörg Schmidt
2017-01-16 05:50:41 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:***@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 6:31 AM
> To: ***@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
>
> Maybe the title is misleading, but this thread is about how to build a
> developer team that advocates in user interest.
> Shouldn't we focus on this?
>
> For me MS has nothing to do with the conflict between ASF and Team
> OpenOffice. I think the core conflict was about market names.

Yes, you have correctly recognized.

I therefore described the example "Team OpenOffice" to clarify this problem.

The problem is not that you can not set up a company (foundation, club, etc.) that develops a program only based on OO, the problem is how can we pay developers directly for OO. For this, we needed Apache's approval.

> Also I do not believe in Forks.

+1


Greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
mabdul
2017-01-16 06:49:40 UTC
Permalink
On 16.01.2017 06:30, Peter Kovacs wrote:
> Maybe the title is misleading, but this thread is about how to build a
> developer team that advocates in user interest.
> Shouldn't we focus on this?
>
> For me MS has nothing to do with the conflict between ASF and Team
> OpenOffice. I think the core conflict was about market names. They should
> not have released their own open office, plus they have Open Office in
> their name.
>
> Also I do not believe in Forks. Our main goal should always be to release a
> next AOO version.
It was NEVER considered as a full fork. They were unhappy about the
release of security patches. Existing patches were not released in a
"minor security release" and waited for a very long time in turnk. That
situation was sadly later repeated...





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
toki
2017-01-15 19:28:00 UTC
Permalink
On 01/15/2017 02:52 PM, Mathias Röllig wrote:

> Many companies need to import MS document formats. They don't have the
> choice to teach all customers to send an other document format.

That might be the case in the United States, but in Europe, the legal
requirement is to use ODF file formats.

jonathon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Mathias Röllig
2017-01-15 20:22:52 UTC
Permalink
>> Many companies need to import MS document formats. They don't have the
>> choice to teach all customers to send an other document format.
>
> That might be the case in the United States, but in Europe, the legal
> requirement is to use ODF file formats.

I can only speak for my experiences in Germany. Maybe they /should/ use
ODF – but in most cases it will simply ignored.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Pedro
2017-01-15 21:33:20 UTC
Permalink
On 15/01/2017 19:28, toki wrote:
> On 01/15/2017 02:52 PM, Mathias Röllig wrote:
>
>> Many companies need to import MS document formats. They don't have the
>> choice to teach all customers to send an other document format.
> That might be the case in the United States, but in Europe, the legal
> requirement is to use ODF file formats.

Unless the ODF file is created with MS Office, opening it in MS Office
will generate a scaring message that the document is corrupted. Thus the
only way to follow the legal rule is to use MS Office...

If MS could be legally stopped from doing this, maybe ODF could become
the de-facto standard. As it is, MS file formats are the rule and not
the exception in EU (I'm talking about official documents sent from
Brussels and also those within the Portuguese government). I have NEVER
received an official document in ODF from ANY EU country.

As long as this keeps going, there is no document freedom or freedom
from vendor lock in.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
esh1907
2017-01-16 17:32:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Hagar Delest <***@gmail.com>
wrote:


> So basically, what is the user base? Who should AOO focus on? For a
> company I doubt the price of MS Office is really a problem (they negotiate
> fees for sure). Since documents are mostly shared in .docx/.xlsx formats,
> why bother with applications like AOO/LO that are not fully compatible? Is
> there any big player willing to invest in something to compete with MS
> Office to avoid buying it? Doesn't seem very likely


Why bother? because we don't want in the future .docy/.xlsy and then
.docz/.xlsz ...
How do you know there is no big player willing to invest?


> So AOO is left with households, perhaps very very small companies and
> education sector. I think that AOO should be the simple choice for schools.
> It should offer the peace of mind with no license issue, no need of a
> package full of features not really needed but sold efficiently by MS. No
> need of permanent internet access, just install it locally.
> It should say: here is a rock solid application that can prepare
> pupils/student to office software. It is not MS Office but there are enough
> similarities to make it a good tool to learn. Like your driving license:
> you learn on a car but you can buy something (very) different. You just
> have to adapt.
> If there is something to make clear, it is the effort needed to adapt from
> AOO to MS Office. I'm not saying it should be a clone but just make the
> transition as smooth as possible, user point of view.
>
>
If you think little of AOO - it will be little...


>
> Hagar
> PS: can't bear teachers asking my kids to provide homeworks in .docx/.xlsx.
>
>
Instead of complaining, why not change that?

>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Hagar Delest
2017-01-16 20:54:02 UTC
Permalink
Le 16/01/2017 à 18:32, esh1907 a écrit :
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Hagar Delest <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> So basically, what is the user base? Who should AOO focus on? For a
>> company I doubt the price of MS Office is really a problem (they negotiate
>> fees for sure). Since documents are mostly shared in .docx/.xlsx formats,
>> why bother with applications like AOO/LO that are not fully compatible? Is
>> there any big player willing to invest in something to compete with MS
>> Office to avoid buying it? Doesn't seem very likely
> Why bother? because we don't want in the future .docy/.xlsy and then
> .docz/.xlsz ...
> How do you know there is no big player willing to invest?
When I wrote why bother, I was talking as if I were a company. It's not my opinion as a user. I doubt that a company would switch to AOO/LO knowing that there are issues with intercompatibility.
I don't know for sure that there is no big player but if there had been one, we would have known for some time I guess, just after the code was donated to ASF. There was some hints on the net IIRC about IBM being interested. But nothing happened.
Moreover, just read again Raphael's (1st) mail: There are maybe at the moment no big investors,...

>> So AOO is left with households, perhaps very very small companies and
>> education sector. I think that AOO should be the simple choice for schools.
>> It should offer the peace of mind with no license issue, no need of a
>> package full of features not really needed but sold efficiently by MS. No
>> need of permanent internet access, just install it locally.
>> It should say: here is a rock solid application that can prepare
>> pupils/student to office software. It is not MS Office but there are enough
>> similarities to make it a good tool to learn. Like your driving license:
>> you learn on a car but you can buy something (very) different. You just
>> have to adapt.
>> If there is something to make clear, it is the effort needed to adapt from
>> AOO to MS Office. I'm not saying it should be a clone but just make the
>> transition as smooth as possible, user point of view.
> If you think little of AOO - it will be little...
Sorry, don't understand. If I thought little of AOO (meaning it's not very powerfull), it would be a huge step on the contrary to adapt to MS Office.

>> Hagar
>> PS: can't bear teachers asking my kids to provide homeworks in .docx/.xlsx.
> Instead of complaining, why not change that?
For my kids, I try, providing them some rationale to be discussed. I'll raise the question also during the meetings between parents and teachers.
For all the students who report that in the forum however, there is no way. Just laziness from the teachers.

But reading again some post of this discussion, I'm wondering if we are not off topic. I understood 'contribute' not as a money question only. Donating to AOO directly is not possible so isn't it a dead end?

The only thing I can think of is to use crowfunding to reward devs fixing major issues or implementing new features. Like give $5,000 to the contributor who provide the piece of code that fixes the ### issue...
The problem is what happens to the money if no one want to work on it.

Hagar

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
toki
2017-01-17 00:47:49 UTC
Permalink
On 01/16/2017 08:54 PM, Hagar Delest wrote:

> I doubt that a company would switch to AOO/LO knowing that there are issues with intercompatibility.

How significant the compatibility issues are, quite literally depend
upon one's criteria for compatibility.

That said, the are organizations that are migrating to LibO, do so one
department at a time. They make no public announcements, and as few
internal announcements as possible.

> There are maybe at the moment no big investors

For the typical ASF project, two or three players in the software niche
provide the majority of developers. Typically, these firms make their
money, by selling services related to the ASF software project that they
are involved in. The major exceptions are firms that are reducing costs
for either R&D or development or both, by sharing their experience with
other firms.

There is nothing preventing an individual, or group of individuals, from
setting up an organization that generates its own revenue, and supports
AOo. More pointedly, that is precisely what Akikazu Yoshikawa does with
AndrOpen Office.
My impression is that _Serenity Systems, INC_ does the same thing for
the eComStation platform.

> Donating to AOO directly is not possible so isn't it a dead end?

How to donate financial instruments to _The Apache Software Foundation_
is laid out at https://www.apache.org/foundation/contributing.html.
«If you have a specific target or project that you wish to directly
support, please contact us and we will do our best to satisfy your
wishes.» The email address to use is about two thirds of the way down
the page.

> The problem is what happens to the money if no one want to work on it.

The primary issue with _Team OpenOffice, DE._, was trademark violations.
That group could have continued as _Team White Office_.

Given where that group was located, I would not be surprised if there
were also local legal issues.

jonathon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@openoffice.apache.org
Matthias Seidel
2017-01-18 14:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

Am 17.01.2017 um 01:47 schrieb toki:
> There is nothing preventing an individual, or group of individuals, from
> setting up an organization that generates its own revenue, and supports
> AOo. More pointedly, that is precisely what Akikazu Yoshikawa does with
> AndrOpen Office.
> My impression is that _Serenity Systems, INC_ does the same thing for
> the eComStation platform.

Actually it was Serenity Systems, Inc. for the OpenOffice.org releases.

The recent port is done by "bww bitwise works GmbH" [1].
They also sell "Sponsoring Units" to fund their developement for OS/2.

The port itself is done by Yuri Dario and his code is fully integrated
in the trunk. [2]

Kind regards, Matthias

[1] http://www.bitwiseworks.com/press/20161130.php
[2] https://youtu.be/AR2oRN_JcJc
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...