Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: 76.96.30.40 is neither permitted nor
 denied by domain of jim@jagunet.com)
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal:
 Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinAB4UbMWjNR9rc244--iG940CapA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 14:12:45 -0400
Cc: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>,
 steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5700F8A5-7756-4D0D-A2A0-C19B67D7BA33@jaguNET.com>
References: <4DE7DE06.6080500@documentfoundation.org>
 <CMECLHIGIKFCOPHDFPNOAEBELIAB.noel@devtech.com>
 <BANLkTina_kG2PM0D40vhQsX_Qtev1FUxpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTi=u9pwubtxZ6btsqt_E0UZ_CZKEhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4DEA0543.5020504@documentfoundation.org>
 <BANLkTimu_FzAvRcQH0Xb-BaMQXTCGLD6DA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTinAB4UbMWjNR9rc244--iG940CapA@mail.gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org


On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
>=20
> We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. =
People
> have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to =
scrap
> that off in favor of something else and have people follow a =
governance they
> don't even know?
>=20

How can one respond to the question (and the original one that
predicated this one) without someone misinterpreting it as
confrontational, self-serving or condescending?

One issue that was, from all I have been told and heard, is
that having OOo at some place with a known track record,
with real FOSS street cred and the ability to work with
other FOSS organizations as well as commercial entities was
important. That it wasn't just "getting rid" of OOo but instead
placing it someplace where it had the best chance to growth,
thrive and prosper.

I've also been told that Oracle and TDF did discuss moving
OOo there, but that in addition to some "requirements" that
were unacceptable, that TDF was still a foundation-in-creation.
Reading over the blogs, it is even admitted that the complexity
and time involved in creating one was underestimated. The
concern was putting the life and longevity of OOo into, basically,
an unknown quantity.

With that in mind, the ASF (or Eclipse) is much different. We've
been a foundation since 1999, and an active force since 1994. We
have a legal structure, a non-profit 501(c)3 status, existing
infrastructure, a healthy fundraising effort, a methodology and
governance model that is copied and well respected, and a proven track
record of building exceptional FOSS projects and communities.

There are *obvious* things that, with OOo in mind, the ASF lacks
that TDF has in spades: the build and distribution system is the
one which has been mentioned most of all. There are things that
the TDF lacks that the ASF has in spades. I don't see why we can't
work together to use each other to fill in the holes that the
other lacks.

P.S. I am again reminded by people (privately, in order to keep
the noise down a bit) that although TDF is a major player in the
OOo space, it is not "just" the ASF and TDF, but *everyone*.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org