incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Harbison <>
Subject Re: working on a OpenOffice roadmap
Date Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:41:19 GMT
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Martin Hollmichel <> wrote:

> Hi,
> Wether to stay with OpenOffice or LibreOffice or to migrate to LibreOffice
> or to OpenOffce is a question in the recent past often occurred, by users,
> by people doing business with OpenOffice, by the press. The answer I would
> like to give is that this question is not really that relevant because there
> is a roadmap in place and both projects plan to stay close together.
> I suggest following actions:
> * A call to LibreOffice contributors also to contribute their changes to
> Apache as the ASF is the long desired independent foundation for
> On this basis a collaboration among the
> Apache Project and TDF can be achieved and duplication of efforts get
> avoided. As a result the question which project/product to choose is not
> that important any more.
> * Provide an 3.3.1 micro release showing the world that
> continues to move (assuming that an production stable 3.4
> release is not ready to get happen within the next months), this release
> should include a prominent statement to show the upcoming roadmap with the
> next releases. This 3.3.x release may not comply with the ASF standards but
> is an ideal vehicle for doing communication and elaborate on the transition
> from the old to the new environment.
 The focus of the PPMC is aiming to speed towards an Apache 3.4 release,
meeting ASF release guidelines. Yes, there is  some work to move through the
3rd party code and resolve the issues. I covered this briefly in my blog

Spending time on a 3.3.1 'micro-release' doesn't do much except  consume
resources. It would be far preferable to focus our resources as a team on
the Apache 3.4 release effort, IMHO.

> * Work on a model or agreement where user donations specific to the project
> can be continued. This is not only a matter for the ASF (and Team OOo), but
> for the overall community and we need to find ways to include them
> (including TDF) into this discussion. It is required that we have a clear
> communication on how donations will benefit the project and to provide
> transparency on the execution. A donation model shall give users a more
> direct possibility to influence the further development of the product
> without the filtering by own interests of a profit orientated organization.
> We need to include the expertise of people doing business with OpenOffice
> into this approach, so doing this discussion also on
> <**>might makes sense.
> The employment of full time developers sponsored and directed by the
> community is IHMO a very good chance and would be examplary for the bigger
> opensource projects. I think this model is already to be proven as working
> fine for small OS projects and we now got that chance to introduce this also
> for

It may be best to start a [DISCUUSS] thread on this. Shane will advise on
proper use of Apache marks and branding. He has already advised you on the
imminent change in mail  list infrastructure. You could open the discussion
here on ooo-dev, since there are TDF folks here already. It will be
challenging to broker a model that will be satisfactory to both TDF and the
AOOo project communities. Funding to support LibreOffice developers will not
benefit the AOOo project unless the developer(s) see fit to sign an ICLA and
provide the patches within ASF guidelines. This has the potential to benefit
both projects, but there has been little evident support for this approach
from the LibreOffice developer(s) to date.

> Martin
> PS: I intentionally leave out the Apache vs. GNU license paradigm in these
> thoughts, assuming that this not the point for most users using product and
> discussion about this topic are quite predictable.

> ost users at the consumer level do not have a strong view on the license
>  of the sofware. This is not the case for some large enterprises. Re-opening
> the license debate will not be productive. There are many past threads on
> this in the archive already.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message