Return-Path: 
 <ooo-dev-return-10816-apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 80AAE9A6C
	for <apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org>;
 Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:26:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 12753 invoked by uid 500); 18 Dec 2011 14:26:54 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 12693 invoked by uid 500); 18 Dec 2011 14:26:53 -0000
Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ooo-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
List-Id: <ooo-dev.incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 12685 invoked by uid 99); 18 Dec 2011 14:26:53 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:26:53 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0
	tests=SPF_NEUTRAL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: 203.97.37.64 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of g.a.lauder@gmail.com)
Received: from [203.97.37.64] (HELO smtp4.clear.net.nz) (203.97.37.64)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:26:45 +0000
Received: from linux-54ug.localnet
 (218-101-79-187.dialup.clear.net.nz [218.101.79.187])
 by smtp4.clear.net.nz (CLEAR Net Mail)
 with ESMTP id <0LWE00G06LFZG420@smtp4.clear.net.nz> for
 ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 03:26:25 +1300 (NZDT)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 03:26:54 +1300
From: Graham Lauder <g.a.lauder@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Off topic
In-reply-to: 
 <CAP-ksogRYBe1Ph1X4bRsmLbm5WmOJwaoSQKqT6F9kvegyEZx9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Message-id: <201112190326.54388.g.a.lauder@gmail.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: Text/Plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: 
 <CAOap24Kd6+fQDxprErp=XNMJ3UDcooaZb_ZdwXbTtYi-hXnmJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <201112161144.21667.g.a.lauder@gmail.com>
 <CAP-ksogRYBe1Ph1X4bRsmLbm5WmOJwaoSQKqT6F9kvegyEZx9g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.37.1-1.2-desktop; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; )

On Friday 16 Dec 2011 12:03:53 Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Graham Lauder <g.a.lauder@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > The evidence actually reveals the complete opposite.  A vast vibrant
> > community with all the tension and  foibles that brings with it, that
> > produced, marketed and distributed a well featured and reliable Office
> > suite to a community of probably tens of millions of users.  Could we
> > have done some things better, of course, nothing is ever perfect but it
> > was never as bad as you and others have been painting it.
> 
> OOo was a failure because it only worked as a recipient of corporate
> charity.  It was entirely a money hole for Sun and Oracle.  It is
> amazing what kind of crazy organization you can have if sustainability
> of the ecosystem is not an issue because you have access to some magic
> external source of funds.

I see, so if Sun and Oracle (and I include them even tho they fairly quickly 
decided the OOo community didn't fit with their corporate model, they did 
continue to support it in the interim.) sees fit to generously fund an open 
source project then it's a failure, but if IBM pays you to be involved in this 
Apache version and picks up a number of ex Sun devs to work on it, then that 
is.....another crazy organisation perhaps?  What sort of failure is that then? 
let's at least be consistent. 
At the end of the day any opensource project functions because of the 
generosity of anyone, individual or corporate, that contributes via cash or 
code or time, the overall proportion of any individual contribution should not 
and does not define success or failure, that much to me is obvious. Therefore  
to continually trumpet the old OOo as a "failure" in the face, says to me that 
there is either some sort of other agenda or a lack of understanding of the 
Open Source model.  ESR made the point that one of the strengths of the 
OpenSource model is the ability for an owner to "pass it on", for any or all 
reasons, to give the ability for a new driver to inject a new level of 
enthusiasm. 

Is taking that step signalling that the project is a failure, of course not, 
quite the opposite, it demonstrates a desire on the part of the previous owner 
to see the project grow and prosper, even if they had to be cajoled into it by 
interested parties wishing to have it continue..
> 
> Well, that corporate subsidy is gone.  The question is how we can
> create a sustainable model for this project.  What worked before,
> based on corporate charity, is not really relevant anymore.  The
> question is, what works now?

I have no problem with that, in fact I'm glad we're not beholden to a single 
corporate entity.  I'm also happy to admit that I'm glad it's at  Apache.  We 
have a different model now, but that doesn't mean the other was a failure and 
any talk that it was, is simply not backed by the evidence and 
counterproductive in terms of community building.

Cheers
GL 


> 
> -Rob