incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevin Grignon <kevingrignon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: LinuxTag 2012 Berlin
Date Thu, 31 May 2012 07:09:45 GMT
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Graham Lauder <g.a.lauder@gmail.com>wrote:

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

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

Kevin



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

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