openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Junge <>
Subject Re: Another introduction
Date Sun, 03 Jul 2011 04:59:51 GMT
Hi Graham,

nice meeting you here gain.


On 03.07.2011 10:44, Graham Lauder wrote:
> Greetings all,
> My name is Graham Lauder AKA Yorick or Yo.  I've been involved with OOo
> for a number of years mainly in the marketing project but also in the
> website project.  I am somewhat responsible (some would say to blame)
> for the look of the present front page, (although I was just responsible
> for the conceptual elements, Maarten, Kay, Ivan and others did the real
> work and improved vastly on my original idea).
> I am MarCon (Marketing Contact) for New Zealand
> and have been since 2004
> or so, (I'm not good with specific dates).
> I am a software trainer to Enterprise specialising in OOo and OSS on the
> desktop for Front Office End Users   I would like to be able to say that
> this keeps me fully occupied but unfortunately that would be a
> garnishing of the truth that would stand little scrutiny and so one must
> whore oneself at other less meaningful work in order to do the real work
> when the opportunity arises.
> Previous to OOo I was CEO/MD of my own company for 15 years, retiring in
> 2003. (I should add: a retirement which only managed to last 4 years!)
> I was ambivalent at the beginning of the the Oracle gift to Apache
> process.  I remained with OOo post the LibreOffice fork because I
> believe that the fork in the initial stages was done more for control
> than anything else and that was born out of frustration in the community
> and a distrust of Oracle's motives with regard to the future of OOo.
> Distrust that would at first, seem to have a reasonable basis given
> later actions and statements.  Then reinforced with the gift in concert
> with IBM. I also didn't think that all the avenues within the existing
> project had been exhausted sufficiently to warrant dividing the
> community.  Having said that I was not involved at the heart of the
> decision making process that led to LO so I may be incorrect in my
> assumptions and it is true that now the LO community feels they are the
> authors of their own destiny, something that they have never felt in the
> past, even under Suns time.
> However I am committed to the long term existence of OOo, thus the
> reason I put my hand up early here.
> My hope is that the reasons that the LibreOffice fork happened don't
> rear their ugly heads here.  I noted an earlier email exchange with Rob
> Weir where he was denying IBM corporate power in the project.  I would
> point out that this is a meritocracy and the currency in a meritocracy
> is time.  If IBM (or any Corporate) allows employees to contribute on
> company time then that, in a meritocracy, gifts power to the corporate
> employees and therefore to that corporate because they are unlikely to
> step off the corporate line on Company time and certainly are not going
> to do anything that could be construed as against the companies
> interests.
> So the question is: Will decisions be made at IBM that will translate
> into fait accompli in OOo simply because the IBM members of the
> community have been given the time to contribute to Apache, above and
> beyond those of us who can afford only a number of hours outside of work
> time?
> Time equals power in a meritocracy.
> Now having said all that, Corporate contribution is the reason I
> remained with OOo.  I have always held the belief that a project the
> size of OOo is best held in a corporate/community partnership.  SUN's
> stewardship wasn't perfect but it had a hell of a lot going for it and I
> believe it was developing further and further to more community based
> decision-making, so it's good to see the old SUN name's popping up on
> the lists.
> For the future I would like to see a reconnection with the LO people.
> LibreOffice however, will continue to grow because the community feels
> it has control and there are trust issues with IBM.  As someone remarked
> on an LO maillist:  Who stands to benefit the most from an OOo with an
> Apache License, and who stood up first waving a carefully crafted press
> release. (They took previously, under the old SISSL and contributed
> nothing back.).... so I can understand the suspicion.
> We in the OOo community have swallowed the bitter pill where a
> benevolent organisation is corrupted by a corporate to their own ends,
> all within that organisations rules. I hope it doesn't happen here.
> However I view the future with a positive outlook and I look forward to
> this new iteration of OOo and will do everything possible to aid in it's
> growth.
> Cheers
> GL

View raw message