openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Not new but under a new hat
Date Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:51:16 GMT
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Ian Lynch <> wrote:
>> If TDF wants to take the AOOo source code and build it, with or
>> without enhancements, and release it under the name "LibreOffice" for
>> use with Linux distros, then they are welcome to do that.  They need
>> no additional permissions from Apache or this project.
> But that isn't really the point. The point is to look for ways we can talk
> on an even footing for the good of both projects not say things as if it is
> a them and us confrontation. Makes one realise why diplomats have a
> different skill set to technocrats ;-)

You are welcome to apply your energy in any way you wish.  So am I.  I
wish us both luck.

> In any case, I think we should avoid treating LO or AOOo as a unified
>> mass of opinion, where every participant in each project thinks
>> identically and agrees.
> That doesn't happen in any political organisation. But political
> organisations do look for consensus in key areas that are for the benefit of
> both. Look at the current UK government and I'd hope that LibO AOO were
> politically closer than those two ;-)
>> Things are different now.  Now they have an alternative in AOOo.
> This is simply assuming that the competitive option is better than a
> cooperative one. In some circumstances that is so, in these circumstances I
> think it will simply make inefficient use of resources.  However, I see
> little chance of reconciling this while the dominant voices seem so keen to
> rub each other up the wrong way.

Since this is not Soviet Russia, and we don't have a central planner
allocating resources according to a politically determined 5-year
plan, talk of "inefficient use of resources" gets us no where.
Resources are people, and they allocate themselves to whatever
projects and tasks they wish to.  This is entirely voluntary.  There
is no valid definition of "efficient allocation" other than what
people do voluntarily when given free choice among the alternatives.
In other words, competition and choice is what leads to efficient use
of resources.

If everyone agreed that having a single project was best today, then
we would have a single project tomorrow.  The question should be what
can you, or I, or anyone else who wants that outcome, do today, to
make it more likely to move closer to that outcome.

> We
>> should continue to move forward with our vision.  As our project and
>> community develops and we get closer to a solid release, the power of
>> an open, meritocratic development process at Apache will be more
>> evident.  The volunteer who easily moved from OOo to LO will easily
>> move to AOOo once we show ourselves to have progress, vitality,
>> encouragement and fun.
> So your strategy is we are superior, they will see the light and convert?
> Sounds to me like a religious experience :-)

I believe in free choice religiously, yes.  And I believe in Apache as
well.  If I believed in neither then I would have supported TDF/LO
from the start.

>  But we have a lot of work to get there.
> Which would be a lot easier with rather than without cooperation and with
> agreement on reasonable division of labour for development. Yes it will
> happen anyway eventually but why make life more difficult than it needs to
> be?

Do you have a concrete suggestion?

>  But
>> this is not a race to see who can reformat code indentation in 8
>> million lines of code the fastest.   Honestly, the state of the
>> community in 6 months is more critical than the state of the code in 6
>> months.  The community is the platform we build the project on.
> Which seems completely antithetical to the rest of your post.

Only if you misunderstood almost everything I've said.


> --
> Ian
> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
> +44 (0)1827 305940
> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
> Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
> Wales.

View raw message