Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi :)
I think that first bit is historically accurate but is fairly irrelevant now 
that things have developed so far and fast.  It's possibly even insulting to 
Apache.  I now agree with Florian's earlier points in this thread about making 
the statements more consistent.  

I think the TDF has evolved the aim to being to 
"facilitate the evolution of the LibreOffice  community".  
In the second quoted text i think we need to just remove all the stuff in the 
paragraph to make it
"TDF has to consider the interests of new community members."

OpenOffice has become irrelevant.  Apache might recover it's position but if 
they do then there is a good chance it will be by working with us.  

I think we have reached the point where there is only 1 community but that it 
supports 2 products and 2 organisations.  Under Oracle they were only ostensibly 
2 communities and that was due to Oracle trying to push people out of 'their' 
area.  I think the 2 communities are more comfortable working together 

If that is a bit idealistic and "looking through rose tinted glasses" then i 
think we still only need to focus on 1 community and ignore elements that are 
vehemently pro-OpenOffice and anti-LibreOffice (if any such people really exist, 
which i doubt).  

Regards from
Tom :)

From: Florian Effenberger <>
Sent: Fri, 24 June, 2011 12:58:57
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] inconsistent boilerplate


Christoph Noack wrote on 2011-06-13 16.32:

Well, I think we have the following situation here:
       * TDF has _still_ the aim to "facilitate the evolution of the
         (former) community"

of course. However, given the recent developments, I'd be careful with the wording now, but from the history, it is correct.

       * TDF has to consider the interests of the new community members
         (new to LibreOffice, having not participated within the OOo


       * TDF has - in the long-run - to enable the community by
         contentiously maintaining the "open, independent, and
         meritocratic organization"


In my personal point-of-view, this slightly revised text may be used
until we have the final foundation set-up:

         The Document Foundation has the mission of facilitating the
         evolution of the LibreOffice Community into a new, open,
         independent, and meritocratic organization over the next few
         months. An independent foundation is a better reflection of the
         values of our contributors, users and supporters, and will
         enable a more effective, efficient and transparent community.
         TDF will protect past investments by building on the
         achievements of the first decade with, will
         encourage wide participation within the community, and will
         co-ordinate activity across the community.

At least, all important points are kept (especially the "achievements of
the first decade" - which is related to OOo but LibO).

Sounds good to me! What do others think?


-- Florian Effenberger <>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/ @floeff

-- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.