Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On 19 May 2012 10:22, Italo Vignoli <> wrote:

Jean Weber wrote:

Please note that Apache OpenOffice also has active developers who have
not yet been granted "committer" status, so the numbers are not
directly comparable. I don't know how many non-committer developers
there are at AOO. They submit patches which, if approved, are then
committed by someone with the relevant authority.

Most of these hidden developers are coming from IBM China, and they will
not get the committer status before graduation, as otherwise it would be
clear that AOO is a hidden IBM development project as the "diversity" of
the developer base is missing (IBM developers would be well over 80%,
while now they are around 40%).

Apache committers do so on an individual basis but it is inevitable that if
many of them are from a single organisation, that organisation has
potential influence. In that sense it is not really different from Sun in
the earlier days of OOo. In that context, ASF is more like the Foundation
many people wanted for OOo in those days that never happened.

What makes me nervous, is that all this is done with the complacent
supervision of ASF mentors, who perfectly know the situation and hide
the issue with statements about a "diverse" development project.

All mentors can do is apply the "Apache Way" in the particular
circumstances. PPMC members vote in committers and many, probably the great
majority of current commiters are nothing to do with IBM. They could vote
against IBM staffers becoming committers but I don't think that is likely.
Most will see that the value of the additional engineering resource coupled
to the Apache Way out-weighs any disadvantage of having potential influence
on the direction of development from IBM. Anyone is free to fork the code
base produced.

Anyway, as soon as AOO will graduate, we will know the number of these
hidden developers. What does not change is the number of commits.

We should stick with Ohloh figures, because they are independent from
both projects, and reflect the actual reality.

I would also avoid speculations on AOO hidden developers, because this
is their problem and not our problem.

The only real problem is a splitting of resources into 2 code bases so
quite a bit of overlapping duplication of effort. That is just a fact of
life since it seems impossible to resolve the licensing issues. Personally
I hope both projects can maximise the number of developers because within
the internal political constraints it provides the most resource into the
FOSS ecosystem.

-- Italo Vignoli - mob +39.348.5653829 - VoIP skype italovignoli - gtalk

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


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

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.