Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2020 Archives by date, by thread · List index

I'm currently kind of directionless. Any change of recap? Current position?
As not sure what needs to be discussed or where we are with they debate (or my - largely - monologue). Obviously everybody is waiting for they they outcome at which point everybody starts mocking again. They (others) will come up with something .. And at the end: Good Lord what where they thinking.
I don't desire you're position Italo

Still tend to avoid they label tendency. It can be an edition without edition in the name. As long as they side puts to variants in front. And lots of narrative (LibreOffice TDF being rolling release)

About positioning. I would propose downgrading LibreOffice by TDF a little to make LTS/Professional more attractive. I call LibreOffice by TDF (every release) more work in progress. In my perception LibreOffice by TDF is mostly beta or RC quality. At they end of they release schedule, final is reached. So LibreOffice by TDF is kind of similar to Debian Testing. LibreOffice by TDF doesn't need to be call testing, as TDF 'represents' testing. So subtle narrative changes

Differentiation will be pretty hard for eco-system partners as long as marketing promotes LibreOffice an awesome product. However this also ends up in a discussion what TDF represents. Is it more a hub for sharing code, and shared bug reporting platform between party's involved. Or TDF having it own goals with LibreOffice. It's more gradual scale of course. And maybe there are even move axes (nice quadrant). I tend to move it more to hub - sharing infra/ project - and less to product.

However demoting LibreOffice by TDF makes 'free' less 'free'. As it's more a public testing. So they price of usage being a guinea pig. This is not open invention to Developers to make LibreOffice by TDF, a buggy testing product nobody wants to use. But being more tolerant for present bugs (and slower bug fixing), or even no bug fixing (because no priority). So eco-partners can cherry pick what they want solved.

At the other end of they spectrum is of course professional attitude. There must be obvious advantage using 'pro' software compared to testing. So where LibreOffice by TDF must be slightly demoted, professional edition must have certain advantages. Even if it's getting bugs fix by 'priority'. Paying users having a vote on which bug should be fixed (pre-devined list of suggestions). As an example.  I personally would go after they big fish only.
So Enterprises with 1000 seats or more.. But also fishing for smaller fish.

They essence. There are so many possibility's. Labeling something to an edition is an option, not a necessity. You can introduce distinctions/ differentiation without making LibreOffice (free) an explicit edition. I would still be an edition; but doesn't need to be called that way. Not sure if they Edition label topic solving things. It will probably be counterproductive. Have nice artwork for Pro/ LTS edition is of course logical. Site changes +1 (Cor proposal)  LTS edition or LibreOffice Pro or whatever. +1

About they LibreOffice Technology ingredient brand.
No clear picture what's desired. They LibreOffice powered by will not work (as Meeks illustrated) with is appstore example. Giving it a total different name, probably not helping getting traction. Surely harder to find. And harder to explain they differences. Difference between editions of LibreOffice at they site is possible. But between different 'vendors' quite off. Simply looking like Collabora/CIB wanting to make a profit out of LibreOffice (free)

And LibreOffice being they ingredient of Collabora/CIB is not something I really care about. More they opposite effect, I can use LibreOffice Free :-). As Collabora being the same thing (it's based on). So why not go for they real deal. It's even free ;-)

How to disentangle this. No clue. As said. PRO/LTS build by co-operation of eco-system partners (in a separate commercial entity) . Which can be shipped under they flag. If they desire to do a own edition next to they LTS line up, fine.. Collabora did invest already in Collabora Office.

But seeing how can make they Collabora Office or LibreOffice powered by CIB brand big. As it's simply adding confusion.

All my comments are only a reflection of my current state of mind (which can change any time; not written in stone and such). So contradictions in argument with my past or future self being possible  :-)

Op 6-11-2020 om 10:09 schreef Thorsten Behrens:

I believe its useful to join the discussion threads somehow:

----- Forwarded message from -----

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 08:43:22 +0000
Subject: [Bug 134486] UI: Branding: LibreOffice Personal edition

--- Comment #73 from Timur <> ---
New version of "strategic marketing plan" (modification date is 28.10.2020.) is
at Current
situation seems to be unchanged in the nutshell. Slide 47 and 54 show previous
● LibreOffice TBD: forever free, only from TDF
         ● Tag: “supported by volunteers, suggested for use by individuals,
small organizations and non profits/NGOs”
         ● Message: “you are using the volunteer supported version of
LibreOffice, focused on needs of individual users”
● LibreOffice Enterprise: only from ecosystem members
         ● Tag: “professionally supported, suggested for production environments
in enterprises and large organizations”
         ● Message: “you are using the ecosystem supported version of
LibreOffice, focused on needs of enterprise users”

We still have the same proposals, again forcing label:
"Product Label for the community supported version provided by TDF (i.e.
Personal or Community or other proposals)"
         "1. Label (no label is not an option)"
         "2. Where to position the label: title bar, about box, start center"

What's written here seems a reality: all feedback and backlash is ignored.
After all important issues raised here (like Statute preamble), they are not
addressed in the new version.
We are told to give more feedback vial marketing mail list, but I don't see
why, why all what's written here would be ignored, when we have very important
comments and commenter history in BZ can be seen, unlike in mail.
It's rather offensive to tell folks who helped LO with their BZ contribution
that what they've written so far is already ignored, that they need to
subscribe to some mailing list to say the same again.

Destructive Personal idea and suggestions of branding visible part of LO are
still in force. Only explained is why not Community.
Nowhere is explain what's the expected outcome, presumably that current company
installations would switch to Enterprise. But was there a poll? I can say that
in my case it will not surely be, those who decide will rather have LO removed
(same as Comment 24 etc). Just will proponents of LO be blamed for using lesser
value product.
That idea seems to presume enlargement of Enterprise within the existing user
base, and not from new users. So all "marketing" here is pressure on existing
LO users!
And that all comes when user are still confused with difference between OO and

I never understood - because marketing plan doesn't explain, just claims, why
not be positive and rework Download page (now it's just a single Download now,
not mentioning option to get enterprise version), why annoy long-time users and
contributors with attacking their use.
I also never understood why destroying of LO common name is needed to reach out
to NGO and govs. No, that in marketing plan is just a talk to obscure name
change. Only now is "Work from Home" so pervasive. Nice catch, just go ahead
with that marketing, no need to change name. I'd rather see a good comparison
of LO offer vs. MS and OnlyOffice and WPS.

Current LO is easy to deploy via MSI and PPA. Not sure if that - not branding -
should and could be changed to indicate that deployment is not supported from
simple download, unless an organization builds LO themselves or purchases that.

Changed and arguably improved in new version is "discussion and vote limited to
TDF Members" per slide 55. Previously TDF Members only saw Personal when
testing LO 7.0, which really was the wrong way to start discussion.
But again, why direct TDF Members to Marketing mail list, when we already
receive many mails. But no response to some question.

Speaking of TDF in general, and referring to mail to TDF-internal where I asked
this and got no reply: I'm not clear about the status of Online and Android. As
a Member, I get mails, but I don't see it explained - or I missed it. Like we
all know all, which is not the case, so finally I don't know the exact status.
Actually, there are already many regular mails informing of agenda of Board
etc, but none which explained key problems with Online and Android. When I
asked, I just got Collabora explanation in the mail and web (showing they have
clear position), but not from TDF like it has no it's own standpoint.

Maybe I didn't read Marketing plan well or it doesn't approach these questions
in the way I'd find appropriate. So I don't know: is moving the Online
repository outside of the LibreOffice project done or will be, is it the code
from TDF, what's the licence, was it on TDF servers or not, does this really
mean "move" or "fork", does Online remain with TDF as LO project or not.
With that new move development, plan may already be obsolete in Online part.
And detrimental to desktop part from the beginning.

----- End forwarded message -----

-- Thorsten

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
Privacy Policy:


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.