Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi :)
Something that often annoys me is that we seem to ignore all the work
of all the devs who are paid to work on LibreOffice.

I thought something like 10%-20% of devs are employed by various
companies, governments and other organisations?  The advantage for the
organisations, companies and governments is that they still get the
suite far cheaper than they would pay in license fees PLUS they get to
choose what bugs their own devs focus on.

If you don't pay a dev then you still get to use a fantastic office
suite for free and a fairly tiny donation goes a loooong way to
improving it further.  Of course we can grumble but i think it's
important to sit back and appreciate just what we do get too.

if we worked harder to encourage more companies to use LO and helped
them find ways to employ part-time or full-time devs with the savings
they would make on license fees then it might start to "snowball" even
more quickly.
Regards from
Tom :)

On 12 November 2013 13:53, Charles-H. Schulz
<> wrote:

Just completing Pedro's answers inline...

Le Tue, 12 Nov 2013 05:23:31 -0800 (PST),
Pedro <> a écrit :

Paul-6 wrote
I think there's a dangerous perception here: The perception that
the LO developers work on nothing except what they want to work on.

I didn't mean to say that.
I'm aware that some developers work on whatever is needed and fix the
most urgent bugs/regressions.
But out of 300 developers, there must be people who can fix the
"boring" bugs and the "not important" bugs... Of course you would
have to ask these developers to start with bug #1 and fix it before
moving to #2

Michael Meeks once wrote "Developers don't like to be told what to
do". I'm sure they don't. But if nobody does then there is no
solution for bugs that keep lingering...

and nobody says the system is perfect. ;-)
But to come back to Paul's objection, yes, developers work on what they
want to work on. Their motivation can be anything from a salary to some
dream they want or yet another thing that keeps them awake at night.
Somewhere in between I'm sure there's a reasonable guy . But "whatever
is needed" is prone to a wide range of interpretation.

Let me give you an example. While "your" bug (good point Pedro, by the
way) wasn't being fixed, some guy called Caolan McNamara, who wrote the
code of the word processing module back in the days of
took on the daunting task of rewriting the entire graphical system of
LibreOffice. And mind you, we're talking about over 6Million lines of
code for a suite like LibreOffice. Was it necessary? Hell yes. Was it a
high priority? Absolutely. Did he have the time to focus on the bug
you're mentioning? No.

But to him, this objective was of the highest  importance and it was
*sorely* needed. I'm not saying the bug you reported wasn't important.
I'm saying that while you may be complaining, others are cheering.
Other bugs get fixed. See my point?

Paul-6 wrote
I have pointed out in the past that you cannot expect a developer to
work on your bug, because there is nothing forcing him to work on
anything but what he wants to, but that doesn't mean that is all he
does. It means you can't *force* him to work on what *you* want him
to work on. I'm sure the developers *do* give careful consideration
to what they work on, it just might not be what you feel they
should work on, but they've got a bigger picture than you.

First, it's not *my* bug. The bug is the software. The software is
not mine. Second, many times I already have a solution for the
problem. I only report it so that the bug is fixed for the benefit of
the community. I even report bugs that don't affect me at all.


Third, "there is nothing forcing him to work on anything but what he
wants to" is exactly the problem IMO.

And yet that's how most of the FOSS projects work. But then again, no
system is perfect.

Paul-6 wrote
Remember, we do have to keep the developers happy to some extent,
otherwise they leave.

Yes, so do other people. But they are not so important, right?
If you can't tell developers what to do, some bugs will always be
there because they are boring to fix or because they are "not

I'm suggesting that a compromise based volunteer model is applied to
all, not just to developers. Then you might start to see a change and
a real community ;)

Motivation is a hard thing to assess. Rather than reaching a
compromise in abstracto, I'd say that the compromise is found through
social engineering and everyone's motivation. Let's say that you are
reporting bugs on a regular basis. Some of these bugs are particularly
hairy ones, and it catches developers' attention. It's likely that
after two or three bug reports of that kind, developers, at least some
of them, might be paying attention.

Yet another way to look at it is that the number of volunteers
reporting the bug or making it an issue to tackle over the various
collaborative and communication channels we have around the project.
Basically, this is an invitation to contribute and get recognized. By
contributing, you get recognized, you get bonus points, and your
credibility grows. Mind you, it works the same way for developers. And
because of that, the fact that you, a known contributor points out that
there's a leftover bugfix that may even already have a solution has
more chances to get fixed.

Hope this helps,

Charles-H. Schulz
Co-founder, The Document Foundation,
Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details:
Mobile Number: +33 (0)6 98 65 54 24.

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

To unsubscribe 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.