[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 134486] UI: Branding: LibreOffice Personal edition

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134486

Timur <gtimur@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |gtimur@gmail.com

--- Comment #54 from Timur <gtimur@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Timur from comment #36)
> Much was said by TDF members and users and I think that consensus was
> reached.
> Shall this disastrous, LO anniversary ruining move be reverted?

My question was towards those who did this. 

I see that only now discussion is encouraged, but very late. This "personal"
decision was done with BoD, if I understand well. So they showed that being
"TDF member" is meaningless. Normally, any structural change of the Foundation
or the software, and this is very important one, should have been discussed
with members. And that would be the only purpose of being a member. 

LO still has issues with name perception from OO time, after so many years.
Interesting that I received many mails in mailing list on that, but not on a
much more important issue of LO name change. 
New change and adding "an edition" would make additional damage and this one
was awful, with all start, title bar and About. 
If someone wants to change something, please do on the webpage and not in LO. 
If more marketing is needed please do towards non-LO millions of users and
organizations, not limiting existing users in how they use (what should be)
free software . 

If we had a discussion, it could have included contributions. But not only
code, also reports and triage/QA and UX..  need to be accounted. 
I see claims that ecosystem companies attribute majority of code. TDF members
should have received proper analysis taking into account code and all. I don't
recall seeing one. 
Even code is not all. I see a lot of regressions. Just a single ecosystem
partner has around 300 regression bugs open for a long time, with many
duplicates and repeated bibisects. And simple but wrong analysis would show
they contributed a lot of code, I guess. 

Seems that some ecosystem companies (I see one being active here and in BoD)
are claiming the need for more paying users. That is their right but not on the
expense of existing LO users. 
But I guess that not all contributing companies insist on that. AFAIK not all
have business model depending on enterprise support. 
So proper analysis should have been done first, so that we know exactly what's
going on. 
If all this fuss is for a single company  than I find it not justified to
destroy LO perception and decrease usage, which are only possible realistic
outcomes of this unreasonable "personal" decision.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.