[steering-discuss] wording on TDF website

Hello,

I received some complaints that the wording on the TDF website
(http://www.documentfoundation.org) is not accurate.

While the meta tag correctly states "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", the website itself says that TDF is already a foundation,
which is not totally correct.

I therefore propose we change that text slightly, until we are legally
established.

Any proposals? Shall we just remove the first bullet point for the moment?

Florian

Hi :slight_smile:
+1
The images to the right might need to be moved up a little bit too in order to
keep the page looking tidy. I think just remove the bullet point and see how
the page looks.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi Florian!

Hello,

I received some complaints that the wording on the TDF website
(http://www.documentfoundation.org) is not accurate.

While the meta tag correctly states "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", the website itself says that TDF is already a foundation,
which is not totally correct.

I therefore propose we change that text slightly, until we are legally
established.

Any proposals? Shall we just remove the first bullet point for the moment?

Well, I remember some discussions when we worked on the mission
statement - the difficulty to distinguish between the legally
established foundation and the group/community/activity working towards
that goal.

So my proposals ...

If we state "Foundation" (without "The" and "Foundation") let's state
"activity" - I'd like to keep this first bullet point. Its our
history :slight_smile:

If we say "The Document Foundation", how about saying "The Document
Foundation group" or "The Document Foundation activity".

I know the latter might sound a bit passive, but it might suite our
needs until the legal status is established.

Cheers,
Christoph

Hi,

My suggestion would be to replace the words "meritocratic Foundation,
created by" with "meritocratic organization created by". Maybe that

that would still create the impression that TDF is already an
organization by itself, which it legally isn't.

would solve the problem? (Did you notice the removed comma, which was
unneeded?)

Hm?

Florian

Hi,

If we state "Foundation" (without "The" and "Foundation") let's state
"activity" - I'd like to keep this first bullet point. Its our
history :slight_smile:

If we say "The Document Foundation", how about saying "The Document
Foundation group" or "The Document Foundation activity".

I know the latter might sound a bit passive, but it might suite our
needs until the legal status is established.

I would rather propose something like we have in the meta tags, telling
we will take care of setting up the Foundation. Something like "It will
create an independent self-governing ..."

Florian

Hi :slight_smile:
Brilliant :slight_smile: I liked the couple of suggestions for re-wording it. Even tho the
Foundation is not quite fully registered as a legal entity just yet it does
have the infra-structure and properly organised governance that one would expect
from a robust organisation. Anything that needs a legal entity is handled by
one of the community orgs under instruction from TDF. So, to all intents and
purposes it is a proper Foundation certainly as far as almost everyone visiting
our website is concerned.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi,

Well how about "meritocratic community created by" then?

it may not be a 'F'oundation (as in German Stiftung) yet but it
certainly _is_ an 'organization' by all reasonable definition of the
term.

That being said... it has been 'inaccurate' for 10 month... it can
certainly remain so for the few weeks left before it become finally
'accurate'.

Norbert

Hi :slight_smile:
+1
I prefer "organisation" even if it's spelt the American way (z rather than s)
rather than just "community". Communities are often thought of as being highly
dis-organised which doesn't seem fair to TDF.

As Norbert said it's been fine for 10 months does it really need changing now
and then back again in a couple of weeks/months?
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi *,

I'm assuming this the item you're talking about:

"It is an independent self-governing meritocratic Foundation, created
by leading members of the OpenOffice.org Community."

Why not change it to "... currently in the process of being
established ..." and link to your blogpost describing the current
status?
http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/07/12/status-of-establishing-the-foundation/

ciao
Christian

Hi :slight_smile:
Ahah, this is the email i have been looking for. I really like the idea of a
link so that people can check the latest news about progress.

"It is an independent self-governing meritocratic Foundation, currently in the
process of being established by leading members of the OpenOffice.org
Community."
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi :slight_smile:
Well it's really Christian Lohmaier's idea and roughly in one of the directions
David was suggesting but thanks for the flowers (as they say).
Thanks and regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi,

Ahah, this is the email i have been looking for. I really like the idea of a
link so that people can check the latest news about progress.

"It is an independent self-governing meritocratic Foundation, currently in the
process of being established by leading members of the OpenOffice.org
Community."

that change has been incorporated now.

Thanks a lot,
Florian

Hi :slight_smile:
Thanks Christian Lohmaier & David :wink: [bows]
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile: