Counterproposal to the "actization" of LibreOffice Online

Hi Thorsten,

Let's now stop this infighting.

IMHO what is being called "infighting" has been an excellent exercise of transparency and exchange of point of view.

It was probably overdue as some members of the community, due to lack of communication, formed their own view of what may have happened during this term.

More information is now available to all so that it will be easier to ask more questions and help us moving forward in a positive way.

Nothing good will come from it.

I do agree that lowering the quality of the debate characterising members of the community as "populist" or anti "commercial" won't bring anything good.

Everyone has the right to have opinions and it's our duty to allow everyone access to actual facts so that they can validate their opinions and bring something positive to the discussion.

In particular: this is a public list, so let me remind everyone that
our statutes suggest, and our code of conduct mandates:

- that we behave respectfully towards all others, including those that
   are different or think differently from yourself
- be helpful, considerate, friendly and respectful towards all other
   participants
- we don't condone harassment or offensive behaviour

It is a very good reminder for all, I'm sure that both Michael Meeks and Sophie Gautier, which are surely following with interest these conversations and are members of the Code of Conduct support team, would have flagged any behaviour that goes against the CoC.

More information and contact details here:

https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/code-of-conduct/

Thank you all for considering, and let's move on!

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Thanks for contributing to open and constructive conversations.

Ciao

Paolo

Hi Sophie, all,

what I find interesting is, that everybody in these thread(s) around Sophie’s mail is asking for balance. And let me add, I do too.

But what I could observe is, that independent of what is about in the daily work, is it coming to decision making or formulating a text or even just defining a reasonable and fair process to get such a result/decision/text, everybody is within his/her own frame and not much interested in getting a compromise/a consensus. Proposals for such “coming together”, no matter from where they come, are often not enough “fitted” for the own interests (with some few exceptions which were very hard work to get) and getting questioned again and again in long and exhausting processes.

And that makes it hard to get results and even more it bounds our all time resources and motivation instead of doing other good things. And I am thankful, that Sophie was speaking up for one aspect of it, out of these bounded resources we all did not manage to use our really good status in/of TDF during the pandemic for helping, showing more solidarity with people who hit it a lot more than TDF or even community members of TDF, of which we sometimes do not know that they are suffering.

So, my personal conclusion of this is, we could become better if we all really value all sides of it more and show our respect to “the others” in more often acknowledging a compromise even if not all of the own interests are in it, or facilitating a consensus. Coding contributions is a critical part and nevertheless as well as all others like documentation, translation, marketing, quality assurance, local activities of the volunteers independent where, mentoring, certifying, organizing and maintain the infrastructure,…

We would not have these good status of our foundation during the pandemic when we did not have all of them. They are all intertwined and dependent on each other. And indeed, we should use this status more for doing good within the founders will.

It is never too late to do so.

Thank you all for your various contributions,
Lothar

Am 15.01.2022 um 17:26 schrieb sophi:

Hi Simon, all,
Le 14/01/2022 à 19:14, Simon Phipps a écrit :

Hi Sophie,

I appreciate your comment here and (with some fear) have to respond to
amplify it.

Thank you for your support. You amplified more than my initial thoughts
which were only about solidarity, altruism and generosity.

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 11:14 AM sophi [<sophi@libreoffice.org>](mailto:sophi@libreoffice.org) wrote:

On my point of view, it was not about achieving market dominance but
about solidarity. And TDF has failed here, again on my point of view.

Yes, I have to agree with you. Freedom, equality and solidarity used to be
the norm at TDF.> Over the last couple of years that has largely ended at
the Foundation level (fortunately our community still has many parts where
this is not true). This has led to progress grinding to a halt
through mistrust. For example, both TDC and LOOL were ended just at the
point where the external conditions suggested they were going to flourish.
Little has been achieved in their place as you observe, and as the tired
bickering in this thread illustrates.

I don't want to go back in these stories of TDC and LOOL again but they
are two very different situations for me. What I can agree with you is
that both have damaged the community's confidence in what is TDF and
what it should represent.
I've read all the minutes of the board meetings, attended several of
these meetings, and I can say this board has took several actions during
this two very difficult years without having a chance to meet. My mail
was not to address reproaches to the board, but a reaction to what
Thorsten and Michael said on the pandemic period.

Egalitarianism was replaced by turning inwards to fight unproductively
among those privileged to be allowed information - and in the process to
slander those involved before. As a result of this the Foundation has
turned even more closed, with Board inflighting leaving the Trustees in the
dark while the arguments went on. There has consequently been no spirit of
solidarity to harness to do good outside the project. As you say, that is
tragic, and I really appreciate your observation of it.

Well that's not exactly what I said, and in my opinion the board was
more open to discussions than some years before. But I agree with you
that even arguments should be more transparent and the community should
be aware when things are going worse.

If TDF is to satisfy its mission this has to stop. The new Board has a huge
opportunity and responsibility to put all this behind them and lead
positively. It must shun divisiveness and seek ways to rekindle solidarity
by emphasizing equality and promoting freedom. This will not be done
treating the motivations of some participants as suspect! In fact almost
everyone is pursuing an "interest", almost by definition in a collaborative
community!

Yes and I really appreciate the tools provided by the MC to rebuild trust.

As Maslow [<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs)
observed, before higher-level behaviours can be cultivated, basic needs
must be met - especially belonging and esteem. The Foundation needs to be
more inclusive of all its trustees in its processes rather than just
consulting them for votes once every two years. It needs to be realistic
about the pragmatics of large-scale software engineering and how it's paid
for and rein-in those trying to frame "commercial" as tainted. It has to
seek ways to encourage both community and commercial activities inside its
"umbrella" rather than treating some as clean and some as unclean.

This is not what I've seen in the project, commercial is not tainted. We
need to have a balance between commercial and charitable activities. In
my very own opinion, we have moved away from this balance and we could
have reshaped it during the pandemic.

I very much hope the new Board will engage positively and unanimously on
these things. I'm not finding the current conversation encouraging but I
have hopes the new team will take a firm hold and change things for the
better.

Well this discussion has been proposed by a community member, and I find
it encouraging in the sens of I hope it will clarify who is TDF and what
it should do for its community at large.

cheers
Sophie

Hi Paolo, hi all,

IMHO what is being called "infighting" has been an excellent exercise
of transparency and exchange of point of view.

I agree, a lot of new (at least for non-board people) information came
out from this thread, although the topics I proposed in the first email,
regarding, as per subject of the thread, counterproposal(s) to the
"actization" of LibreOffice Online, were barely discussed.

I also think, and I hope those that have written here will agree, is
clear that we need fixed and strong rules for projects hosted at TDF. I
hope source-only projects will not happen again.

All the best,

Marco

Hi Marco,

thanks a lot for your engagement and your contributions to the discussion.

Hi Paolo, hi all,

IMHO what is being called "infighting" has been an excellent exercise
of transparency and exchange of point of view.

I agree, a lot of new (at least for non-board people) information came
out from this thread, although the topics I proposed in the first email,
regarding, as per subject of the thread, counterproposal(s) to the
"actization" of LibreOffice Online, were barely discussed.

I hope that the provided additional information has helped you understand why I have replied the way I did.

(original:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00043.html

and with my answer:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00057.html)

Where we stand at present, IMHO, there is nothing much TDF can do to revive the LOOL project as most of the developers involved are Collabora's employees so they now only contribute to Collabora's GitHub repositories.

Unless the valuable member of the ecosystem changes its mind, other members of our community have other proposals and/or want to help us restarting the development of LOOL I don't see many other ways forward.

It would be great to have more comments from the rest of the community about it.

I also think, and I hope those that have written here will agree, is
clear that we need fixed and strong rules for projects hosted at TDF. I
hope source-only projects will not happen again.

Thank you for supporting this proposal which is very much linked to the above issue.

I've been proposing this for quite a while and I hope the new board will support it so that we won't find ourselves in the same situation in a few years time.

All the best,

Marco

Ciao

Paolo

Hi Marco,

Marco Marinello wrote:

I hope source-only projects will not happen again.

In fact, if you just count by the number of projects, almost all code
that is hosted at TDF is source-only.

There's a lot to discover and weigh here, and it's a challenge (in the
wider context) that the entire FLOSS universe is struggling with since
a number of years. I don't think we'll be able to solve that
conundrum anytime soon.

So again, I suggest we focus, and solve questions one by one. Next up
is the general attic proposal. Let's move on with that.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Hi all,

On 17/01/2022 13:08, Thorsten Behrens wrote:

Marco Marinello wrote:

I hope source-only projects will not happen again.

In fact, if you just count by the number of projects, almost all code
that is hosted at TDF is source-only.

There's a lot to discover and weigh here, and it's a challenge (in the
wider context) that the entire FLOSS universe is struggling with since
a number of years.

There is a lot to discover and we should fully evaluate what we are hosting.

Only a short while ago I discovered that the Android Viewer still gets contributions from Michael Weghorn:

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00003.html

As it seems like there is still interest from the community we should have a look at how we can help.

While we go through the discovery process we might find other projects that we need to review and maybe publish, like the Android Viewer, and some that may require to be under a formal agreement.

Ciao

Paolo

Hi Marco! Thanks for contributing.

regarding, as per subject of the thread, counterproposal(s) to the
“actization” of LibreOffice Online, were barely discussed.

My apologies for the delay Marco, I had meant to comment on your proposal but got distracted!

I also think, and I hope those that have written here will agree, is
clear that we need fixed and strong rules for projects hosted at TDF.

I suggest being very cautious with making “strong rules” in a volunteer community. While superficially they seem good at the time, our experience at TDF has been that strong rules made under challenging condition turn out to be problematic when conditions have changed, and can then be used disruptively. The more rules there are, the more games can be played with them.

I especially liked something in your first idea:

TDF should publicly endorse
this choice, stating that the project is now hosted on Github and the
development is managed by a company of the ecosystem but is – at the end
of the day – always LibreOffice Online

I think this is the seed of a great approach which we could pursue in the context of the ingredient brand we have been evolving. It would need to be designed to apply to any relevant project, not just LOOL. We are more likely to see TDF’s mission advanced by encouraging and supporting fellow community members who try to innovate than by discussing what others should do and then looking for those others!

Cheers,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I suggest being very cautious with making "strong rules" in a volunteer community. While superficially they seem good at the time, our experience at TDF has been that strong rules made under challenging condition turn out to be problematic when conditions have changed, and can then be used disruptively. The more rules there are, the more games can be played with them.

I believe Marco supported my proposal because he read my various emails where I was clarifying that the rules weren't at all directed at the volunteer community in general.

Eg.: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00061.html

We surely don't want to make life difficult to individual volunteers contributing to LibreOffice and related projects.

For corporate contributors, shouldn't be a big issue as they already need to go through internal reviews to see what they can contribute and how so may as well make things clear for all and protect not only our community but also the corporate contributors that may inadvertently lead the community to believe that the whole project will be available for free and for all to use while they may have also other plans for portions of it.

Then surely once some rules are in place there will always be someone in bad faith that tries to circumvent them if at the time seems more convenient for them but at least we'll have to deal with a case where we know what the community was supposed to get out of it instead of wasting months in fruitless negotiations.

At present I don't have development plans for a new commercial project based on LibreOffice but if I had one I would ask TDF to work together to shape an agreement where I state the objective of the project, my plans to make it commercially sustainable (if that is an end goal as it may not be necessary the case/needed) and what the community could expect out of it under the TDF umbrella. Then it's up to the board and the community to decide if we should invest in the project.

(The above specific example would lead to a special situation as, being a member of TDF's board of directors, it would be even more important for me to present a clear project and let the rest of the board decide about it, without me or my business partners ever intervening, to avoid being perceived as more equal than others)

Wouldn't any company find it not just natural but essential to do that to protect their long term investments and show that it can be trusted by the community?

Ciao

Paolo

Hi Simon,

This has led to progress grinding to a halt through mistrust....
If TDF is to satisfy its mission this has to stop. The new Board has a huge opportunity and responsibility to put all this behind them and lead positively. It must shun divisiveness

  Thanks for your apt and helpful analysis & reflection on the way ahead. As a counter-point to some other perspectives: I am really grateful that you take the time to intervene positively in our community, to provide the benefit of your wide experience, as well as this sort of incisive and clear perspective that helps to cut through the clouds of confusion.

  I too hope the new board will be able to start afresh with new vigor on the task of making LibreOffice a welcoming and pleasant place to contribute for all.

  Thanks,

    Michael.

Another perspective on that: "You rushed into the board with proposals
that would allow non-contributors to start competing with one of the
major contributors, by making use of the LibreOffice brand."
And .. then you were surprised that it wasn't welcomed with applause :slight_smile:

Cor

Another perspective on that: "You rushed into the board with proposals
that would allow non-contributors to start competing with one of the
major contributors, by making use of the LibreOffice brand."
And .. then you were surprised that it wasn't welcomed with applause :slight_smile:

Cor

Hi,

only for background information I recommend to read:
blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2015/01/27/the-document-foundation-announces-the-results-of-the-android-tender/

and e.g. the annual report 2013 of TDF, page 9/10

Regards,
Andreas

Hi *,

discussions that don't make progress towards agreement are a waste of
everyone's time.

If this is about personal gripes, the best way to sort things out is a
phone or video call.

Otherwise, let's please circle back to the topic at hand (atticisation
of LibreOffice Online, and what to do about it - arguing over past
events ain't gonna get us anywhere here).

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Hi Simon,

Il 17/01/22 18:15, Simon Phipps ha scritto:

I especially liked something in your first idea:

TDF should publicly endorse
this choice, stating that the project is now hosted on Github and the
development is managed by a company of the ecosystem but is – at the end
of the day – always LibreOffice Online

I think this is the seed of a great approach which we could pursue in the context of the ingredient brand we have been evolving. It would need to be designed to apply to any relevant project, not just LOOL. We are more likely to see TDF’s mission advanced by encouraging and supporting fellow community members who try to innovate than by discussing what others should do and then looking for those others!

beware that the four bullet points I mentioned in the first email are not intended to be split.

Hi Thorsten,

Hi *,

discussions that don't make progress towards agreement are a waste of
everyone's time.

I agree.

I proposed an agreement but nobody picked up.

If this is about personal gripes, the best way to sort things out is a
phone or video call.

Otherwise, let's please circle back to the topic at hand (atticisation
of LibreOffice Online, and what to do about it - arguing over past
events ain't gonna get us anywhere here).

No. I started a new thread, as requested, not to be confused with *your*
thread regarding the actization proposal.

If you want replies on that, please ask for them in your own thread.

-Marco

Hi Cor,

I'm sorry to say it in public but I'm honestly appalled by your comment which shows your insensitivity to the matter that is being discussed and is providing an example of how disinformation works.

Maybe you missed the point here.

Some of us actually worked hard to prepare the ground to help others
trying to act in a fair and balanced way but after months of work and
negotiations someone decided that solidarity wasn't a priority.

Another perspective on that: "You rushed into the board with proposals
that would allow non-contributors to start competing with one of the
major contributors, by making use of the LibreOffice brand."
And .. then you were surprised that it wasn't welcomed with applause :slight_smile:

Cor

I would suggest you to read the directors emails and RedMine tickets about LOOL since March 2020 to discover that the most ethical and professional thing you could do is to apologise to the members of the community for your unfortunate comment.

Ciao

Paolo

Hi Marco!

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 9:06 AM Marco Marinello <lists@marcomarinello.it> wrote:

Hi Simon,

Il 17/01/22 18:15, Simon Phipps ha scritto:

I especially liked something in your first idea:

TDF should publicly endorse
this choice, stating that the project is now hosted on Github and the
development is managed by a company of the ecosystem but is – at the end
of the day – always LibreOffice Online

I think this is the seed of a great approach which we could pursue in the context of the ingredient brand we have been evolving. It would need to be designed to apply to any relevant project, not just LOOL. We are more likely to see TDF’s mission advanced by encouraging and supporting fellow community members who try to innovate than by discussing what others should do and then looking for those others!

beware that the four bullet points I mentioned in the first email are not intended to be split.

Thanks for the comment - I do understand, it is irritating when people cherry-pick a larger comment. Neverless, it’s for a reason here. The other three bullets were specifically about LibreOffice Online and I agree with Thorsten and others that it’s best to separate the attic-isation process from the specific use case, so I have focussed on your first bullet which I believe could form the basis for a general case.

Cheers!

Simon

Hi Marco,

Marco Marinello wrote:

No. I started a new thread, as requested, not to be confused with *your*
thread regarding the actization proposal.

Indeed, sorry for the imprecise wording. Counter-proposal discussion
here. :wink:

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Hi all,

On 18/01/2022 11:33, Simon Phipps wrote:

Hi Marco!

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 9:06 AM Marco Marinello <lists@marcomarinello.it> wrote:

Hi Simon,

Il 17/01/22 18:15, Simon Phipps ha scritto:

I especially liked something in your first idea:

TDF should publicly endorse
this choice, stating that the project is now hosted on Github and the
development is managed by a company of the ecosystem but is – at the end
of the day – always LibreOffice Online

I think this is the seed of a great approach which we could pursue in the context of the ingredient brand we have been evolving. It would need to be designed to apply to any relevant project, not just LOOL. We are more likely to see TDF’s mission advanced by encouraging and supporting fellow community members who try to innovate than by discussing what others should do and then looking for those others!

beware that the four bullet points I mentioned in the first email are not intended to be split.

Thanks for the comment - I do understand, it is irritating when people cherry-pick a larger comment. Neverless, it’s for a reason here. The other three bullets were specifically about LibreOffice Online and I agree with Thorsten and others that it’s best to separate the attic-isation process from the specific use case, so I have focussed on your first bullet which I believe could form the basis for a general case.

I would say that the 4 bullet points are linked to the atticisation discussion as are related to the standard process of de-atticisation and for new projects led by commercial contributors.

As in this case, members of the community are wondering what they are getting back from the investment that they and TDF made on LOOL and at present we are unable to offer answers as we didn’t clarify the process and the rules in advance.

Is there any other suggestions on how to deliver LOOL to our members of the community?

Ciao

Paolo


Paolo Vecchi - Deputy Member of the Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint

Hi,

Personally, I'm not interested in playing zero-sum games (taking
development away from the ecosystem, and re-patriating it into
TDF). Instead, we need to work much more on creating win-win setups,
and supplementing each other.

TDF must make its choices as corporate contributors have to make theirs.

Fortunately corporate contributors have business models that allows them to grow without counting on TDF tenders so, while tenders will be still made to deal with complex development that other contributors are unable to tackle, we need to become capable of managing some of the project so that we are not always dependent on third parties that may not find a specific project fun or commercially interesting.

That sounds like a good approach to me.

There's definitely things that TDF can do much better than any
ecosystem company. There's also definitely things that ecosystem
companies are likely better suited for, than TDF. The same is true for
our volunteer community

True and that's why there is room for all to have fun and participate to make LibreOffice and related project great.

+1

One obvious area where there's very little commercial incentive to do
things is a11y. At the same time, that would be something very
charitable to fund & further! If there's budget for funding internal
development, a11y would be very high on my list of topics to focus on.

That's something that has been on the list to do for a long time.
I haven't noticed anything related to it in the ESC ranking or maybe it's simply not marked clearly enough.

If it isn't there then we should ask the ESC to propose fixes in that regards?

I think one point here is that doing a proper proposal for a tender requires having a rough understanding of the subject to be tendered, be able to define a reasonable scope and also give a rough estimation of how much work that will be. In other words, it either requires somebody who already has an overview and a good idea what to suggest, or somebody investing time to come up with something.

Regarding a11y, as somebody who started looking into that topic, but without a clear idea on anything more specific for tendering, I had created this suggestion for tendering some (still to be selected) bugs from the a11y meta bug in Bugzilla: [1]

I must admit that I wasn't too disappointed that the suggestion didn't make it into the top list in the ESC voting. Given that more time would have been required to further analyze bugs in question and select a reasonable subset for the tendering, I am not sure whether the overhead (on all involved sides) would much outweigh the effort, or whether it makes more sense for me to spend time in trying to improve a11y myself.

I think tendering works best for items where the scope is clear beforehand, while here it would be much easier to say:
"Here is a ranked list of a11y issues, spend X days on fixing as many as you can.", which to my knowledge doesn't really fit the tender model particularly well.

Maybe others have better ideas on potential a11y topics to tender or there are better ways to handle this, that's just the story behind the above-mentioned proposal... (which is the one clearly related to a11y in the list of proposals that ESC was voting on, [2]).

Best regards,
Michael

[1] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Budget2022#Fix_accessibility_issues
[2] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Budget2022