Hi Michael,
Thanks for summarizing my thoughts on your email (as far as I can
understand from your message, we share exactly the same ideas).
On 2/10/22 13:36, Michael Weghorn wrote:
I agree here that there are several areas like CJK and CTL (and not
only for bug fixes) or ally that should deserve much more love from
TDF and I'm sure our donors would be happy that we invest in this area
too.
That would help also to grow this part of the community, which is very
complicated to achieve when our version is difficult to use.
Totally agree.
That sounds like a good approach to me, in particular for areas where
there's currently no specific interest from ecosystem companies or
volunteers and that are unsuitable for tenders, but considered important
for the community.
I would see that in line with how TDF already employs non-developer
staff to take care of other important aspects not (sufficiently) covered
by other contributors.
Totally agree.
I have the impression that a fundamentally important question is what
the purpose/task of TDF-internal developers would be.
Yes, but it looks like the discussion is blocked one step before
reaching a consensus on this very simple point. If the discussion stays
as such, I have to say that I don't feel I am represented - as a TDF
Member - by any member of the just elected board of directors (of
course, those who have expressed their opinions).
If larger topics that TDF-internal developers were to work on were first
agreed on in the bodies where ecosystem companies are present as well
(like ESC and/or the board), my expectation would be that the
development work from different sides should work together nicely,
rather than creating any kind of destructive competition.
(Ecosystem company products profit from contributions made to
LibreOffice as well, and having a better overall product should in my
opinion also increase the range of potentially interested customers in
general.)
Totally agree.
Of course, in case the main intention were for TDF to provide more
business-like services (like an LTS version or creating an impression of
"donate a certain amount of money and your pet bug will be fixed"), I
see very well how that might interfere significantly with the business
model of ecosystem companies.
Totally agree. But I don't see the issue, as ESC and BoD members could
easily stop any project before it starts, when there is a potential risk
of conflict. AFAIK, major development activities are scrutinized by both
bodies, as they are ranked in order of importance, suggested, approved
and transformed to tenders, or not considered for tendering.
Development activities which are not considered for tendering, or just
ignored, could probably be developed by TDF without creating disruptions
(or even discussions). I am rather sure that in 7 million lines of code
(plus the open bugs) there are enough challenges for everyone.
Of course, given my complete lack of understanding of development, is
too easy to find a technical angle to disprove what I just wrote, but it
would also be disproving what many of the contributors - the community -
think, and this would confirm my personal belief that TDF BoD does not
represent the community as a whole, but only a portion of it.
Assuming members in the involved LibreOffice/TDF bodies found a way to
work together constructively, my current impression is that this
approach could be for the benefit of all.
Again, totally agree. Best regards, Italo
--
Italo Vignoli - it...@vignoli.org
mobile/signal +39.348.5653829
GPG Key ID - 0xAAB8D5C0
DB75 1534 3FD0 EA5F 56B5 FDA6 DE82 934C AAB8 D5C0
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
