Hmm, the discussion moves in a wrong direction, with wrong assumptions.
I am against a status quo solution. For me status quo directly transfers
to nothing happens.
I am not talking of creating one Investor that provides Money. I aim at
mobilizing as much as possible Open Office users has as Investors.
What I propose is a open crowd infrastructure. I do not believe Apache
is capable of this, today. I do believe this is a near future, game
changing model in general.
For me the model should respect:
# Fundraising itself is neutral (i.e. funds are not raised for
developers but for tasks / actions)
# nonprofit (Funds are not ment to provide any profit to the
organisation itself and are bound by activity. investor decided on.)
# Openess of the Infra (other Apache Project have acces to the same
infra if they whish.)
# Openess in the community ( the funds on a task is open to all
commiters if they manage to satisfy the requirement for a payout.)
This is just a rough outline, so you understand the direction (vision) I
am thinking. Also please note that a lot question have to be answered.
This is maybe 1% of a business plan.
I try to make a graph on the weekend. However I am not sure if I manage
this on the weekend. (Thats why I have asked Raphael to give his vision).
I do not see any reason why this cannot be done by Apache itseslf. Also
One or more 3rd Party supplier can provide the Infra in full or in
parts. For me this question is an issue we need to deal with at a later
stage. And I stress this point: It needs to happen in sync with Apache.
A crowd funding community is a dragon. And as Dragons are, they can be
difficult in times. You do well to be prepared.
I hope all are at least courious and support this with their hopes and
fears. It would be so powerfull if we can make this work.
Stay agile, keep Chalanging
Peter
On 20.01.2017 22:56, Dave Fisher wrote:
Hi -
Read to the bottom. Don't mistake my opposition to the following statement as
opposition to a way forward to funding of a third party.
and one more note:
Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal to the ASF and the
OpenOffice project.
If, however, there are single points that are contentious, then the PMC must
first represent the interests of OpenOffice.
Not true. I am a Member of the Apache Software Foundation. That is just like a
shareholder. For me that comes first. Then come PMC memberships and AOO is but
one of mine.
In all this discussion please keep in mind that the ASF is a nonprofit and must
not play favorites with anyone whether individual or corporation.
The ASF will protect its trademarks and expects that PMC does so.
If by negotiation there was some way the AOO project proposed funding for third
parties to the ASF many questions would need to be answered including keeping
the arrangement open to others, allocation of funds, auditing etc. This would
be expensive. So, you can see that it just does not happen.
A clear separation between the third party and the ASF and the project MUST be
kept.
I am ALL for a third party. Any developers and other employees/volunteers from
that group who demonstrate merit here would have my support for committer
status.
A third party might have a distribution powered by Apache OpenOffice. That
could solicit. The project could decide to use a Powered By verification as a
way to validate the downstream.
Something like that could work. It is close to the status quo.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 20, 2017, at 3:38 AM, Jörg Schmidt <joe...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:legi...@gmail.com]
But in my eyes we need a way to ensure project health and
turn towards
the community we have. We were last year at the edge of project
retirement. We are slowly fighting our way out by pure
voluntary work of
people that belive in the market name Open Office.
+1
I think LibreOffice are to a certain degree correct. The ASF is not
capable to do the Project Open Office at this Point. The structure of
Libre Office is a much more healthy one for the kind of Project
Libre/Open Office is.
Yes, unfortunately, the relevant criticism of LO is correct.
But one thing should be quite clear:
The solution is not to join LO, but the solution is: we need to improve
ourselves.
However I think we can build a similar powerfull structure if
not more
powerfull. At the same time we must walk in Sync with the ASF.
+1
Peter has said a lot about what I find right.
Likewise, I believe that it is necessary to use time to clarify these things,
even if this time is initially missing for the programming.
The point is, the better structures will improve our efficiency in the long run.
and one more note:
Our PMC is a PMC of an Apache project and it must be loyal to the ASF and the
OpenOffice project.
If, however, there are single points that are contentious, then the PMC must
first represent the interests of OpenOffice.
Greetings,
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
