Hello Jim, 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>
> > On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > > > We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People > > have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to > scrap > > that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance > they > > don't even know? > > > > How can one respond to the question (and the original one that > predicated this one) without someone misinterpreting it as > confrontational, self-serving or condescending? > > One issue that was, from all I have been told and heard, is > that having OOo at some place with a known track record, > with real FOSS street cred and the ability to work with > other FOSS organizations as well as commercial entities was > important. That it wasn't just "getting rid" of OOo but instead > placing it someplace where it had the best chance to growth, > thrive and prosper. > > I've also been told that Oracle and TDF did discuss moving > OOo there, but that in addition to some "requirements" that > were unacceptable, that TDF was still a foundation-in-creation. > Reading over the blogs, it is even admitted that the complexity > and time involved in creating one was underestimated. The > concern was putting the life and longevity of OOo into, basically, > an unknown quantity. > I would be very wary of this sort of assertion, regardless of the person who made it, Jim. TDF does have quite an interesting story on this but we naively felt that discussions that were clearly off the record were to be kept, well, off the record. But then if everybody else comes up with his own version it might be necessary for TDF to bring its own version to the table. > > With that in mind, the ASF (or Eclipse) is much different. We've > been a foundation since 1999, and an active force since 1994. We > have a legal structure, a non-profit 501(c)3 status, existing > infrastructure, a healthy fundraising effort, a methodology and > governance model that is copied and well respected, and a proven track > record of building exceptional FOSS projects and communities. > > There are *obvious* things that, with OOo in mind, the ASF lacks > that TDF has in spades: the build and distribution system is the > one which has been mentioned most of all. There are things that > the TDF lacks that the ASF has in spades. I don't see why we can't > work together to use each other to fill in the holes that the > other lacks. > I think I have expressed myself -and so did TDF- on our interest to work with ASF. We are discussing terms, and also how the general discussion is framed. But this being said I also do feel we're making progress, aren't we? > > P.S. I am again reminded by people (privately, in order to keep > the noise down a bit) that although TDF is a major player in the > OOo space, it is not "just" the ASF and TDF, but *everyone*. > I would rephrase this in a different way. This is Free Sofware, TDF's mission is to replace the "OOo space" with the "LibreOffice space", and yes there are other players, but I feel that's somewhat obvious. :) Best, Charles.; > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
