[board-discuss] Re: Some problems.
Hopes this works as I've never used a mailing list before.. 1) I'm making the assumption, not having this information, that Collabora Office is cheaper than Microsoft Office and other Office Suite software. How much cheaper is it? If it's just as functional as competitors but it is less expensive, and has other advantages, there is a profit-making market for it: 1) a) This is that it is open source, and can be reviewed and audited for security gaps. In Canada, Europe, Russia, and other countries there is a significant concern that geopolitics in entering into the realm of technology. Governments are becoming more concerned about the USA and China installing monitoring software for political and industrial espionage reasons. Why does Collabora not position itself as a secure/open-source/auditable solution to security issues. Isn't this the reason the German federal government chose Nextcloud, and the reason the Italian military chose Libreoffice? 1) b) To that point, Michael you raised points about the UK and French governments not paying for Libreoffice. This is surprising to me and shameful IMO. These would be large, relatively sustainable contracts to pursue, and I would suggest that working more with the FSFE's Public Money Public Code initiative, and presenting it to them from the perspective of; you're using things, we're having trouble sustaining it, we're hoping you will purchase, will be a potentially successful strategy. That or do they get that Collabora is the premiere developer and TDF isn't developing this for free? If they've already institutionalized the software it might be worth tugging at the rug under them a bit and telling them the project may not be able to continue as a going entity because the contractor they used is not providing any contributions to the development of the software. But this leads to my later point about trustmarks. 1) c) Does Collabora and/or the TDF not have a dedicated government relations advocacy employee in Europe/North America/Other market countries? There are many discussions that occur at the government relations level that lead to contracts and exposure of opportunities to companies. 2) That the TDF is not adequately promoting it's enterprise vendors is a failure of the TDF's marketing committee and the contractors that they hired. I have followed LO and AOO for years now and I've noticed that the TDF marketing committee is unwilling to promote LibreOffice in modern ways. There seems to be a lack of focus on communities outside the FOSS environment, which doesn't make sense because it's like setting up a booth to advertise bibles at a religious convention. Why does Libreoffice focus on attending FOSS conferences instead of International Government conferences? The NGOs that use LibreOffice for free would be obliged to let Libreoffice attend the WEF, Davos, and other places. Is there the potential that the leadership of the Marketing at TDF is not thinking out of the box, or too small? 3) SaaS model - recognizing that all the costs you just listed to set up small clients is cost prohibitive and that you would need to get 10,000+ clients for it to be viable -- I would only suggest that because it's hard and maybe expensive doesn't preclude the idea that this may be one of the best options to generate sustainable income. 3) a) Personally I was excited at the opportunity to pay for LibreOffice support via Collabora as an individual. I couldn't, because I needed to have several employees first to justify it. Instead I donate to TDF, but apparently this money is holed up in a bureaucratic bunker because of issues of distribution. There's a couple problems here: 1) It suggests the TDF needs a regulatory review to streamline it's operations. 2) again, the TDF isn't being proactive enough - are the people working there the right people to accomplish the organizations mission, or are we just being polite because they've been loyal for a long time. In that case we might be looking at an old boys club situation. 3) b) In some non-profits, there is no ability to donate directly, the foundation is supported by the enterprise companies based on the profit they make. Could the TDF create a certification body with a Trustmark that says only these companies are able to provide enterprise support for Libreoffice. Meaning the TDF does not sanction other vendors slapping on Libreoffice to their solution and hoping it gets updated to fix bugs by Collabora and CIB, etc. These certified companies would then pay for the certification on an ongoing basis to remain in good standing, as well as donate to the TDF to maintain its operations. This would also have the effect of keeping TDF staff more accountable to metrics set by a small group of knowledgeable individuals. (Something would have to be done for keeping community representation available to unaffiliated citizens such as myself. Haven't thought that far.) 3
Re: [board-discuss] Re: Some problems.
What if as part of the $5 (or $2, something accessible) annual co-op membership with Libreoffice you got access to the support forums? Those who wanted to spend the time to help support the project to provide free tech support to others would feel good knowing that the people they were helping were giving back to Libreoffice by being a co-op member, and those who were receiving one-off technical support would have to pay for the membership to get access to the support forum. Yes there would still be reddit and other channels, but knowing that using the forum to provide support might push those altruistic people to only use the forums to give support, and this could snowball into a larger membership. Just a thought I had rereading what I wrote. There's digital real estate here that can be monetized in a privacy respecting, non-community killing way that will also benefit eco-system partners IMO. > On 08/07/2020 10:44 Kev M wrote: > > > Hopes this works as I've never used a mailing list before.. > > 1) I'm making the assumption, not having this information, that Collabora > Office is cheaper than Microsoft Office and other Office Suite software. How > much cheaper is it? If it's just as functional as competitors but it is less > expensive, and has other advantages, there is a profit-making market for it: > > 1) a) This is that it is open source, and can be reviewed and audited for > security gaps. In Canada, Europe, Russia, and other countries there is a > significant concern that geopolitics in entering into the realm of > technology. Governments are becoming more concerned about the USA and China > installing monitoring software for political and industrial espionage reasons. > > Why does Collabora not position itself as a secure/open-source/auditable > solution to security issues. Isn't this the reason the German federal > government chose Nextcloud, and the reason the Italian military chose > Libreoffice? > > 1) b) To that point, Michael you raised points about the UK and French > governments not paying for Libreoffice. This is surprising to me and shameful > IMO. These would be large, relatively sustainable contracts to pursue, and I > would suggest that working more with the FSFE's Public Money Public Code > initiative, and presenting it to them from the perspective of; you're using > things, we're having trouble sustaining it, we're hoping you will purchase, > will be a potentially successful strategy. That or do they get that Collabora > is the premiere developer and TDF isn't developing this for free? If they've > already institutionalized the software it might be worth tugging at the rug > under them a bit and telling them the project may not be able to continue as > a going entity because the contractor they used is not providing any > contributions to the development of the software. But this leads to my later > point about trustmarks. > > 1) c) Does Collabora and/or the TDF not have a dedicated government > relations advocacy employee in Europe/North America/Other market countries? > There are many discussions that occur at the government relations level that > lead to contracts and exposure of opportunities to companies. > > 2) That the TDF is not adequately promoting it's enterprise vendors is a > failure of the TDF's marketing committee and the contractors that they hired. > I have followed LO and AOO for years now and I've noticed that the TDF > marketing committee is unwilling to promote LibreOffice in modern ways. There > seems to be a lack of focus on communities outside the FOSS environment, > which doesn't make sense because it's like setting up a booth to advertise > bibles at a religious convention. Why does Libreoffice focus on attending > FOSS conferences instead of International Government conferences? The NGOs > that use LibreOffice for free would be obliged to let Libreoffice attend the > WEF, Davos, and other places. Is there the potential that the leadership of > the Marketing at TDF is not thinking out of the box, or too small? > > 3) SaaS model - recognizing that all the costs you just listed to set up > small clients is cost prohibitive and that you would need to get 10,000+ > clients for it to be viable -- I would only suggest that because it's hard > and maybe expensive doesn't preclude the idea that this may be one of the > best options to generate sustainable income. > > 3) a) Personally I was excited at the opportunity to pay for LibreOffice > support via Collabora as an individual. I couldn't, because I needed to have > several employees first to justify it. Instead I donate to TDF, but &g
Re: [board-discuss] LibreOffice Personal & TDF's statutes & purpose
It would be better to call it "LibreOffice Unsupported" and "LibreOffice Paid Support" instead of using the terms "LibreOffice Enterprise" and "LibreOffice Personal". You're arguing that using the term "community" creates confusion because of other open source projects providing the same tagging. But some of those projects also use "Enterprise" to describe their paid versions, and those versions have different features than their community editions. So I don't get the argument that allowing for the "Enterprise" tag is OK, but a "Community" tag is not. I've read and understand the context of the marketing plan, as well as Michael's article on business models. I understand the intent; but there is uncertainty about LibreOffice as a sustainable project as is being alluded to by Michael and other ecosystem partners and this is being used as a veiled threat to introduce changes that haven't received proper community consultation. A statement by TDF saying there is no plan to do these things, while continuing to discuss moving to an edition system, is the left hand washing the car while the right hand throws dirt --- or some better idiom than this. To point to links and mailing lists that anyone under the age of 40 probably does not use regularly is not a good way to engage with your community. Several suggestions have been made and it seems like certain people are resistant to them without giving legitimate reasons beyond "this is always how we've done it, you should have checked instead. It's your fault for not flooding your email inbox with chatter." (There are 40 upvotes and 0 downvotes on this comment: https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2020/07/07/libreoffice_community_protests_at_introduction/#c_4067368 ) Obviously how it's been done before is not working because people are upset and concerned about the project. So I'd encourage some self-reflection in resisting calls to use modern software infrastructure for the project to communicate better with stakeholders/donors beyond those who have the privilege to be paid to work on the project. Cheers, Kevin
Re: [board-discuss] LibreOffice Personal & TDF's statutes & purpose
I am sorry Simon, and sorry to whoever else was offended by my ageist/crude language. What I was trying to communicate is that Gen Z developers have low interest in looking at Gerrit, Bugzilla, Mailing Lists, or AskBot if there are projects that are using modern, visually pleasing and easier to interact with tools. There are some steps that can be taken to appeal to this generation of coders and increase community involvement in the project.
Re: [board-discuss] LibreOffice Personal & TDF's statutes & purpose
Hi Paolo, I think as stated earlier, as part of the consultation regarding the marketing plan there should be a discussion around tag names. Collectively calling the ecosystem "Enterprise" has connotations of different editions, even if it's stated that there will be no difference in versions. Community could be the result but it seems based on comments here Italo disagrees with using that term and both Michael and Italo have commented here that Personal is still on the table. I apologize for my abrasiveness (I wish no ill-will against Michael or Italo and I apologize if they feel that way), I'm just responding based on the comments on this mailing list as to what I see. If there are in-person discussions that allow for more nuanced understanding because of how we humans communicate, that's great. Regarding software solutions; I don't want to prescribe anything. It should be up to the staff at TDF to determine what they're comfortable working with. I think the democraciaos suggested by Daniel, or Loomio might be solutions worth investigating though to facilitate more stakeholder collaboration. I would suggest that multiple FOSS projects are using open source forum software to engage their communities. Discourse and NodeBB are two popular, modern looking ones with many community enhancing features (upvoting, badges, signatures, polling, easy screenshot attachment, gifs, stickied posts, etc.) that could increase engagement and accessibility in the project. These software have been production ready for 4+ years. I would think, if I were maintaining a community such as this, doing a review of community engagement software every 4 or 5 years would be appropriate to stay up to date with the times while not being too intrusive to established workflows. Maybe that's too rapid for some. Consider that the Apache OnlyOffice forum is being used today by people looking for LibreOffice support. ie. rather than getting community support from the askbot, people are going to a different organization's dated phpbb forums to ask for support, because of the familiarity and comfort with using forum software. There are also limitations with askbot that have been identified multiple times over the past 6 years on the LO askbot site, and these were ignored by TDF. I hear now there's a plan to transition to a forum, that's great! These software being able to be self-hosted I am sure TDF could find a hosting provider that is GDPR-compliant that would be willing to provide hosting and maintenance for those software without a significant cost. Personally, I think a dedicated modern open-source forum will go a long way to providing support and building a community engagement with the project, if moderated correctly and with the usage of polls, etc. I even think it's worth paying a small annual fee to be able to post (but not view), or to receive a badge. I also don't see forum software disappearing in a few months/years as they've been established for a long time. I would suggest these could be used to replace the mailing list as well as they do offer threaded functionality and can be archived for accountability. At least some mailing list discussions should move to a forum, notably the marketing and discussion forums. We now have conversations occurring on Telegram, LO blog posts, mailing lists, and external sites outside of TDF moderation. Further with the mailing list I can't edit or be moderated for the insensitive statements I made earlier which doesn't bug me as much but I do feel bad if others are continuously offended. I would try to provide more thoughts but I've reached what I have time available for to contribute to the "Community Edition" of LibreOffice and I have to get back to work. Cheers, Kevin > On 09/07/2020 14:48 Paolo Vecchi > wrote: > > > Hi Kev, > > thanks for your feedback and see inline my comments. > > On 09/07/2020 19:41, Kev M wrote: > > > > It would be better to call it "LibreOffice Unsupported" > and "LibreOffice Paid Support" instead of using the terms "LibreOffice > Enterprise" and "LibreOffice Personal". > > > > > Note that we are talking about adding a tag line, if the Community > > agrees, and that you are very welcome to propose the tag line you would > > like to LibreOffice which, apart from the tag line, won't change in > > anything else. > > As described in the proposed marketing plan, in the communication we sent > out Monday and on various channels there won't be any product called > "LibreOffice Enterprise" coming out of TDF, that's only a collective name we > are proposing for the members of the ecosystem. > >
[board-discuss] Re: [tdf-members] Personal: and software freedom.
Nice, hadn't seen this. Thanks for pointing it out Lionel. I purchased a license to support it. I like how they've framed it as LibreOffice Vanilla vs LibreOffice powered by CIB. I agree with your other points too Lionel and you've communicated it in a way I was looking to in an earlier post. There is definitely a gap in the ability for small businesses and individuals who want to support the project to pay for it. Automation is key. Though I see this CIB option is good for Windows users, but not those that don't want to use the Microsoft Store. Personally, in the IT world, I usually ignore the "contact us for pricing" vendors; you have to chat with someone for 30-60 minutes to try to get them to tell you how expensive their software is.. it's easier just to find a competing vendor that has a price calculator on their site.
Re: [board-discuss] Re: [tdf-members] Personal: and software freedom.
Hey Michael, That's fair, I think then what Lionel is saying makes sense. There should be a automated/listed price version for small enterprises and individual users that want support or just to support. Maybe a different vendor would handle this segment of the market with a partnership with Collabora to provide large enterprise /corporate support. I do wonder what the market spread is for company size. Without evidence but I think there is a large segment that are SMEs that would be willing to pay for tech support if it was less than other office software. WPS Office has a whole business line on selling a $50 annual subscription to their templates. It is rather off topic but I don't see revenue as separate from the purpose of the marketing plan as it was formulated. Good luck, Kevin Jul. 10, 2020 06:01:58 Michael Meeks : > Hi Kev, > > I havn't had a chance to get back to your rather detailed and > interesting feedback en-mass; but let me respond to just this one > (nearly totally off-topic) > nugget =) > > On 10/07/2020 05:15, Kev M wrote: >> Personally, in the IT world, I usually ignore the "contact us for >> pricing" vendors; you have to chat with someone for 30-60 minutes to try >> to get them to tell you how expensive their software is.. it's easier >> just to find a competing vendor that has a price calculator on their site. > > We tried this at Collabora both ways. As a developer my instinct was > always to be as easy to do business with as possible: public pricing, no > discounts, provide as much information as possible to every inquiry so > that with minimal round-trips people have all the information to make > their own decision without having to interact with or relate to anyone etc. > > I spent my time leaning on professional sales people to tell them that > this is the right way to do business. > > But - you know, it basically doesn't work in the enterprise space (or > perhaps anywhere outside supermarkets selling ultra commodity products > ;-). It was an expensive lesson for me to learn. > > Putting less information on our website for example - increased > inquiries (no surprise), and with the friendly conversations that ensued > we managed to explain our proposition, answer any objections and then > sell (and we're not expensive of course). > > What can I say; it's not my preferred approach - but then, if it works > - and that delivers funds we can turn back into LibreOffice improvement: > needs must ... > > ATB, > > Michael. > > -- > michael.me...@collabora.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity > Hangout: mejme...@gmail.com, Skype: mmeeks > (M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe > -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] Re: [tdf-members] Personal: and software freedom.
Also to add, Why not call it LibreOffice Vanilla? There's no inferences as Community or Personal have that suggest a lesser product. It's not called Plain, which sounds boring. Partners can sell Libreoffice support with the Libreoffice "powered by" or "engine" (personally engine sounds like it will lead to proprietary plug-ins) branding. As Florian wrote, if I were at an NGO, school, or some other small business, Vanilla wouldn't be a discouraging name, but it would be a reminder that I'm using the gratis version with no support. It then allows certified vendors the freedom to do their own branding of LibreOffice. (This would also solve the mascot issue because LO could have a vanilla tree as mascot which would fit the green theme. I'd like to see Tyson Tan make an anime character out of that.) Jul. 10, 2020 00:15:02 Kev M : > Nice, hadn't seen this. Thanks for pointing it out Lionel. I purchased a > license to support it. I like how they've framed it as LibreOffice Vanilla vs > LibreOffice powered by CIB. > > I agree with your other points too Lionel and you've communicated it in a way > I was looking to in an earlier post. There is definitely a gap in the ability > for small businesses and individuals who want to support the project to pay > for it. Automation is key. Though I see this CIB option is good for Windows > users, but not those that don't want to use the Microsoft Store. > > Personally, in the IT world, I usually ignore the "contact us for pricing" > vendors; you have to chat with someone for 30-60 minutes to try to get them > to tell you how expensive their software is.. it's easier just to find a > competing vendor that has a price calculator on their site. >
Re: [board-discuss] Re: [tdf-members] Personal: and software freedom.
K, this is the amazing thing about Vanilla. It's actually black. Well, it's actually more ochre-ish. Also, I get Olvier's point about it being too cartoonish to use Vanilla; but I retort: Google uses candybar names for it's versions of Android. Debian uses Toy Story characters. I could find many more examples where software has a "cartoonish" name. The nice thing about Vanilla is that everyone implicity knows what it means; plain, but it doesn't sound boring like plain, and Vanilla can be Vanilla, like the ice-cream, or Vanilla the substance, which again, is black. I would hope that HR/IT departments are not so irrationally reactionary to the BLM movement that they would look so far into "Vanilla". VanillaForums software might be in trouble. Meaningful engagement with their employees on issues such as racism is a better goal: https://hbr.org/2020/06/u-s-businesses-must-take-meaningful-action-against-racism
Re: [board-discuss] Some problems.
>Is this possible? Based on our development model, I do not think it is possible. We know that in Bugzilla there are end user requests for new features which have been sitting there for years, because either there was no request from the same feature by enterprises willing to pay for them, and there were no developers willing to work on them. I think this is important for network effects that haven't been realized by LibreOffice yet. If I have time this evening I will try to find the article; but when a company/organization builds software with personal users in mind you end up with happier Enterprise customers. Collecting personal user feedback and implementing I would argue should be the priority of TDF, while enterprises can focus on Enterprise contracts. Essentially the argument is if it looks good, and feels easy to use, people will want to use it at work as well. Word of mouth marketing is quite powerful for organizations with low budgets. I think moving towards the TDF fixing some of those user-requested bug fixes should be a priority for the TDF as you suggested the TDF could do Italo.
Re: [board-discuss] Re: [tdf-members] Personal: and software freedom.
Fair, I suppose my ethnocentrism is showing. I do think that "Community" in the FOSS world carries connotations that suggest less features. At least it's better than Home, Personal, or Individual. It would be nice if there was a neutral third term that was universally known to communicate "plain, no enterprise support.' Jul. 14, 2020 04:52:38 Lionel Élie Mamane : > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:29:03PM -0400, Kev M wrote: > >> The nice thing about Vanilla is that everyone implicity knows what >> it means; > > I don't think the term is well-understood outside of those with a deep > understanding of the English language and at least one associated > culture. I expect it to be a translation / l10n / i18n nightmare. How > will one calle LibreOffice Vanilla in French? In German? > > As a native European French speaker, I tell you "LibreOffice Vanille" > will _not_ do. It seems plausible to me it would be understood in > (North) American French, though. > -- 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
Re: [board-discuss] Big organisations not contributing
>Did I mention that ~no government person has a business card: you can meet >them at a conference and chat to them while they pass by your very expensive >booth, but following that up and turning it into sales is really tough. They >also tend to operate on a timescale that is extraordinarily long - after all - >there is little pressure to do any given thing by any given date. These are all fair points, but what bugs me about this argument is that it sounds like Collabora did the right thing; hire a government relations expert to focus on business development. I recognize that it takes more than 5 years for government contracts to get accepted sometimes and this isn't always sustainable for a smaller enterprise; But personally I feel like Collabora is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it's still the right model IMO. Is it possible that Enterprise support is marketing to the wrong markets? Microsoft is embedded in the UK and many parts of Europe. Europe is also a wealthy region of the world; many companies can afford to pay for Microsoft Office even if they are not getting the best value for it. Meanwhile, many emerging market countries use LibreOffice in government, schools, and businesses. Brazil is a heavy user of LibreOffice thanks to the great translation and consultant community there. Could that 100,000 euro UK business development expert be split into 2 or 3 business development staff in emerging markets like Indonesia, Brazil, India (probably not because Zoho), and Nigeria? I guess what I'm positing here is that maybe Collabora/CIB are focused on saturated markets where MS Office is already the established and as such are fighting an uphill battle. Rather, if LO Enterprise focused on Developing Markets would they not be able to acquire more government and school contracts? LO is already less expensive than Microsoft Office, possibly with a business development person in these countries it would gain more support contracts and fill a niche that the MS Offices and other vendors aren't interested in. A grassroots/emerging market strategy.
Re: [board-discuss] New Version of Strategic Marcom Plan
All of my comments are as a user/donor, so take from them with the importance you see fit. I believe TBD is To Be Determined. I don't know what the acronym USP means. I like "LibreOffice Technology" a lot more than "LibreOffice Engine". I still don't like slide 46: "...focused on needs of individual users" - Why can't it say only "you are using the volunteer supported version of LibreOffice" - or "you are using the volunteer supported version of LibreOffice, this version does for enterprise/professional support services please see [URL to Enterprise page]" Currently it implies a focus on the needs of individual users and suggests that there is a difference in the versions of the software. This is misleading in my opinion. The LibreOffice Community/Vanilla/Plain version is the same software without professional technical support and other Enterprise service enhancements. If an enterprise wants to provide paid individual support for users in the future, this hurts the ability for the enterprise ecosystem to offer this service if there is a free version that is "focused on the individual". Just because paid individual support doesn't work for existing ecosystem partners business models doesn't mean that another LibreOffice Ecosystem vendor won't offer individual service in the future. TheGood.Cloud offers individuals paid Collabora Online support for an extra 1.5 euro a month. Maybe that revenue model will take off. Slides 49 & 50: I think the board will have to vote on this. Italo's perspective is the opposite of some of the other engaged users on this issue. Based on the slides, he sees Personal as implying no restrictions, while Community does. Others, see it from the perspective that Community implies no restrictions, while Personal does. Aside from doing a randomized market research survey of 1,000 respondents there will be no empirically researched right answer. I would still prefer a third, plain term instead of Community or Personal. Maybe some market research spending is needed to survey people on a few names and to find one that most people agree with. Slide 55: .business is and improvement to .biz (at least in North America), but why not Libreoffice.com for the commercial version, and Libreoffice.org for the Community, etc. version? I will join the linkedin group when it's created and share posts. Great idea! 62: Strongly suggest not adding a Start Screen to LibreOffice online for UX reasons. There's no need to create a barrier to accessing documents online when none of the other providers have this layer. Personally if it doesn't support the ecosystem partners, who gain most of their revenue from it, and it strays from the TDF's goals, focusing on making LibreOffice Online easier to set up should be a low priority activity. This is definitely one area where the "Taker" mentality is strong. I've asked multiple NextCloud hosts if they pay for Collabora Online and they all reply they just use the CODE version. As a user, what I'd like to see is the TDF to provide an easy avenue for users to access LibreOffice online. That might include recommending Nextcloud hosts, or future SaaS vendors of the LibreOffice Online software. I still think the community could generate sustainable revenue from individual users that would be willing to pay for LibreOffice as a service. This option does not exist in the ecosystem currently. 65: Very good idea. It will make it easier for users to search for LibreOffice in the app stores.
Re: [board-discuss] New Version of Strategic Marcom Plan
> The document just confirms that the start screen is missing, and does > not even hint to add one. Respectfully; The opposite of missing is found. I was reacting defensively but there it could be interpreted that way by someone without context (like me). On the brand expert that offered his time to help; He may be right. I come from a market/survey research background so my default is data over expertise (even if I was talking to Jon Hamm's Madmen character or Steve Jobs). Maybe I'm wrong but my opinion is different. I agree with your Iceberg chart that people who are interested and hold certain values/ideals might not accurately reflect the overall userbase that generally don't care. Your branding expert is possibly correct in their assessment that Personal is better. But alarms are going off in the heads of me and other FOSS supporters/ideologues on the implications of the term. Hard to balance interests. Just my 2 cents. > On 15/07/2020 13:19 Italo Vignoli wrote: > > > On 7/15/20 6:36 PM, Kev M wrote: > > > I still don't like slide 46: "...focused on needs of individual users" - > > Why can't it say only "you are using the volunteer supported version of > > LibreOffice" - or "you are using the volunteer supported version of > > LibreOffice, this version does for enterprise/professional support > > services please see [URL to Enterprise page]" > > That has still to be discussed. > > > Slides 49 & 50: > > I think the board will have to vote on this. Italo's perspective is the > > opposite of some of the other engaged users on this issue. Based on the > > slides, he sees Personal as implying no restrictions, while Community > > does. Others, see it from the perspective that Community implies no > > restrictions, while Personal does. Aside from doing a randomized market > > research survey of 1,000 respondents there will be no empirically > > researched right answer. > > Actually, the name Personal has been suggested by a branding specialist, > based on a knowledge database of thousands of names (he is a friend and > a former colleague, so I paid him with rigatoni alla gricia and a good > bottle of red wine, but he is usually far more expensive). > > > Slide 55: > > .business is and improvement to .biz (at least in North America), but > > why not Libreoffice.com for the commercial version, and Libreoffice.org > > for the Community, etc. version? > > Because libreoffice.com is owned by TDF, and we cannot promote an > enterprise product on a TDF web property, as otherwise we would risk to > lose our charitable status. So, we need a compromise. > > > 62: Strongly suggest not adding a Start Screen to LibreOffice online for > > UX reasons. There's no need to create a barrier to accessing documents > > online when none of the other providers have this layer. > > The document just confirms that the start screen is missing, and does > not even hint to add one. > > -- > Italo Vignoli - LibreOffice Marketing & PR > mobile/signal +39.348.5653829 - email it...@libreoffice.org > hangout/jabber italo.vign...@gmail.com - skype italovignoli > 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
Re: [board-discuss] Initiative to improve communication channels
If democraciaOS is not available/up to date I would suggest investigating https://www.loomio.org/ - They are open source under the GPL-license. There are other participatory democracy software out there that exist but I don't know many that are Open Source.
[board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Friday, August 14th at 1300 Berlin time (UTC+2)
I'm guessing based on the information provided in the titles that the TDF is looking to set up a The Document "Co-operative/Corporation". If it is the case you're setting up a business entity, may I strongly plead towards setting up a multi-stakeholder platform co-operative instead of a corporation? 1) CIB, Collabora, etc. would have equal voting rights as organization members 2) Donor/subscribers would have voting rights as personal members. 3) TDF/TDC staff would have voting rights as worker members. The weighting of votes could be determined by contributions, so maybe (60% org weight, 30% member weight, 10% worker weight). Trebor Scholz, a german professor at The New School in NYC is a proponent of platform co-ops and would likely be quite interested in helping out. There are a lot of other platform co-op enthusiasts that would likely help with this work as well, it would help with task 3113 (though I don't know why Heiko is so resistant against creating an online forum like Discourse considering the community is clamouring for it.) There are also lots of resources online with templates, etc. to set up a co-operative organization; in Europe the ICA (Belgium), CICOPA (Italy), etc. would be excited to help I would imagine. This also would be a potential revenue stream as voting membership could be set as an annual requirement to maintain good standing. Consider that Taz.de - a media co-op in Berlin, is purely funded by it's members, despite the availability of free news around the world and states. If you'd be interested in going in this direction I'd be happy to provide some volunteer time to assist in creation/governance. Cheers, Kevin
Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Friday, August 14th at 1300 Berlin time (UTC+2)
Hi Lothar, Genossenschaft is the German term, yes. I can participate on the call but I would have to leave at 13:30 Berlin time for another appointment. If the control of the entity is to remain under the TDF, it may not be applicable. A Genossenschaft is structured to be controlled by it's members. Typically the structure involves one member, one vote, however in multi-stakeholder co-operatives that voting structure can be weighted so that certain classes of voters have more vote weight than others. The TDF could engage into a legal arrangement with the co-operative that implies control of actions based on a contractual service arrangement.. but theoretically the board of the co-op would be run independently. If it's the case that the TDF must control the entity then forming a co-op may be an overly complicated matter. I'll attend the conference at 13:00 Berlin time tomorrow and if there is time for me to speak on it before 13:30 I will. Cheers, Kevin > On 13/08/2020 11:42 Lothar K. Becker > wrote: > > > Hi Kevin, > > thanks for sharing your idea, sounds interesting, if I understood it > right it is the "Genossenschaft" you are mentioning? > > It is worth to think about and value it if such an organisation could > help to full fill the solution for handling app store activities and get more > code contributions financed, under control of TDF. > > What about discussing the idea in the public part of the meeting > tomorrow, are you available there? I would love to have your full name then > to ask you in the meeting to say a few sentence about the idea. > > Thanks again, hopefully speaking tomorrow a bit about the idea, all the > best > Lothar Becker > > Am 13.08.2020 um 16:19 schrieb Kev M: > > > > I'm guessing based on the information provided in the > titles that the TDF is looking to set up a The Document > "Co-operative/Corporation". > > > > If it is the case you're setting up a business entity, may I > > strongly plead towards setting up a multi-stakeholder platform co-operative > > instead of a corporation? > > > > 1) CIB, Collabora, etc. would have equal voting rights as > > organization members > > 2) Donor/subscribers would have voting rights as personal members. > > 3) TDF/TDC staff would have voting rights as worker members. > > > > The weighting of votes could be determined by contributions, so > > maybe (60% org weight, 30% member weight, 10% worker weight). > > > > Trebor Scholz, a german professor at The New School in NYC is a > > proponent of platform co-ops and would likely be quite interested in > > helping out. > > > > There are a lot of other platform co-op enthusiasts that would > > likely help with this work as well, it would help with task 3113 (though I > > don't know why Heiko is so resistant against creating an online forum like > > Discourse considering the community is clamouring for it.) > > > > There are also lots of resources online with templates, etc. to set > > up a co-operative organization; in Europe the ICA (Belgium), CICOPA > > (Italy), etc. would be excited to help I would imagine. > > > > This also would be a potential revenue stream as voting membership > > could be set as an annual requirement to maintain good standing. Consider > > that Taz.de - a media co-op in Berlin, is purely funded by it's members, > > despite the availability of free news around the world and states. > > > > If you'd be interested in going in this direction I'd be happy to > > provide some volunteer time to assist in creation/governance. > > > > Cheers, > > Kevin > > > > > > -- > Lothar K. Becker, 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 > > mail: lot...@documentfoundation.org mailto:lot...@documentfoundation.org > phone: +49 7202 9499 001 (c/o .riess applications gmbh) >
Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Friday, August 14th at 1300 Berlin time (UTC+2)
Hi, Regarding setting up in Canada: Reading through this article will tell you everything you need to know regarding entities, tax, and liability implications: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-564-0499?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true I think Telesto raises some strong points against setting up in Canada; The ones that resonated with me were related to the geographic separation of board directors and the ability and familiarity with Canadian law. Unless you have a Canadian board member or TDF or TDC employee domiciled in Canada, it will be difficult to go through bureaucratic processes in the country. There are also nuances to Canadian law and culture that may seem a bit confusing or backwards compared to say, the Netherlands or another European country. Consider this example; in the Netherlands, a Digital ID system is in place that allows for board members to sign documents electronically from anywhere in the world, which significantly speeds up the process of making decisions and getting government approval on forms, changes, etc. In Canada, we are still debating how a national Digital ID system will be implemented (it's at least 2-3 years out). Currently in many provinces they still require you to fax or mail-in documentation. I tried to email a scanned PDF once and my provincial business registrar refused to accept it. The TDF would have to weigh bureaucratic inefficiencies and the time to resolve them with the overall tax savings (which, I do not know what the tax comparison between Canada and an EU tax-haven like Luxembourg would be.) Geopolitically I also see LibreOffice as being a European-based project; and as such with the unfortunate impending balkanization of technology to geographic spheres, European government support of LibreOffice may increase if any perceived corporation headquarters (despite it being owned by the TDF -- because headquarters seems to be the only metric policymakers care about anymore) is domiciled in the EU rather than Canada. Canada is also heavily lobbied by Microsoft for government contracts and if there are future inroads being made by LibreOffice into Microsoft's cash cow product, I wouldn't be surprised to see speedbumps from the Canadian bureaucrats impeding TDC initiatives. I personally believe positioning LibreOffice as a made-in-Europe solution could lead to government grants and more support contracts, but this would require the TDF/TDC/Enterprise Stakeholders to commission a government relations firm to advocate on LibreOffice's behalf, or to engage in a grassroots campaign with LibreOffice users to raise awareness with local politicians (a tall order for something most people don't think about regularly). If you did want to proceed with setting something up in Canada then following the rules in the link above will cover your bases, but I would still recommend speaking to a Canadian lawyer who specializes in taxes and incorporation. I do know of a few that I can introduce the board to if they want to seriously consider this route. IMO it wouldn't be worth it - though I don't have complete information on the financial benefits of doing so vs. using a European country.
[board-discuss] an Online move ...
Interesting move. Makes a lot of sense considering the challenges with the configuration/differences of opinion WRT to TDF strategy. Personally; I still think this move doesn't address the fundamental issue around sustainability of the project/product in the hands of non-enterprise individual consumers, for Collabora or the TDF. Knowing that TDF is structured in a way that makes it difficult to spend donations, and there is upwards of a million euros being held because they can't spend it is an indicator that some changes are needed to streamline approvals, etc. I don't really see a need to donate to the TDF if the money can't be spent on improving the software in short order. However, my understanding was that setting up the Luxembourgh commercial entity was to allow for app sales and other commercial actions that would primarily be based on Collabora's work on mobile and online. So I don't understand what the primary drive for the entity is anymore (I'm sure there are other good reasons but I thought that was the main one.) I still would strongly suggest/urge setting up some sort of co-op annual membership fee (doesn't have to require for the use of the software, it could just be for voting for a consumer representative on the board), or for Collabora or TDF to offer some sort of individual SaaS support subscription service for Libreoffice. I think that's the model that will work for LibreOffice in this market. Just my opinion based on my assessment of the software market; I'm also an armchair expert - I have no skin in this game as others like Michael/TDF do. Cheers, Kevin
Re: [board-discuss] Re: [VOTE] New proposal for hiring in-house developers.
Hi Everyone, Casual observer here. Lot's of thoughts about the discussion over the last few months. I just wanted to share my opinion as someone who has worked in board governance before, donates, and wants to see the LibreOffice project succeed. There's obvious personal animosity between Cor/Thorsten and Paolo. You guys should look for an arbitrator immediately. It would be worth the money to do so. I don't mean a lawyer, but a professional board governance arbitrator. I'm a little concerned about how Thorsten is handling this manner as Board Chair as it seems like he's in conflict with TDF management and this is happening in a passive aggressive manner (I say this from the limited information I have). Here's some suggested reading about why board backchannels are a bad practice, and how you can make your board healthier: https://hbr.org/2019/09/back-channels-in-the-boardroom That aside; On the issue of hiring a dedicated TDF developer. There's obvious blatant interest on the part of the directors that represent Collabora and Altropia to nerf the ability of the future TDF developer to do anything that competes with their companies. I'm not sure this is aligned with the interests of the TDF and poses an interesting FOSS problem as Collabora and Altropia are clearly the largest contributors to LibreOffice code. But I'm having trouble understanding why this is such a big deal? TDF takes in 1.3 million in donations a year. You already have overhead on foundation administration. There will be maybe 1-2 developers at TDF that will be funded in the short (1-2 years) to medium (5 years) term. Even if, as Cor insinuates, Paolo has Machiavellian plans to leverage TDF developers to restart LO Online development for his own personal gain (I'm skeptical based on Occam's razor), Collabora and Altropia don't offer consumer-facing LibreOffice products (I as a consumer can't use Collabora Online unless I go through a third-party distributor). So there's no competition here. Further, surely Collabora and Altropia must realize what resources are needed to support office suite software for consumers (since they don't offer consumer products), or businesses. Customer service, SLAs, QA, etc. is not something the TDF will be able to do. Arguing over a clause in a hiring document is irrelevant when compared to the pragmatic realities of the resource constraints. You could say explicitly in the hiring document this single developer will work on an alternative to Collabra Online and it still wouldn't happen, not least because it conflicts with the new marketing strategy of Community vs. En terprise. Further, making it easier for people to screw up their installations at the office with a LO Online version and require enterprise support can only benefit the Enterprise support partners. I'm struggling to understand the short-termism of Collabora's strategy here. 1) Just pass the resolution and get donor funds working towards development. It isn't and will never be a competitive threat to Collabora/Altropia. 2) Please find a board governance arbitrator ASAP. And strongly recommend you stop using back channels in a FOSS project. It's bad practice in a private company I'm not sure why it would be considered good in a foundation that's raison d'etre is to be open and transparent. Forest through the trees people.. Best of Luck, Kevin Morris
