Also, as I made it clear, what is not on the marketing list will be ignored.
On 10/24/20 5:51 AM, Marc Paré wrote: > It's a shame that this discussion is not taking place on the marketing > list where we have been asked to discuss. This thread will not be read > by the others on the marketing list and will miss all of both of your > good points to the discussion. > > Marc > > Le 2020-10-23 à 15 h 27, Telesto a écrit : >> Official Edition is confusing. Which suggests there is also a >> Unofficial edition. >> A copy cat fork? Or are those LTS releases powered by clones, trying >> to make a profit from TDF LibreOffice >> >> A normal framework would be regular and LTS releases. However this >> distinction not totally working out as there is not one vendor doing both >> they Regular release and LTS. >> >> So maybe (some sound really awful, but maybe it helps with brainstorming) >> LibreOffice Regular Edition by TDF >> LibreOffice Common Edition >> LibreOffice Fresh Edition >> LibreOffice Feature-rich Edition >> LibreOffice Innovation Edition >> LibreOffice Innovative Edition >> LibreOffice Novel Edition >> LibreOffice State of the Art Edition >> LibreOffice Progress Edition >> LibreOffice Progressive Edition >> LibreOffice Advancement Edition >> LibreOffice Latest >> LibreOffice Active Edition >> LibreOffice Modern Edition >> LibreOffice Snapshot edition >> >> Also bit hard to differentiate between 'branch' and 'edition' >> LibreOffice by TDF is branched of the 'latest' while LTS being >> somewhat 'conventional' >> >> Sometime I tend to 'drop' the explicit mentioning of 'Edition'. >> Does it really need explicit 'Edition' to be called edition when >> materially an edition? >> >> So the website/wiki etc LibreOffice is promoted as Latest supplied/ >> made available by TDF. >> LibreOffice simply called LibreOffice. Prominently being presented as >> based on a 'rolling' release model/framework which might be more >> unstable, >> with a 'fixed' snapshot schedule. So we tag it 7.0.2 for >> differentiation purposes (bug tracking/communication). >> Without explicitly guaranteeing 7.0.3 to be better compared to 7.0.2. >> It often is, but not all they time. >> Take current 7.0.2 bit a of a calculation disaster compared to 7.0.1 >> So would advocate a more or less Debian Development model. Rolling >> model with Cycles (smaller incremental) large major updates. >> Where LibreOffice LTS powered by being framed a still/stable editions >> for more 'conventional usage' >> >> Note also they distinction by 'powered' and 'supplied' or 'made >> available' which more passive, compared to >> powered. TDF simply builds the 'latest' branch, doesn't do much >> development by itself. >> >> And to make 'LTS' bit more attractive.. drop the whole stable/still >> edition at TDF. >> People using LibreOffice should be on 'rolling'. Or use they archive >> to find some older version. >> People don't have to upgrade. But TDF doesn't need to have a >> unmaintained 'still'. >> Where as the still branch never had a proper reputation (at least in >> my world). I mostly pick fresh (or even master). >> Replace that with a 'LTS story' powered by.. It cheap enough to be >> bought by regular users. >> So or they contribute by being in the 'rolling' - permanent >> improving/regressing testing version. Or opt for the more reliable, >> older and paid LTS. >> And we could put a note how to dig up they last release in a cycle. >> However not to be communicated actively as 'stable'. >> >> What I personally conceive is a mess if of course 'powered by'. There >> are two or more LTS versions :-( >> And I assume there are some difference between CIB <-> Collabora >> (except the name), >> but I'm surely not knowing what that should be. I mean it, I really >> don't know! >> Is CIB better compared to Collabora? Or visa versa? Is there no >> difference, but why two versions? I'm still confused here. >> As a user I would think, did I buy the right one. >> >> Regards, >> Telesto >> >> >> >> Op 23-10-2020 om 18:43 schreef Simon Phipps: >>> It certainly (correctly) indicates there are unofficial editions in >>> circulation. I see that as a helpful differentiator. I would not jump to >>> the conclusion they are untrustworthy; however, the use of a validated >>> "Libreoffice technology" signifier as Italo has proposed would fix >>> that if >>> it were a problem for other editions to confirm they too are approved by >>> TDF. >>> >>> The term "Community Edition" is very commonly used to differentiate >>> feature-limited versions so if I had to choose, I would rather our >>> version >>> was considered strong because we use an "Official Edition" tag rather >>> than >>> the software produced by others being considered stronger because we >>> use a >>> "Community Edition" tag. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Simon >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 3:16 PM Nigel Verity <nigelver...@hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Doesn't this imply there are some unofficial and, thereby, >>>> untrustworthy >>>> editions in circulation? >>>> >>>> Nige >>>> >>>>> On 23 Oct 2020, at 06:44, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Taking on board all the concerns about not giving the impression of a >>>>> weaker version, and if "no label" is really not an option, how about >>>>> calling TDF's package "official edition"? >>>>> >>>> >> >> > > -- 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
