Hi,
On 2022-06-23 17:09, Paolo Vecchi wrote:
Hi Andreas,
thank you for letting us know that you are working on it.
Ideally it would be great to have a few developers working on it,
especially to fix known security issues, and sufficient activity to
make it viable.
It is true that LOOL has been in a kind of limbo. The repository has
been frozen "temporarily" but it kind of became a permanent situation.
In your opinion, would reopening the repository for 12 months provide
enough time for a community to form around it?
It would require warnings until all the security bugs have been fixed
and that it might not be well maintained until we see constant and
sufficient activity but it could be an option to make it up for the
longer than expected temporary freeze of the repository.
We need not only a security warning, but clear information that the
recommended versions of LOOL are still CODE and Collabora Online
(LibreOffice Technology (TM)).
A few months ago my corporate client wasted time and money because they
didn't notice on the
TDF site that LOOL is not actively developed. Thanks to the helpfulness
of employees of
Collabora Productivity, now they can test its fork with an up-to-date
LibreOffice in their intranet, and
started to contribute back to CODE (they have already been one of the
biggest contributors
of LibreOffice Desktop).
Why do we need to emphasize that CODE/Collabora Online are the
recommended versions (by TDF, too:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/LibreOffice_Online#Current_Status)?
Not only because LOOL was the idea and for the most part, product of
Collabora Productivity,
but because the original core LOOL developers still work for Collabora
in the spirit of the
free software: CODE is the only actively developed version of LOOL, and
this is the only maintained
version which contributes back to LibreOffice actively.
More information: https://collaboraonline.github.io/post/faq/ (by the
way, Collabora's description
mentions other maintained versions, like OSSII and Zimbra Docs).
If after 12 months we don't see much activity then we could be certain
that the community is not really interested in working on LOOL.
It would be great to know if others have other
takes/options/alternatives on this subject.
I'm sure, the potential corporate contributors will prefer
CODE/Collabora Online, so it's really important to inform them (and
every LibreOffice users) correctly, like in
https://collaboraonline.github.io/post/faq/.
As CODE/Collabora Online are LibreOffice Technology (TM), and for the
healthy long-term LibreOffice development, I would like to see more
contribution with Collabora Productivity. In my opinion, as LOOL was,
CODE is still the key for the survival of LibreOffice. In the spirit of
a successful free software contribution, respecting the decision of
Collabora Productivity, TDF must help CODE development, as much as
possible, for the sake of LibreOffice! As a first step, we shouldn't
hijack future CODE users and as described above, future (and recent)
LibreOffice users and contributors with false hopes and misleading
information.
Best regards,
László
Ciao
Paolo
On 21/06/2022 21:14, Andreas Mantke wrote:
Hi all,
only a short info that I'm currently working on an update of the LOOL
source code with the latest patches. Because I have an issue with my
newly bought hardware I had to migrate my environment (etc.) to
another
hardware (will need some hours of spare time). Thus I was not able to
finish my work during this week.
If someone wants to join me, feel free to send me an email.
Once the necessary bits are done, I'll come back and try to make a
proposal for the further process to get LOOL back under the TDF
umbrella.
Regards,
Andreas
Am 21.06.22 um 14:15 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
Hi all,
just a heads up in case the community would like to come up with
proposals in regards to LibreOffice On-Line.
As you might be aware LOOL's repository has been frozen since the
major code contributor decided to move it to GitHub and not
contribute
back to TDF's repository.
At the time there has been a debate about it but then nothing
actionable seems to have been proposed by the community since then.
Recently an ex-member of the ESC proposed to the ESC to archive LOOL
[0] and during the following ESC meeting no concerns were expressed
for doing so [1].
The "Attic Policy" [2], that has been written to archive obsolete
projects, states that the Board will need to vote on the archival
process to confirm ESC's choice.
It is likely that the board will need to vote on it soon so if the
community would like to do something with LOOL there might be a small
window of opportunity to have your preferences on what to do with it
heard.
If nobody comes along proposing to look after it and update if so
that
it could be brought back into an usable form for the community then
the board might have to vote for having LOOL archived.
Ciao
Paolo
[0]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-June/088982.html
[1]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-June/089018.html
[2] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Policies/Attic
-- ## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog
--
László Németh, 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
--
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
