Hello * since the TDF has always offered Oracle to join the new Community and donate his intellectual property is obvious the fork has been made because there's a fight for who rules the Community, that's all.
If Oracle had joined TDF (obviously dragging the rest of the OOo Community members), the people in TDF would have been virtually the same there was in OOo. The only difference would have been the responsabilities of that people. But if the roles on TDF has to be based in contributions or meritocracy, Oracle contributes about 80% of the programmers; furthermore most of them are the people who developed the core of OOo. So Oracle would deserve to rule in TDF too if they join. And I'm not joking, think about it, pls. So let me doubt about the sincerity of the "joining offer" from TDF to Oracle. The offer was "join us, but we'll rule on own way", which ironically it's the same TDF people is complaining Sun/Oracle did on OOo. Why TDF founders didn't try to change the OOo community rules by democracy or meritocracy before the fork? I've never read on any list a formal or even informal proposal about that. They just decide to take control of everything without asking the Community, and the only way of doing that is leaving OOo and convince as many people as they can to join the fork. That's fair as far as they resign their OOo responsibilities as soon as possible. Why didn't they do it since first day it's not understandable to me. I do why some people is trying to keep its seats: they will able to say afterwords: "Oracle fired us, they're tyranic, do you see?". So everything is just about who has the power. And whose pocket's drops the money OpenOffice is going to generate in next years. Do smells it bad around here or it's just me? Best Greetings, Ra Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: > Hello André, > > On Sunday 17 October 2010, 16:39, André Schnabel wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Am 17.10.2010 19:24, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: >>> I am not that naive. >>> Do you think that some people on LO do not have commercial interests? and >>> are not "primarily thinking of their commercial interests"? >>> >>> An example of commercial interests are the certifications: >>> >>> http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/msg01515.html >> Maybe you should distinguish between people discussion on the list and >> "people on LO". > > From my point of view, the messages I quoted are very representative of what > is going on, and what will come. > But maybe you should explain who are the "people on LO". > > If you missed my last paragraph: >> Not to mention the obvious interest of taking the control on the technical >> decisions to other hands. > > though I agree with you on this: > >> But yes - there are always people areound who have >> commercial interest. This is ok and no problem, as long as all plus >> people without commercial interests them find a way to collaborate and > > it is still not clear to me what entities there are in LO/TDF, and how they > are ruled. > >> there is a gouverning entity that is independent from such interests. > > and here I mean the so called "LibreOffice technical group", which is > basically > Go-oo ("The people behind go-oo.org" from http://go-oo.org/about/) > with another name ("LibreOffice technical group"). > Because by reading > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2010-September/000002.html > I count 5 from Novell and 1 from RedHat among the "Present" and "Invited". > > I do not buy that Novell and RedHat (add Google and Canonical) do not have > commercial interests in this. > > What power has this "LibreOffice technical group", how it was elected, what > rules they follow, and how is this group under the control of the "governing > entity that is independent from such interests", is no clear to me. > > Regards --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-h...@openoffice.org
