Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable

With all the feedback received, I strongly propose to leave 7.0 without
tagging and finalize the plan for a later release.

  I share Thorsten's view. While I've generally been a big proponent of
getting everything nailed down in one try, I would strongly prefer to
get a weaker solution "Community Edition" out which seems to be
collecting a weight of support against Personal. That support arriving
even before we had a clear write-up of the issues we want to solve.
Perhaps we can iterate it based on feedback, we at least generate some
hard data on its effectiveness.

  I would also really like to avoid stalling effective improvements to
our website to encourage enterprises to support the project. The
improvements there to date have been really small and incremental, and
as we now know ineffective.

I know there are concerns this would delay things
infinitely and nothing will happen,

  Ultimately, we're getting press, and interest, and relevance, and
feedback from the community: integrating that into something better
while people are interested sounds good to me. I'm sure marketing can
turn that into a success story.

  It is now widely known that the status-quo is working extraordinarily
poorly. Rather than accepting and extending that for six months - I'd
prefer to use the momentum to encourage at least some improvement.

The name “Personal” excludes even small educational organizations, which
are a part as per slide 29. It also excludes small NGOs - thinking of
the local street worker office with two volunteers, or the youth care

...

but still, I think “Personal” sets the frame too strict.

...> Also, if we go to universities for the budgeted campus ambassador

program, with the above wording, even using in smaller working groups

...

I know the plan is to draw a line somewhere, but the above, at least for
a non-native speaker, feels quite narrow.

  I really don't think we want to discourage contributing to LibreOffice.
That's why it's important we get our marketing right.

  However carving out Education, Universities, NGOs, youth care - as
markets which should not support the project financially is really
unhelpful.

   It is hard to predict the future, and the best predictions are sold to
people rather than being free but checkout:

https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/collaboration-software-market

  This has a pretty pie-chart in it "Canada Collaboration Software Market
share by Application 2026":

https://www.gminsights.com/assets/img/collaboration-software-market-by-application.png

  Education is approaching 25% of that.

  In recent time, Education has been a bright point for actually
contributing to the ecosystem.

  As one example - we can now build and run on iOS and tablets because of
a single education area in Switzerland - as well as a big chunk of
Adfinis and Collabora's investment. Perhaps a good thing we didn't tell
them that they don't have to contribute or get support.

  Education sales has helped to fuel a similarly significant chunk of
C'bras development team via sales in lockdown.

  It is quite unclear to me why some segments that pay for a premis,
heating, lighting, hardware, sysadmin time, network bandwidth,
deployment, a Windows OS :wink: and more should not be encouraged to
contribute to LibreOffice's growth.

  For our friends, we can sooth their conscience and tell them that using
the Personal or Community version is just fine for them, and that we
contribute for them - or whatever =) that's easy to do personally
surely? That means we can help our friends and neighbours while not
killing the market for whole segments.

What we want to do is to very strongly encourage them, convince them,
make things clear to them, because the project can only survive if there
is sufficient funding, and the ecosystem is one of several key
parameters for the success of TDF - we wouldn't be where we are without
all of you, all of the community.

  Thanks for those words.

I find it much easier to celebrate things with a positive message than

  Problem is; this celebration party is great - but currently has nearly
zero attendees =) The hosts are tapping their watches and wondering if
they even bothered to send an invitation out =)

  I would really like to see some messaging that we can show is effective.

TDF is no different in this regard! We ourselves, we use lots of free
software as an organization - be it for web, database, file services,
mail, chat, conferencing and other servers. We have the skills in-house
and we often rely on pre-compiled binaries from free software projects.
We do contribute back e.g. by supporting upstream development, doing
advocacy and working together on a common goal.

  I think this is generally acceptable in the society of FLOSS projects
because we contribute very heavily ourselves.

  We don't spend our time complaining about Nextcloud mailing the
sysadmins of larger users' to suggest paying for support though =) or
for Ubuntu having a 'Pricing' button on its front-page or ... :wink: Most
of these other projects are doing the hard (but much easier)
corporate-owned FLOSS project branding thing.

  We show their brands rather regularly to our users - contributing at
least that value to them.

  The brands we don't effectively show are from those of our ecosystem
that contribute to LibreOffice :wink:

In the end, I trust the marketing team, I trust the board, I trust the
community - and I’m sure our collective wisdom will bring up what is
best for the project.

  That is a positive view.

  ATB,

    Michael.

Thank Thorston

I think the discussion was well and we have now something we can work with.

LibreOffice Community Edition

If we wait for another 6 months nothing will happen. Only the spirit will go away and the community need a clear message how future will be.

Design proposals can be done until next week meeting on 17.07. for LibreOffice and also for the webpage if we have a go for LibreOffice Community Edition. So that in the meeting you can vote for something to implement.

So please give feedback in the design irc what are the guidelines.

Cheers
Andreas_k

Many people from the hispanic Community is in favor of Community tag, myself included. This term identifies pretty well a group of people who are passionate, in this case about a free and open tool.

However, the adoption of such an appellation must be communicated in an appropriate manner and with sufficient notice so that everyone is prepared.

Having said that, I agree with Florian's statement about postponing the tag implementation until the next major version. With the definition of a timetable with the key dates involved and an strong communication strategy.

Hi Andreas, @!

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 11:18 AM kainz.a <kainz.a@gmail.com> wrote:

As I wrote, community edition is fine for me. Fun Project, Fantastic People will be something like a backup which describes the LibreOffice community and can be from my point of view a bit more motivated to donate or use an enterprise release (for companies).

Thanks for sharing this amazing concept in some past email!

Let me suggest my cents (instead ‘LibreOffice Community Edition’) based on it: ‘LibreOffice for People’.

Best!
Gustavo.

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:46 PM kainz.a <kainz.a@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank Thorston

I think the discussion was well and we have now something we can work with.

LibreOffice Community Edition

If we wait for another 6 months nothing will happen. Only the spirit will go away and the community need a clear message how future will be.

Design proposals can be done until next week meeting on 17.07. for LibreOffice and also for the webpage if we have a go for LibreOffice Community Edition. So that in the meeting you can vote for something to implement.

So please give feedback in the design irc what are the guidelines.

Cheers
Andreas_k

Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@collabora.com> schrieb am Fr., 10. Juli 2020, 16:27:

On 10/07/2020 11:12, Florian Effenberger wrote:

With all the feedback received, I strongly propose to leave 7.0 without
tagging and finalize the plan for a later release.

I share Thorsten’s view. While I’ve generally been a big proponent of
getting everything nailed down in one try, I would strongly prefer to
get a weaker solution “Community Edition” out which seems to be
collecting a weight of support against Personal. That support arriving
even before we had a clear write-up of the issues we want to solve.
Perhaps we can iterate it based on feedback, we at least generate some
hard data on its effectiveness.

I would also really like to avoid stalling effective improvements to
our website to encourage enterprises to support the project. The
improvements there to date have been really small and incremental, and
as we now know ineffective.

I know there are concerns this would delay things
infinitely and nothing will happen,

Ultimately, we’re getting press, and interest, and relevance, and
feedback from the community: integrating that into something better
while people are interested sounds good to me. I’m sure marketing can
turn that into a success story.

It is now widely known that the status-quo is working extraordinarily
poorly. Rather than accepting and extending that for six months - I’d
prefer to use the momentum to encourage at least some improvement.

The name “Personal” excludes even small educational organizations, which
are a part as per slide 29. It also excludes small NGOs - thinking of
the local street worker office with two volunteers, or the youth care

but still, I think “Personal” sets the frame too strict.
…> Also, if we go to universities for the budgeted campus ambassador
program, with the above wording, even using in smaller working groups

I know the plan is to draw a line somewhere, but the above, at least for
a non-native speaker, feels quite narrow.

I really don’t think we want to discourage contributing to LibreOffice.
That’s why it’s important we get our marketing right.

However carving out Education, Universities, NGOs, youth care - as
markets which should not support the project financially is really
unhelpful.

It is hard to predict the future, and the best predictions are sold to
people rather than being free but checkout:

https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/collaboration-software-market

This has a pretty pie-chart in it “Canada Collaboration Software Market
share by Application 2026”:

https://www.gminsights.com/assets/img/collaboration-software-market-by-application.png

Education is approaching 25% of that.

In recent time, Education has been a bright point for actually
contributing to the ecosystem.

As one example - we can now build and run on iOS and tablets because of
a single education area in Switzerland - as well as a big chunk of
Adfinis and Collabora’s investment. Perhaps a good thing we didn’t tell
them that they don’t have to contribute or get support.

Education sales has helped to fuel a similarly significant chunk of
C’bras development team via sales in lockdown.

It is quite unclear to me why some segments that pay for a premis,
heating, lighting, hardware, sysadmin time, network bandwidth,
deployment, a Windows OS :wink: and more should not be encouraged to
contribute to LibreOffice’s growth.

For our friends, we can sooth their conscience and tell them that using
the Personal or Community version is just fine for them, and that we
contribute for them - or whatever =) that’s easy to do personally
surely? That means we can help our friends and neighbours while not
killing the market for whole segments.

What we want to do is to very strongly encourage them, convince them,
make things clear to them, because the project can only survive if there
is sufficient funding, and the ecosystem is one of several key
parameters for the success of TDF - we wouldn’t be where we are without
all of you, all of the community.

Thanks for those words.

I find it much easier to celebrate things with a positive message than

Problem is; this celebration party is great - but currently has nearly
zero attendees =) The hosts are tapping their watches and wondering if
they even bothered to send an invitation out =)

I would really like to see some messaging that we can show is effective.

TDF is no different in this regard! We ourselves, we use lots of free
software as an organization - be it for web, database, file services,
mail, chat, conferencing and other servers. We have the skills in-house
and we often rely on pre-compiled binaries from free software projects.
We do contribute back e.g. by supporting upstream development, doing
advocacy and working together on a common goal.

I think this is generally acceptable in the society of FLOSS projects
because we contribute very heavily ourselves.

We don’t spend our time complaining about Nextcloud mailing the
sysadmins of larger users’ to suggest paying for support though =) or
for Ubuntu having a ‘Pricing’ button on its front-page or … :wink: Most
of these other projects are doing the hard (but much easier)
corporate-owned FLOSS project branding thing.

We show their brands rather regularly to our users - contributing at
least that value to them.

The brands we don’t effectively show are from those of our ecosystem
that contribute to LibreOffice :wink:

In the end, I trust the marketing team, I trust the board, I trust the
community - and I’m sure our collective wisdom will bring up what is
best for the project.

That is a positive view.

ATB,

Michael.


michael.meeks@collabora.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity
Hangout: mejmeeks@gmail.com, Skype: mmeeks
(M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe


To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscribe@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

please read through the whole discussion and you may get an impression
that there are some intent to use TDF for such a promotion.

However, those with that impression are entirely mistaken and it is wrong
to imply anyone is attempting the subversion you imply -- no-one has
proposed it. Those expressing the impression you describe have either
misunderstood or decided to misunderstand.

They might be mistaken, but in as much as Collabora has stated that they
have had zero new customers since 2018, it looks a lot like Collabora,
and the rest of the LibreOffice Ecosystem are looking at TDF/LibreOffice
to also do their marketing for them.

because it is a mistake to imply that TDF offers support, or that

TDF/LibreOffice offers Tier 0 support. As far as I can tell, that won't
be changing.

as these leave corporate community members with more work to do explaining their value, not less. TDF needs to leave room for the companies who inves in the code to sustain themselves,

There is absolutely nothing preventing the LibreOffice ecosystem vendors
from marketing Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 support. (FWIW,
Collabora currently does market Tier 3 support.)

However, as Collabora also pointed out in that email, there is no profit
in SOHO support (^1). Unfortunately for the LibreOffice Ecosystem, the
majority of organisations in the world are SOHO --- between 1 and 20
people work in them. My rough estimate is that 90% of the organisations,
globally, have under 20 employees. (There are 250 countries on the
planet. It takes roughly an hour per country, to get the appropriate
data. So if somebody else wants to get that data for each country, and
sort it out, for revenue, number of employees, and type of organisation,
go for it. If TDF/LibreOffice is expected to do the marketing for and on
behalf of the LibreOffice Ecosystem, then LibO Marketing absolutely has
to have that data, to construct country specific/industry specific
marketing plans. )

The issue that everybody is dancing around, is that the LibreOffice
Ecosystem support vendors focus on large (More than 250 employees)
organisations (^2), but the majority of LibO users are either
individuals, or SOHO users.

Going back to Italo's presentation, _Work From Home_ is going to be far
more common, than it was prior to January 2020.

Between businesses filing bankruptcy, and organisations deciding that it
makes better financial sense to give every employee US$10,000 to set up
their own home office, and eliminate leased office space, the commercial
real estate market in the United States is looking at a tough future.
(Of the businesses in the United States on 1 January 2020, projections
are that roughly 25% of them will have filed bankruptcy by 1 January
2021, and almost as many will have permanently closed their doors by
that date.)

Your current large business might be willing and able to sign a support
contract for Tier 1 or Tier 2. However, how much profit will the support
vendor have, if, instead of one site per organisation, there are 500
sites per organisation? With WFH, can support vendors even offer on-site
support? Those are issues that the support vendors need to address.

#####

1) The profit in SOHO support comes from systems integration --- both
hardware and software. Back when white box makers were a dime a dozen,
such contracts were readily available, albeit not advertised.

2) https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76842 exemplifies
the potential client that the support vendor was unable to convert.
8,500 seats would be either £51,000 per month, or per year, assuming the
publicly stated seat prices are accurate. (One place gave the base price
as being per year. A different place gave the base price as being per
month.) Without having the facts on hand, I'd guess that the issue was
money --- specifically, that the bug-reporter was blind-sided by both
the amounts involved, and was provided with none of the virtues of how &
why paying for support would enable his organisation to be more
effective. (Did the vendor rep point out that their support included
software that enables rolling out new releases on a more timely basis,
including extensions, templates, corporate palettes, and the like?)

jonathon

I think the best solution probably lies in just using simple branding of "LibreOffice", and "LibreOffice LTS" for eco-system branding.

As many have already said, LibreOffice Personal implies licensing - which simply isn't true, and so is a particularly bad term.

LibreOffice Community edition implies crippleware - which currently is not true, and is not the intended direction. So also a poor term.

The factual distinction currently between TDF LibreOffice vs Eco-system versions is rolling releases vs Long Term Support releases. Since "LibreOffice Rolling" would hold no meaning for most people, it is best to go with the common suggestion to just stick with "LibreOffice". LTS is a fairly common term for business-focused open-source, and thus "LibreOffice LTS / supported by XXX" provides a branding distinction that immediately conveys confidence and desirability to the business sector.

On a related topic, I also wanted to comment on the underlying tone that some segments are using LibreOffice, but not contributing. I think that is hard to measure because open-source is a very large field, and in my opinion, anyone who invests well in open-source anywhere should have the moral right to use all open-source products. So for example, a company that supports a lot of code development for GIMP shouldn't be shamed for not contributing/donating directly to LibreOffice even if they heavily use it.  For me, it made most sense to "pay" for our open-source use as a volunteer LibreOffice developer.

Justin

Hi Toki,

They might be mistaken, but in as much as Collabora has
stated that they have had zero new customers since 2018

  To correct this mis-apprehension; I spoke about new Desktop product
customers, and Thorsten reported a similar experience at CIB.

it looks a lot like Collabora, and the rest of the
LibreOffice Ecosystem are looking at TDF/LibreOffice to
also do their marketing for them.

  Clearly both Volunteers and Ecosystem are important parts of the
LibreOffice community. If we frame the discussion as them vs. us, we
exacerbate conflict.

  You will be surprised to know that C'bra and CIB have
funded TDF/LibreOffice Marketing / outreach in the past too. Mike can
perhaps report on the results there. It heavily foundered on the
hard-gratis messaging. Everyone wants something for free, then they want
to complain about it =)

  IMHO TDF needs to build space for an ecosystem that
can afford to invest in improving LibreOffice. Or alternatively - it
needs to bin its ecosystem and become the one-company that controls the
brand and does everything: Mozilla style (though I'm far from a fan of
this model, I think it's broadly doomed to failure as I wrote in my
ecosystem paper, and our current efforts at TDF to spend money on
development are are not encouraging).

2) https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76842 exemplifies
the potential client that the support vendor was unable to convert.
8,500 seats would be either £51,000 per month, or per year, assuming the
publicly stated seat prices are accurate.

  This is an example of a spectacularly entitled and unpleasant
government deployment expecting free LTS, rapid response to their
problems, and also not to pay anyone for it.

(One place gave the base price
as being per year. A different place gave the base price as being per
month.) Without having the facts on hand, I'd guess that the issue was
money --- specifically, that the bug-reporter was blind-sided by both
the amounts involved, and was provided with none of the virtues of how &
why paying for support would enable his organisation to be more
effective. (Did the vendor rep point out that their support included
software that enables rolling out new releases on a more timely basis,
including extensions, templates, corporate palettes, and the like?)

  Sure; Tim worked for me back then - he was a professional sales person,
and I'm sure he provided a compelling view of the value-add (vs. what
you can get for free without support).

  Of course - being aggressive in up-stream bug reports to try to get
free support is something that many try. It would be nice if they did not.

  It seems to me that having deployed something for free, saved a
significant amount of money on Microsoft Office licenses - say half a
million per year; it is unhelpful to complain. Problem is - he was
talking to a sysadmin who wants an immediate fix: by which time we're
-far- too late in the cycle; much better to have worked this out in advance.

  There are a number of larger deployments that buy the gratis message,
then they fall over an increasing number of small annoyances that
cumulatively drive them away over the years. It's not a good model for
the project to promote, it results in unhappy users, a bad experience of
the brand, and starves product development.

  Another thing that strikes me is - that I travel on RyanAir, and the
flight is crammed but the service is not particularly dire, and yet the
number of aggressive complaints is high. I fly on a higher cost airline
and I can't tell the difference in service, but there is often much less
grumbling when you pay more. Curious.

  Either way - moving marketing away from gratis towards libre sounds
like a good move to me.

  ATB,

    Michael.

Hi all,

I think the best solution probably lies in just using simple branding of "LibreOffice", and "LibreOffice LTS" for eco-system branding.

I support this. In addition LibreOffice partners should be allowed to put a "powered by XYZ" on the start screen.

As many have already said, LibreOffice Personal implies licensing - which simply isn't true, and so is a particularly bad term. >
LibreOffice Community edition implies crippleware - which currently is not true, and is not the intended direction. So also a poor term.

"Edition" itself is dangerous too, because it implies, that the download from TDF might not contain all features.

The factual distinction currently between TDF LibreOffice vs Eco-system versions is rolling releases vs Long Term Support releases. Since "LibreOffice Rolling" would hold no meaning for most people, it is best to go with the common suggestion to just stick with "LibreOffice". LTS is a fairly common term for business-focused open-source, and thus "LibreOffice LTS / supported by XXX" provides a branding distinction that immediately conveys confidence and desirability to the business sector.

Another distinction is the kind of support.

To make these more visible, I can think of changes for the download page:
Introduction
Download option "fresh"
Download option "still".

Introduction
The Document Foundation (TDF) provides LibreOffice releases on a /time based cycle/. TDF provides a feature release half yearly, followed by usually six bug fix releases.

Other versions, including long-term support versions, and special services for the needs of companies and larger organizations are available from LibreOffice partners, read /<site to be created>/ for more details.

[// are meant to be links.]

Remove the comment "If you're a technology enthusiast, early adopter or power user, this version is for you!" from "fresh"-rectangle.

Replace the comment "This version is slightly older and does not have the latest features, but it has been tested for longer. For business deployments, we strongly recommend support from certified partners which also offer long-term support versions of LibreOffice." with the comment "Last bug fix release for this LibreOffice series is in <month year>".

The short time where bug fixes are available for a LibreOffice series, should make it clear to companies, that they need a different solution than just downloading LibreOffice.

On a related topic, I also wanted to comment on the underlying tone that some segments are using LibreOffice, but not contributing. I think that is hard to measure because open-source is a very large field, and in my opinion, anyone who invests well in open-source anywhere should have the moral right to use all open-source products. So for example, a company that supports a lot of code development for GIMP shouldn't be shamed for not contributing/donating directly to LibreOffice even if they heavily use it.  For me, it made most sense to "pay" for our open-source use as a volunteer LibreOffice developer.

This is an important aspect. Shaming people for not paying for LibreOffice without knowing the background is not the right way.

Kind regards
Regina

Michael Meeks wrote:

  There are a number of larger deployments that buy the gratis message,
then they fall over an increasing number of small annoyances that
cumulatively drive them away over the years. It's not a good model for
the project to promote, it results in unhappy users, a bad experience of
the brand, and starves product development.

Quite.

There's been some good points being made from all sides of the
argument; but this one here needs stressing: there is _negative_ net
value to LibreOffice (and the ecosystem), to sell it as basically a
zero-cost alternative to MS Office. Merely pushing up numbers of users
is not a goal in and of itself, as we need people being happy & served
well with our software.

I know people here are aware of it (some of you have even tried to
rescue projects which started like that - at great personal cost
sometimes), but our product marketing to this date apparently still
does not convey the message clearly enough.

The discussion we're having is basically about how to change that.

TDF, in my humble opinion, was not founded to 'sell a zero-cost office
suite' - the collective motivation & mission statement would be IMO
much better served by marketing an experience - 'LibreOffice the
community'. That will likely involve distributing the bits of the
compiled program, but only as a means to an end, not as the sole
purpose.

As such, I find the label 'LibreOffice Community Edition' quite
suitable.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Hi

To make these more visible, I can think of changes for the download page:
Introduction
Download option "fresh"
Download option "still".

Introduction
The Document Foundation (TDF) provides LibreOffice releases on a /time based cycle/. TDF provides a feature release half yearly, followed by usually six bug fix releases.

Other versions, including long-term support versions, and special services for the needs of companies and larger organizations are available from LibreOffice partners, read /<site to be created>/ for more details.

[// are meant to be links.]

Remove the comment "If you're a technology enthusiast, early adopter or power user, this version is for you!" from "fresh"-rectangle.

Replace the comment "This version is slightly older and does not have the latest features, but it has been tested for longer. For business deployments, we strongly recommend support from certified partners which also offer long-term support versions of LibreOffice." with the comment "Last bug fix release for this LibreOffice series is in <month year>".

The short time where bug fixes are available for a LibreOffice series, should make it clear to companies, that they need a different solution than just downloading LibreOffice.

+1
Can be done immediately. No preliminary decision on other topics.

I support Regina’s proposal.

S.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 2:13 PM Regina Henschel <rb.henschel@t-online.de> wrote:

Hi all,

Justin Luth schrieb am 13-Jul-20 um 13:08:

I think the best solution probably lies in just using simple branding of
“LibreOffice”, and “LibreOffice LTS” for eco-system branding.

I support this. In addition LibreOffice partners should be allowed to
put a “powered by XYZ” on the start screen.

As many have already said, LibreOffice Personal implies licensing -
which simply isn’t true, and so is a particularly bad term. >
LibreOffice Community edition implies crippleware - which currently is
not true, and is not the intended direction. So also a poor term.

“Edition” itself is dangerous too, because it implies, that the download
from TDF might not contain all features.

The factual distinction currently between TDF LibreOffice vs Eco-system
versions is rolling releases vs Long Term Support releases. Since
“LibreOffice Rolling” would hold no meaning for most people, it is best
to go with the common suggestion to just stick with “LibreOffice”. LTS
is a fairly common term for business-focused open-source, and thus
“LibreOffice LTS / supported by XXX” provides a branding distinction
that immediately conveys confidence and desirability to the business
sector.
Another distinction is the kind of support.

To make these more visible, I can think of changes for the download page:
Introduction
Download option “fresh”
Download option “still”.

Introduction
The Document Foundation (TDF) provides LibreOffice releases on a /time
based cycle/. TDF provides a feature release half yearly, followed by
usually six bug fix releases.

Other versions, including long-term support versions, and special
services for the needs of companies and larger organizations are
available from LibreOffice partners, read // for
more details.

[// are meant to be links.]

Remove the comment “If you’re a technology enthusiast, early adopter or
power user, this version is for you!” from “fresh”-rectangle.

Replace the comment “This version is slightly older and does not have
the latest features, but it has been tested for longer. For business
deployments, we strongly recommend support from certified partners which
also offer long-term support versions of LibreOffice.” with the comment
"Last bug fix release for this LibreOffice series is in ".

The short time where bug fixes are available for a LibreOffice series,
should make it clear to companies, that they need a different solution
than just downloading LibreOffice.

On a related topic, I also wanted to comment on the underlying tone that
some segments are using LibreOffice, but not contributing. I think that
is hard to measure because open-source is a very large field, and in my
opinion, anyone who invests well in open-source anywhere should have the
moral right to use all open-source products. So for example, a company
that supports a lot of code development for GIMP shouldn’t be shamed for
not contributing/donating directly to LibreOffice even if they heavily
use it. For me, it made most sense to “pay” for our open-source use as
a volunteer LibreOffice developer.

This is an important aspect. Shaming people for not paying for
LibreOffice without knowing the background is not the right way.

Kind regards
Regina


To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscribe@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

Hi all,

I think the best solution probably lies in just using simple branding of "LibreOffice", and "LibreOffice LTS" for eco-system branding.

I support this. In addition LibreOffice partners should be allowed to put a "powered by XYZ" on the start screen.

Surely preferred above Edition; +1

As many have already said, LibreOffice Personal implies licensing - which simply isn't true, and so is a particularly bad term. >
LibreOffice Community edition implies crippleware - which currently is not true, and is not the intended direction. So also a poor term.

"Edition" itself is dangerous too, because it implies, that the download from TDF might not contain all features.

+1

What still troubling is the position of TDF against the the eco-system partners. The eco-system partners (and other professionals delivering services) are at the same time competing with each other in the same market. The TDF attempts to be neutral. And is really speaking with "Mehl im Mund". The potential customer has to figure out who to contact themselves. Sending customers more or less in the dark. About making a first good impression. I personally would already quite here.  You can say that you're be reliable partner, easy to find, clear communication, easy to contact. However at TDF the opposite is true. And the confusion doesn't end at TDF..  The quality of the content at Collaboraoffice.com/ CIB.de isn't really convincing either, IMHO. And the sites are rather technical. A CEO or Manager has to be convinced too, I think. Also terms like L1 and L2 are not to evident. Are those (legally) universal terms. So L1/L2 means exact the same thing for every software vendor worldwide? I would really want to know what I get.

So even with LTS we end up with multiple LTS version offered by multiple vendors.

Telesto

Hi Regina,

  First - thank you for your help getting at least one TDF tender
un-blocked to get that ODF 1.3 support implemented. That's much
appreciated :slight_smile:

"Edition" itself is dangerous too, because it implies, that the download
from TDF might not contain all features.

  Interesting to see you changed your mind on this; your last mails
suggested that some sort of Edition tag would be ok for you IIRC.

Another distinction is the kind of support.

  As I've said - I don't believe that support by itself is something that
companies know they should need and value; they don't expect to get it
from Microsoft - they expect an extremely polished product.

To make these more visible, I can think of changes for the download page:
Introduction
Download option "fresh"
Download option "still".

  I think Mike had plans for wire-frames to consider how the website
might look, we can perhaps integrate this.

Introduction
The Document Foundation (TDF) provides LibreOffice releases on a /time
based cycle/. TDF provides a feature release half yearly, followed by
usually six bug fix releases.

  Why would I not choose that for my company ?

Other versions, including long-term support versions, and special
services for the needs of companies and larger organizations are
available from LibreOffice partners, read /<site to be created>/ for
more details.

  This presupposes that people want long term support, or 'special' (ie.
which I read as not-for-me) services.

  Microsoft has been moving the world to a stream of constant updates for
Windows 10 with some success. On what basis do we think that
highlighting this feature will have any noticeable impact ?

  That we think that they -should- want those things is fair enough, but
that doesn't mean that they do. We can of course do the change, and
measure the result - and iteratively A/B test the website until it is
effective - if we know what effective is of course.

  I would suggest that saying "are available" is very short of a concrete
endorsement, or a call to action, or ...

Remove the comment "If you're a technology enthusiast, early adopter or
power user, this version is for you!" from "fresh"-rectangle.

  Hmm? we replace that with ? - my (English) download page doesn't have a
Fresh vs. Still thing - just versions.

Replace the comment "This version is slightly older and does not have
the latest features, but it has been tested for longer. For business
deployments, we strongly recommend support from certified partners which
also offer long-term support versions of LibreOffice."> with the comment
"Last bug fix release for this LibreOffice series is in <month year>".

  So we remove a strong recommendation to use a long-term supported
version - and replace it with an implicit suggestion that they might
need that, and also with a date ?

  Well - it may do something, but - I'm deeply skeptical that minor
cosmetic re-arrangements here will have any effect at all. We can of
course test it easily enough.

  It would be really sad that TDF no longer strongly recommends support
from certified partner. That will impact all trainers, migrators and
development companies, as well as the certification program.

  But - the impact is perhaps limited: we already know that this existing
strong recommendation is almost completely ineffective in helping our
ecosystem thrive. So - presumably weakening it will have little negative
impact.

  It looks to me like a step in the direction of doing even less to help
the ecosystem, and more to spread the myth that TDF + volunteers alone
create LibreOffice.

The short time where bug fixes are available for a LibreOffice series,
should make it clear to companies, that they need a different solution
than just downloading LibreOffice.

  So you're happy to say -something- bad about LibreOffice: that it does
not have long term support in order to help the ecosystem differentiate ?

  That's encouraging - but I assume that other people will also want to
point out on the page that there is really no need at all to buy
anything and that you can just upgrade to the very latest version when
that time limit expires.

  Still others will want to band together to provide a free LTS version -
to help enterprises avid feeling they need to contribute anything back
because they're worried support will run out.

  Others will say this creates FUD that the project is going to end in
under six months =)

On a related topic, I also wanted to comment on the underlying tone
that some segments are using LibreOffice, but not contributing. I
think that is hard to measure because open-source is a very large
field, and in my opinion, anyone who invests well in open-source
anywhere should have the moral right to use all open-source products.
So for example, a company that supports a lot of code development for
GIMP shouldn't be shamed for not contributing/donating directly to
LibreOffice even if they heavily use it.  For me, it made most sense
to "pay" for our open-source use as a volunteer LibreOffice developer.

This is an important aspect. Shaming people for not paying for
LibreOffice without knowing the background is not the right way.

  I have some sympathy for that view. I have lots of respect for people
contributing code like Justin and yourself: you rock, and I'm pleased to
work alongside you =)

  However - these changes appear to do nothing to help people understand
-our- background as a project, or that the LibreOffice Project needs the
ecosystem to thrive in order to create the software. This has to be a
two way street.

  Personally I think if you just take from FLOSS and (according to your
ability) contribute nothing back, then as a rule you are doing something
profoundly antisocial - and I've no problem with us saying it loud &
clearly.

  My goal is not to make anyone reading this E-mail feel guilty - clearly
you care & are engaged, but instead to try to effectively communicate
with the vast number of enterprise uses that neither know, nor care
about our principles, but just want something for free.

  ATB,

    Michael.

On a upside-down view, my proposal is to have a LibreOffice "as-is" for
download from TDF website as

Download LibreOffice from Collabora (and have C'bra brand/splash)
Download LibreOffice from CIB (and have CIB brand/splash)

2 packages, gratis, open source, same software, no fancy edition, no
enterprise chevrons.

User choose (click for d/l) what looks better for him.

If that doesn't solve the income issues of the ecosystem, it
nevertheless brings the ecosystem companies in front of the user. A
"ad-sense-like" splash display on each time user starts the software.

Olivier (who is sensible to the issues raised)

The potential customer has to figure out who to contact themselves. Sending customers more or less in the dark.

I'll grant that the LibO webpage on obtaining professional, paid
support, could be clearer. From my perspective, the biggest change to
that page that needs to be made, is which organisations provide paid
Tier 1 support to individuals. ideally, there would be a matrix:

Column headings are:
* Type of Support;
* Tier 1;
* Tier 2;
* Tier 3;

Row headings are:
* Column Headings;
* Individual;
* Nano-business;
* Micro-business;
* Small business;
* Medium business;
* Large business;
* SOHO;
* SMB;
* Enterprise;

It probably would be useful for that page to provide definitions for
each of those terms.

The quality of the content at Collaboraoffice.com/ CIB.de isn't really convincing either, IMHO. And the sites are rather technical.

Personally, I wouldn't call any of the documents on any of the vendor
sites that I've looked at White Papers. (Comic Sans? Seriously? I've
forgotten which vendor's White Paper used that font.)

Part of the theory is that IT will be browsing the site, not the CEO.
Typically, the recommendations of IT are accepted, if the budget is
there. If the budget isn't there, either the proposal will be dropped,
of somebody that the Board of Director knows, gets the contract, even
when it costs twenty times as much, delivers less than a tenth of what
IT requested, and none of the required specifications are met.

A CEO or Manager has to be convinced too,

That usually occurs after a _Request for Quotation_, _Invitation to
Tender_, or _Request for Proposal_, or similar document has been made.

The theory is that the suspect will provide contact data to the support
vendor, and the follow-up email/phone discussion will go through the
wants/needs/requirements of the suspect, before the any of the above
documents are issued. The requirements for the above document will list
exactly what the support vendor said that they could supply, usually
including some trivial thing that only that support vendor can supply.

Once the document is in house, then the CEO _might_ go through, and
approve/disapprove it. Sometimes, whatever the CEO, or whoever doesn't
like, can be negotiated around.

Also terms like L1 and L2 are not to evident. Are those (legally) universal terms.
So L1/L2 means exact the same thing for every software vendor worldwide?

I probably was the one that brought up those terms. For all practical
purposes L1 & L2 have the same meaning for every vendor who has anything
to with language, writing systems, and the like, around the world.

So even with LTS we end up with multiple LTS version offered by multiple vendors.

Take a look at the current situation.

I've forgotten which vendor offered support for which product.

Vendor #1 Does one major release a year, offering five years of support
for that release. All currently supported released have updates, when
security flaws & bugs are found, and fixed. Typically, there are four
minor releases, and one or two intermittent releases each year. Included
in the contract, is software that enables rapid deployment of the
updates throughout the organisation. IT has to authorise the update, and
users are not impacted by it. This organisation specialists in
integrating LibO with the existing software, and workflow processes used
by the organisation.

Vendor #2 does two releases per year, and offers three years of support
for each release. Minor releases are done, when bugs are fixed, and
security flaws patched. This vendor also provides tools to enable the
organisation's IT people to deploy updates, when they (organisation IT)
are satisfied that it won't break anything.

Vendor # 3 does one major release every two years, offering somewhere
between six and ten years of support. Minor releases tend to be security
patches and bug fixes. Major releases introduce new functionality.
Whilst it encourages organisations to migrate to newer versions, they
will continue to support the product, for the lifetime of the initial
contract. When renewing, you pretty much have to upgrade to the current
version --- about the only exception is when their techs can't get the
current version to work with whatever other ancient software the
customer is using.

All of these vendors call their product something along the lines of
"VendorName Office". They all acknowledge LibreOffice as being their
upstream.

Vendor # 4 simply takes the current version of LibreOffice, and
backports security fixes & bug fixes to it, for the duration of the LTS
contract that they signed with the customer. If you started with LibO
5.0.0.0 back September 2015, and had a ten year contract, you'll be
getting updates until 2025, but still on LibO 5.0.0.0.x, where "x" is
however many patches & updates have been done since then.)

AFAIK, this is the only LibO version that might cause confusion with
individuals and organisations other than Vendor # 4.

I doubt that any change made by TDF/LibO would add to the potential
plethora of LTS versions, and duration of support.

jonathon