Draft text: an "attic" proposal

[thb]

Hi Paolo,

Paolo Vecchi wrote:

Unfortunately it seems like the board didn't realise that a big issue was
brewing for quite a few years as clear rules were not set.

That seems unlikely to repeat itself?

> Putting this burden on everyone **up-front** and **by default** (with
> the added twist that people need to prove their contribution is not
> commercial), I believe is a terrible idea. TDF would be well-advised
> to have fewer, not more, hurdles for code contribution.
You may have missed that in my previous emails I clearly stated that the
"burden" is not up-front, is not by default and people do not need to prove
their contribution is not commercial.

I actually said: "I'm not even suggesting that each individual proposing a
project should sign it, only when the project is being proposed by or it
becomes controlled mostly by a single company."

Great. So why do you want it in the policy then? As you point out,
most projects start as individual initiatives.

Your proposed text for the policy _does_ constitute a default,
up-front requirement. Perhaps it needs rewording then, to better carry
your intended meaning?

Best,

-- Thorsten

[PaoloVecchi]

Hi all,

Hi Paolo,

Paolo Vecchi wrote:

Unfortunately it seems like the board didn't realise that a big issue was
brewing for quite a few years as clear rules were not set.

That seems unlikely to repeat itself?

You think no other commercial organisations are or will be hosting any LibreOffice related projects with TDF or you think that the board in future will surely spot that a project hosted at TDF with contributions mostly from one organisation could create issues without having some rules set?

Putting this burden on everyone **up-front** and **by default** (with
the added twist that people need to prove their contribution is not
commercial), I believe is a terrible idea. TDF would be well-advised
to have fewer, not more, hurdles for code contribution.

You may have missed that in my previous emails I clearly stated that the
"burden" is not up-front, is not by default and people do not need to prove
their contribution is not commercial.

I actually said: "I'm not even suggesting that each individual proposing a
project should sign it, only when the project is being proposed by or it
becomes controlled mostly by a single company."

Great. So why do you want it in the policy then? As you point out,
most projects start as individual initiatives.

Your proposed text for the policy _does_ constitute a default,
up-front requirement. Perhaps it needs rewording then, to better carry
your intended meaning?

I'm not sure if there is a language barrier here and/or I haven't yet expressed the concept clearly enough.

I wrote: "I'm not even suggesting that each individual proposing a project should sign it, only when the project is being proposed by or it becomes controlled mostly by a single company."

So it does not constitute a default for people but, as I wrote, it does when "the project is being proposed by or it becomes controlled mostly by a single company."

Then I gave you 2 examples that should clarify the concept further.

I do want it in the policy because, as an example, LOOL is a complex project which may attract interest from individual developers but also from commercial organisations with which the rules should be made clear to avoid having another organisation getting supported by TDF and its community and then fork when convenient for them leaving nothing much to the foundation and the community that helped in making the project successful.

Best,

-- Thorsten

I hope these further explanations and a re-read of the thread help in clearing your doubts.

Ciao

Paolo

[thb]

Hi Paolo,

Paolo Vecchi wrote:

> That seems unlikely to repeat itself?

You think no other commercial organisations are or will be hosting any
LibreOffice related projects with TDF or you think that the board in future
will surely spot that a project hosted at TDF with contributions mostly from
one organisation could create issues without having some rules set?

The latter.

> Your proposed text for the policy _does_ constitute a default,
> up-front requirement. Perhaps it needs rewording then, to better carry
> your intended meaning?

I'm not sure if there is a language barrier here and/or I haven't yet
expressed the concept clearly enough.

The point is that the letter of your proposal does not match what you
say.

For a final policy, it doesn't matter what people state in an email
discussion; what counts is what's in the policy text. So please update
that text, for this conversation to remain effective.

Best,

-- Thorsten

[PaoloVecchi]

Hi Thorsten,

Hi Paolo,

Paolo Vecchi wrote:

That seems unlikely to repeat itself?

You think no other commercial organisations are or will be hosting any
LibreOffice related projects with TDF or you think that the board in future
will surely spot that a project hosted at TDF with contributions mostly from
one organisation could create issues without having some rules set?

The latter.

As board members change there is a risk that some may not think to look at the issue, as it happened in the past, so I do think we have to set this rule/reminder.

I haven't yet evaluated where to write this rule but it should be clearly stated somewhere and be valid for all current and future projects, meaning that we have to have a clear view of what we are hosting at all times.

I've discovered only the other day that the Android Viewer is still maintained and that caught both me and Emiliano by surprise as we didn't have an up to date status of it.

Your proposed text for the policy _does_ constitute a default,
up-front requirement. Perhaps it needs rewording then, to better carry
your intended meaning?

I'm not sure if there is a language barrier here and/or I haven't yet
expressed the concept clearly enough.

The point is that the letter of your proposal does not match what you
say.

For a final policy, it doesn't matter what people state in an email
discussion; what counts is what's in the policy text. So please update
that text, for this conversation to remain effective.

I stand by the text I wrote and that apparently you didn't find contradicting what I previously stated:

"> That should be added in the "## De-atticization requirements. The form could
> be along the line of:
>
> - If the parties involved in the development of the project are commercial
> entities an agreement must be signed to make clear the final scope, the
> benefits to the community and the eventual limitations in publishing it
> following TDF's objectives.
>
Thanks for the crisp write-up! That's indeed something I can work and
interact with."

Maybe we can improve the text but to me it still means that people/individual contributors don't have any particular burden but clearly commercial entities must sign an agreement and that has been my point from the beginning and during the whole thread.

As stated a few times it should be a welcome improvement also for corporate contributors as at least they have clear guidelines to plan long term while we know we invest in a project that will leave a value for the community to benefit from.

Best,

-- Thorsten

Ciao

Paolo