Ideas around TDF's future

[Sweetshark]

Hi @thb,

lemme rephrase that to see if I understood that correctly.

TDF has currently an donation income of ~1.3 mio. EUR p.a.

TDF currently aims to:

• put ~130,000 EUR p.a. (10%) in the rainy day reserve
• spend ~290,000 EUR p.a. in recurring costs for infra, accounting, conferences, community events & other incidentals
• spend ~910,000 EUR p.a. on staff (including contractors)

for a total planned annual spending of 1.33 mio EUR p.a…

If that is correct:

• it is already a rainy day: we are cash flow negative by some 30,000 EUR p.a.
• there is no running budget left for tenders at all.

Therefore any and all direct “product development” from TDF that has been argued about in this discussion would need to come from staff and contractors work time ALONE from now forward in addition to them keeping to provide their usual administrative tasks on the project.

Or am I mistaken?

Best Regards,

Bjoern

[floeff]

@Sweetshark

LibreOffice is a democratic community and an meritocratic project and not a church or a cult. As such, we dont need priests who interpret the words of prophets from decades gone by, but need to hear the active contributors in 2023 how they see the objectives of the project.

Ah, don’t worry, that’s not what I had in mind.

We do have this conversation here indeed with many active contributors in 2023, and I am very happy to read many of them share the view that a product is vital and a big part of what makes them contribute to and engage in this community.

[thb]

Hi @Sweetshark ,

@Sweetshark

Therefore any and all direct “product development” from TDF that has been argued about in this discussion would need to come from staff and contractors work time ALONE from now forward in addition to them keeping to provide their usual administrative tasks on the project.

Yes, from a 2022er cash flow perspective, that is correct. The currently budgeted sums for tenders and other one-off projects are carry-forwards from earlier years. We had a big jump in staff spending this year, with three new team members joining - but this is at least to some extent compensated by increased donation income. For a projection of that for the full fiscal year, I would defer to @floeff or @italovignoli

Best, Thorsten

[jfn]

Hi!

I’m not a TDF member, thus can’t say if I should consider myself as a
“member of the community”. To be honest, I don’t actually know what such
a “community” actually is supposed to be.

I’ve been working with OOo since version 1.1.1 in 2005 and have since
contributed to (FR) documentation, help on mailing lists and Ask web
sites (EN/FR), reported some bugs and also provided a few LibreOffice
extensions.

Perhaps this allows me to bring in some comments as a contributor of sorts.

I’m very stumped by this discussion. Not sure what it is all about,
since English is not my mother language and some seem to be using
tongue-in-cheek. I understand this is all about making LibO a paying tool.

I strongly advise against such a decision which (1) would lead me
out (but that’s of no interest) and (2) would lead many users – as
already stated by others here – to using some free (gratis)
competitors. Such a decision would be highly detrimental to the project,
and to the software altogether.
Also, this would send a very bad message about TDF not fulfilling
their mission and about the project management.

I have the very deep impression that some in this discussion have a very
important conflict of interest and are promoting their employer’s
/apparent/ interest.

The project and the software are NOT separate. The tool is the
project, the project is the tool.

People, don’t try to play some foolery, just follow TDF philosophy and
view as stated in the statutes. Lets play together the same partition!

[Sweetshark]

Hi @jfn,

@jfn

I’m very stumped by this discussion … I understand this is all about making LibO a paying tool.

No, this discussion is not really about that.

@jfn

I have the very deep impression that some in this discussion have a very
important conflict of interest and are promoting their employer’s
/apparent/ interest.

I know it apparently vogue to use accuse unnamed people of CoI, but in this discussion here, I dont see a single instance of a propsal that could be suffering from that. Who are you refering to and what proposal do you think has been made to benefit something else than the LibreOffice project?

In fact, TDF needs essentially all available funds and running cash flow to pay for staff and contractors by now. Preventing CoI is ultimately about preventing somebody to receive funding from TDF for motives other than the benefit of the project (or the foundations goal). Given TDFs free future running budget being spend entirely on staff, only staff can be in CoI in a meaningful here by now. Because although they dont have a CoI due to their employer, they personally benefit via their main source of income.

I hope that is not what you are referring to, though it is the only realistic CoI that exists in this discussion. Please dont throw random accusation of CoI around, that is not constructive at all.

Best Regards,

Bjoern

[michaelweghorn]

@jmills59

I always think of LibreOffice as a product and a community, is this the wrong association to have?

That basically matches how I see LibreOffice, as being both a community as well as a software for free use by anybody, in accordance with the statues. Since most potential users wouldn’t be able to make use of just the source code, providing the software in binary form is IMHO essential.

For me, the software called LibreOffice has been and still is crucial for my motivation to contribute.

From what I read, I’m glad there seems to be agreement that TDF should continue to provide the software in binary form as well.

Regarding the question whether that software in binary form is rightfully meant to be called a “product” or not, it’s not fully clear to me what the practical implication of the answer to that question is, so I’m staying out of that discussion for now. (And I’m wondering whether it wouldn’t be useful to discuss those practical aspects a bit more if necessary, rather than what the right term is.)

[cornouws]

@michaelweghorn

Regarding the question whether that software in binary form is rightfully meant to be called a “product” or not, it’s not fully clear to me what the practical implication of the answer to that question is, so I’m staying out of that discussion for now.

From the perspective that both LibreOffice and the community do matter, in whatever form, one can also consider it an advantage that apparently there is room for the interpretation of “product”. Thus, depending on the situation, the community, and by that I mean the part united in the foundation, can set priorities that best serve the situation.

(And I’m wondering whether it wouldn’t be useful to discuss those practical aspects a bit more if necessary, rather than what the right term is.)

Think so yes, although higher-level discussions are valuable in their own right.

[khaledhosny2]

@Sweetshark

I think you raise a few good points, but before being able to care for the needs and desires of non-contributing users, one needs to have an agreement on what those are. A product(*) – unlike a service – inherently wants to minimize the interaction between user and provider. A product free of charge uncouples the user from the provider practically entirely. As such, I am very suspicious about anyone arguing to act on behalf of them.

I didn’t start the product vs project discussion and I honestly don’t understand what is it about. My comment is much more basic than that, TDF should be looking after the interests of its users and the community at large, not only those who contribute directly to LibreOffice, otherwise I don’t get what is the point of having an organization and not a run-of-the-mill open source project that is run by contributing developers and everyone else is a second class citizen.

@Sweetshark

What the LibreOffice project reliably knows is contributors and it can assume they care for the users (otherwise they would not spend their resources here). Their input (by the trustees via the board of directors) is the best guidance on the direction of the project you can get.

But why all the indirection? We do know what our users want, they tell us that all the time.

[khaledhosny2]

@Sweetshark

As such, we dont need priests who interpret the words of prophets from decades gone by

That goes both ways, so if it says “free of charge”, some priest can’t come and provides a contradictory “interpretation” to the “prophetic” saying or attribute it to “lost in translation”.

[Sweetshark]

Hi @khaledhosny2 ,

@khaledhosny2

We do know what our users want, they tell us that all the time.

No, most of them dont. And the loudest of the few that do are not a great guidance for making the project grow.

@khaledhosny2

That goes both ways, so if it says “free of charge"

But “it” doesnt.
If “it” is the statutes of the Document Foundation – which is the constitution of this community, “it” doesnt say “free of charge”, it says “freier Nutzung” and “free of charge” is just one very selective interpretation of what that means.

Best Regards,

Bjoern

[ohallot]

No, most of them dont. And the loudest of the few that do are not a great guidance for making the project grow.

I strongly disagree. The narrowest way to make the project grow is to comply with the demand of the eco-system companies customers, which by vast majority, wants an interoperable office suite with Microsoft and a clone of Microsoft.

Sparklines, Themes, Content Controls and tons of OOXML compatibility are technical achievements but is about the eco-system companies added to LibreOffice. Unavoidable but completely limited.

Zarro new ideas. Zarro game changing innovation. All that was done was already created in the 80’s, and 90’s. 10 years of the same policy lead us to lag far behind any other office suite by any serious measurement.

I trained 100’s of end users in migration jobs and I heard them. They want their job done. They hate office suites, all of them, I repeat, all of them including MSO. Office suites are a hassle, complex, tricky and techie. Simple business issues are hard to solve with an office suite. It takes hours to chew data in a spreadsheet and days to get a printed report. People discover in most cases that after spending hours in a document, the conclusions are simple, and even dumb, mostly intuitive. But it has to go thru an office suite document for the records.

So, no. Definitely no. End users has a say for LibreOffice, they know what they want. And current developing model of LibreOffice is not listening to them. At best listening to IT managers and purchase dept. Very different.

My 2 cents.

Kind regards
Olivier

PS. and of course 2023’s end users are much different from end-users of the 90’s.

[Sweetshark]

Hi @ohallot,

@ohallot

They hate office suites, all of them, I repeat, all of them including MSO.

If you listen to users that are hating all office suites, but not contributing to fix the problem they are hating them for, how do you expect this to make the to project grow?

I would love to have broader contributions to the LibreOffice project that make it better for all users. But lets be very clear there are a few things that do NOT make LibreOffice better for all users. Namely:

• Hating office suites, but not contributing to remove the reasons for hating them.
• Recruiting more users that are hating office suites, but are not contributing to remove the reasons for hating them.

And as much as I would love to have more individuals fixing their own problem contributing to the project over those that only hire eco-system companies to do so, I value both higher than those users that do neither. And during their worktime, TDF staff should frankly do the same(*).

Best Regards, Bjoern

(*) And yes, staff has to be more accommodating towards the trustees (and their representation, the board of directors) on what they are working on now. As discussed, their worktime is funded by donations endorsing the work of all trustees – and the staff worktime will now be the only direct contribution from TDF, given there is nothing left for tenders.

[Telesto]

@Sweetshark

ot contributing to fix the problem …, how do you expect this to make the to project grow?

I still having no clue what the ultimate goal for the project is in your vision. Things crossing my mind:

• create a tool, an office suite (‘the product’) that enable people all over the world to achieve what the want to do. More an extrinsic type of motivation.
• bringing a group of people together in a club (German: Verein) with some shared interest: similar to a football club, chess club, fishing club. The end-result doesn’t count (losing/wining) it’s about the game (or in this case, the project). Learning code etc. So more similar to having a hobby. Intrinsic motivation

If it’s all about having a hobby alike something, why are quite of number of contributors to LibreOffice suite paid employee’s. Why are there commercial forks of the LibreOffice code. Why has LibreOffice release schedule with major and minor updates? Not sticking to simply publishing the latest daily. Why are the number of (end)users or binary downloads of any relevance? Why care about bug fixes (with priority’s and such).

I think that quite a number of people a driven by improving the product, knowing it used by quite a number of users. The project is the means to an end, not the goal as such

Also what do you expect from contributors? How do you define contributing? Is a incidental (single) bug report a contribution? Or more a masked complain? If someone reports dozen of bugs, is this a contribution? Is bug-reporting sec a contribution at all? A bug report doesn’t actually change/improve anything in my perception, except for raising awareness. The actual contribution is the one who actually solves the problem.

[Sweetshark]

Hi @Telesto,

@Telesto

I think that quite a number of people a driven by improving the product, knowing it used by quite a number of users. The project is the means to an end, not the goal as such

Totally agree on the first sentence. But I see that as a strong argument for that the product is a means of the project and not the other way around!

Now, are both project and product eating each others tail like an ouroboros, and we are just pointlessly discussing which one is the head? Maybe. But not quite:

• if you only focus on the product, especially one that is “free of charge”, disregarding the project nature and volunteer contributions, it is inherently unsustainable.
• if on the other hand, you focus on the project and see the “product” a means to fulfill the goals of the project, it will be inherently sustainable: even if there are no user beyond the contributors, the project will live on.

So, yeah a “football club” is better than an NGO that tries to be a company offering “products” free of charge – because the latter is fragile and unsustainable. You will note that the oldest and most resilient open source projects/products are also heavily focusing on the project side of things, even when providing things free of charge: e.g. Debian or Gentoo. Resilience and sustainability means the project will not die as long as there are contributors.(*)

Note though, that being a “football club” doesnt mean there cant be any business around it (just ask Bayern Munich) or payed employees (ask any first or second league soccer club) or that it cant be serious (just ask El Salvador or Honduras).

As for “what defines a contribution?” – there is quite a bit in the statutes about that that the MC has to follow. For me, the core question is “is the work creating value for some other user or contributor in the project?”, thus:

• starting a big LibreOffice deployment without hiring contributing developers or contracting ecosystem companies, thus creating lots and lots of low quality bugs reports by inexperienced non-technical users => not really a contribution in itself
• fixing a bug or regression, adding a feature => contribution
• refactoring old code, making it safer to modify it by others in the future => contribution
• writing an easy to understand introduction to bibisect, yielding higher quality bug reports making it easier to fix regressions => contribution

Best Regards,

Bjoern

(*) Note that no open source project or product ever died because it had no more non-contributing users. A lot died because they had no more contributors.

[htietze]

Telesto is an highly valuable contributor to the project with his numerous bug reports an enhancement requests. Software starts with users not the implementation. And I bet he invests more time in the project than some developers.

[ilmari]

While it would be tricky from MC standpoint to define how bug reporting constitutes contribution, the fact is LibreOffice users have always been great at doing manual testing and diligently reporting problems. With the wide scope of LibreOffice features, this has been essential.

@Sweetshark

So, yeah a “football club” is better than an NGO that tries to be a company offering “products” free of charge – because the latter is fragile and unsustainable. You will note that the oldest and most resilient open source projects/products are also heavily focusing on the project side of things, even when providing things free of charge: e.g. Debian or Gentoo. Resilience and sustainability means the project will not die as long as there are contributors.(*)

Not true. It’s how you execute/organise it. Look at Blender and Thunderbird.

[Sweetshark]

@htietze

Telesto is an highly valuable contributor to the project

@ilmari

With the wide scope of LibreOffice features, this has been essential.

Both is true and I dont appreciate you trying to imply there would be disagreement about that.

@ilmari

Look at Blender

For what specifically? Are you aiming for having a Blender Development Fund with an explicit corporate focus with members like Microsoft, Epic and Steam welcomed to contribute to the ecosystem? With a whole market of add-ons by small creators offered for a moderate charge? Spending half their income on developers and another 10% on developer tenders/grants? Also note that Blenders self description mentions:

• “project” twice and “product” not at all
• it mentions “contributors” twice and “users” only once
• it never mentions “free of charge”, and the half the use of the word “free” is either capitalized or used together as “free/open source” – so with a heavy focus on “free as in freedom” rather than “free as in beer”.

Yes, Blender is a great project focused organization focused on the interests of its contributors and sustainability. That is indeed laudable and something LibreOffice users often seem to be confused about.

Best Regards,

Bjoern

[ilmari]

@Sweetshark

@htietze

Telesto is an highly valuable contributor to the project

@ilmari

With the wide scope of LibreOffice features, this has been essential.

Both is true and I dont appreciate you trying to imply there would be disagreement about that.

You need to appreciate that your whole framing of this project vs. product topic is creating a lot of confusion. You are using unnecessarily sharp delineations.

@"Sweetshark

@ilmari

Look at Blender

For what specifically?

For a product-centric approach that Debian and Gentoo are very far from.

@"Sweetshark

Also note that Blenders self description mentions:

• “project” twice and “product” not at all
• it mentions “contributors” twice and “users” only once
• it never mentions “free of charge”, and the half the use of the word “free” is either capitalized or used together as “free/open source” – so with a heavy focus on “free as in freedom” rather than “free as in beer”.

You missed that when you search for “produc” you get 4 hits. Blender folks wanted to polish their product so it could be used in production in the entertainment industry and they succeeded - it’s a normal tool in Hollywood now! I’m proud to have been involved in this product push as in 2014 I put quite a bit of effort into marketing their Gooseberry movie crowdfunding.

[Sweetshark]

@ilmari

You missed that when you search for “produc” you get 4 hits. Blender folks wanted to polish their product so it could be used in production in the entertainment industry and they succeeded - it’s a normal tool in Hollywood now!

Grapping for straws much, huh? Debian is used bazillion times “in production” by people who build products on top of it (just like Collabora Office is build on top of LibreOffice btw). Notably, pretty much all docker base images used in the cloud depend directly or indirectly on the debian base images secured by debuerrotype.

Doesnt change that Debian itself focusses on what matters – and that is being a project, that first and foremost requires contributors.

[regisperdreau]

Hi,

I think you’ll find it difficult to manage the time needed to judge the value of a bug report.
We need to attract contributors and train them accordingly, if they are willing.

The most difficult part of the project is the training of contributors. Is there any project about ?

Regards,