New-Era Manifesto: A call for translations!

Board Discuss
#1

Hi all,

active members of the LibreOffice community have proposed a “new-era manifesto” and a set of candidates for the upcoming BoD are supporting it. As volunteers, we cannot translate it to all languages used by members of TDF nor is it reasonable to ask the foundations staff to provide this on their time funded by the foundation.

However, as a collaborative community, we can crowd-source this effort among ourselves!

For convenience, the English original as it was published here is reproduced here:

New-Era Manifesto

For the past ten years, the LibreOffice community has developed, supported and promoted the world’s leading open-source office productivity suite. We have attracted the support of tens of thousands of individuals and corporate bodies during this period.

We now call on all our supporters to follow us into the next phase of our development, as we move to make open source productivity tools both collaborative and distributed enabling individuals and groups all around the world to have agency, ownership and sovereign control over their documents.

We commit ourselves:

  • To extend office productivity tools to enable secure and privacy-respecting collaborative editing of documents based on self-hosted technology that does not introduce dependencies on centralized services.
  • To ensure to retain, grow, broaden and refresh skills, expertise and know-how about existing core functionality of office productivity tools in the body of currently active and future new contributors to enable their maintenance and further development for the global and many local communities around the world.
  • To allow users of office productivity software to retain the intellectual property in the documents they create by use of open document formats and open standards.
  • To an open and transparent peer-reviewed software development process where technical excellence is valued.

We reject:

  • Limiting users of office productivity tools to be restricted to either refrain entirely from using collaborative editing or be at the mercy of a small oligopoly of SaaS providers who are using surveillance based business models and might ask arbitrary charges from users.
  • Locking the skills, expertise and know-how about the development of office productivity tools in the workforce of a small set of big corporations.
  • The ownership of file formats by proprietary software companies - documents belong to their creators, not software vendors.
  • A closed software development process where errors can lie hidden and poor quality is accepted.

This manifest was collaboratively created by active members of the LibreOffice community in December 2023.

Note I took the liberty to add a highlight to each commitment – I lost those in the initial publishing and hope they are non-controversial.

As a native German speaker, here is my attempt at translating the new-era manifest to German as faithfully as I was able:

New-Era Manifest

In den letzten zehn Jahren hat die LibreOffice-Community die weltweit führende Open-Source-Office-Produktivitätssuite entwickelt, unterstützt und gefördert. Wir haben in dieser Zeit die Unterstützung von Zehntausenden Einzelpersonen und Unternehmen gewonnen.

Wir rufen nun alle unsere Unterstützer dazu auf, uns in die nächste Phase unserer Entwicklung zu folgen, in der wir daran arbeiten wollen, Open-Source-Produktivitätstools sowohl kollaborativ und verteilt zu gestalten, um damit Einzelpersonen und Gruppen auf der ganzen Welt ihre Entscheidungsfreiheit, das Eigentum und die souveräne Kontrolle über ihre Dokumente behalten.

Wir verpflichten uns:

  • zur Erweiterung von Office-Produktivitätstools, um eine sichere und datenschutzfreundliche gemeinsame Bearbeitung von Dokumenten auf der Grundlage selbstgehosteter Technologie zu ermöglichen, ohne dafür eine Abhängigkeiten von zentralisierten Diensten einzufuehren.
  • sicherstellen, dass Fähigkeiten, Fachwissen und Know-how über bestehende Kernfunktionen von Office-Produktivitätstools im Kreis der derzeit aktiven und zukünftigen neuen Beitragenden erhalten, ausgebaut, erweitert und aufgefrischt werden, um diese Funktionen für die globale Weltgemeinschaft und viele lokale Gemeinschaften zu erhalten und weiterzuentwickeln.
  • dazu Benutzer von Büroproduktivitätssoftware das geistige Eigentum an den von ihnen erstellten Dokumenten behalten können, indem offene Dokumentformate und offene Standards verwendet werden.
  • zu einem offenen und transparenten Softwareentwicklungsprozess unter Peer Review, in dem technische Exzellenz wertgeschätzt wird.

Wir lehnen ab:

  • Eine Beschränkung der Benutzer von Office-Produktivitätstools auf die folgenden Optionen: Entweder vollständig auf die kollaborative Bearbeitung zu verzichten oder einem kleinen Oligopol von SaaS-Anbietern ausgeliefert zu sein, welche überwachungsbasierte Geschäftsmodelle verwenden und willkürliche Gebühren von ihren Benutzern verlangen können.
  • Das ausschliessliche Einsperren von der Fähigkeiten, Fachkenntnisse und des Know-hows über die Entwicklung von Office-Produktivitätstools in den Belegschaften einer kleinen Gruppe großer Unternehmen.
  • Ein Überlassen des Eigentums an Dateiformaten an proprietären Softwareunternehmen: Dokumente gehören ihren Erstellern, nicht den Softwareanbietern.
  • Einen geschlossenen Softwareentwicklungsprozess, bei dem Fehler verborgen bleiben können und schlechte Qualität akzeptiert wird.

Dieses Manifest wurde im Dezember 2023 gemeinsam von aktiven Mitgliedern der LibreOffice-Community erstellt.

So: What can you do?

If you are a native German speaker, you can help me by:

  • reviewing my attempt at a German translation and provide corrections or qualifications. I am aware that given the ambiguity of language, it is not trivial to represent the exact same meaning in two different languages and am welcoming your input in a reply here.
  • hinting others in the German community at this translation to make their choice in the election more accessible.

If you are a native speaker in another language, you can:

  • help me by providing a first translation for your native language in a reply here
  • if a translation already exists, promote access to it to other members of that language community

Looking forward for your replies!

Best Regards,

Bjoern

#2

To ease the translation and collaboration on translations, I added the new-era manifesto to the wiki:

#3

Hello,

This manifesto appears to be based on TDF’s Next Decade Manifesto with some items changed. The original (and current) manifesto has these bullet points, which are missing from the New-Era Manifesto:

We commit ourselves:

  • to eliminate the digital divide in society by giving everyone access to office productivity tools free of charge, to enable them to participate as full citizens in the 21st century
  • to support the preservation of mother tongues by encouraging all peoples to translate, document, support, and promote our office productivity tools in their mother tongue

We reject:

  • the ownership of office productivity tools by monopoly suppliers, which imposes a de-facto tax on global electronic free speech and penalises the economically disadvantaged
  • the creeping domination of computer desktops by a single language, forcing people to learn a foreign language before they can express themselves electronically

The “free of charge” point is its own discussion, but don’t you find it a bit ironic to call for translations after deleting the part of the Next Decade Manifesto that acknowledges the importance of translations?

(BTW it’s been more than 10 years of LO and TDF already)

#4

Hi @tjhietala,

… after deleting the part of the Next Decade Manifesto that acknowledges the importance of translations?

Glad that you ask! The importance of translations has not been deleted. The first two points of the manifesto have been updated to the reality of this decade. The point in question from the original manifesto:

We commit ourselves to support the preservation of mother tongues by encouraging all peoples to translate, document, support, and promote our office productivity tools in their mother tongue. / We reject the creeping domination of computer desktops by a single language, forcing people to learn a foreign language before they can express themselves electronically.

Has been extended to be more inclusive: It cherry-picked some contributions necessary for making office productivity tools available to local communities around the world while omitting others. I dont think this was malicious as it was understandable given the circumstances of the time: RedHat, Novell/SUSE, Canonical and others sponsored work on LibreOffice, while at that time there was additionally still hope that Oracle and IBM might join the effort and join in sponsoring development. This wasnt the case, and the disinvestment of the existing sponsors over the last years makes obvious that the project need to actively work on winning contributors of all kinds – not just e.g. translators.

The new-era manifesto says:

  • We commit ourselves to ensure to retain, grow, broaden and refresh skills, expertise and know-how about existing core functionality of office productivity tools in the body of currently active and future new contributors to enable their maintenance and further development for the global and many local communities around the world.
  • We reject locking the skills, expertise and know-how about the development of office productivity tools in the workforce of a small set of big corporations.

To make the project work for “the global and many local communities”, it is still needed to “translate, document, support” to different languages – but local communities need more than that: bugs prepared for removal by QA, new features to be documented in the first place provided by development for example.

So, in this decade a manifesto urgently needs to be more inclusive and the new-era manifesto does this, by acknowledging and aiming to grow all kinds of contributions needed by the project, not just a selective subset.

Best Regards,

Bjoern

#5

Before asking for localizations, I would ask for contributions - additions, improvements, changes, suggestions - to the text of the manifesto, to make it a true community effort. Asking for localizations means that the text has already been agreed and approved, which is not true, as this represents the contribution - albeit interesting - of just one community member, even if supported by others.

1 Like
#6

The importance of translations has not been deleted. The first two points of the manifesto have been updated to the reality of this decade.

I’d call it more of a fork than an update, as I find the NDM and the NEM quite different in spirit. In the original, the preservation of mother tongues is explicitly mentioned as a goal in itself.. In this new proposal, translation not explicitly mentioned at all. “Skills, expertise and know-how about existing core functionality of office productivity tools” is quite open to interpretation. To me, it neither obviously includes or excludes translation.

RedHat, Novell/SUSE, Canonical and others sponsored work on LibreOffice, while at that time there was additionally still hope that Oracle and IBM might join the effort and join in sponsoring development.

Sun Microsystems used to sponsor translation in the OpenOffice era, too, and I think they did UX and presumably QA and documentation work also. So I think code contributions have probably been the part that’s been impacted the least by the divestment by the big corporations.

So, in this decade a manifesto urgently needs to be more inclusive and the new-era manifesto does this, by acknowledging and aiming to grow all kinds of contributions needed by the project, not just a selective subset.

I don’t think we currently have a situation in LO where only selective subset of contributions is welcomed. We have mentors for development, documentation, QA and UX. On the other hand, there are many FOSS projects which in theory welcome translations, but in practice treat it as “crowdsourcing”, not as important contributions from community members. There are projects which don’t even credit translators. LO and TDF stand out by actually caring about translations. I’d hate to see that downgraded to the benevolent neglect which is the norm in FOSS.

#7

Hi Italo,

That is most welcome, but some candidates have noted their support for this manifesto as it was published. So I would suggest the following: Additions, improvements, changes and suggestions are welcome and will be discussed. However, to prevent diversion, the new-era manifesto will only be updated, if all current supporters are fine with the proposed changes.

When I left as a director in 2020, I noted to the following board that the “next decade” is over and an update is due. AFAIK this has been attempted – even multiple times, but failed. Thus the process around the new-era manifesto needs to ensure that its support grows and does not alienate existing supporters.

If we step-by-step grow support for a new manifesto like that, I am all for it!

Best Regards,

Bjoern

#8

Hi @tjhietala,

It does as it explicitly also names “local communities” as one of the beneficiaries of the outcome.

That was even before LibreOffice came into being though: Oracle looked at the way Sun operated OpenOfficeorg as being unsustainable, which was one of the reason leading to the creation of LibreOffice.

But still, even at the later point in time – when LibreOffice came into being and the original manifesto was written: It was possible to be sponsored to work on LibreOffice as a developer as a day job, while the same was not generally possible for e.g. translators. As such, it was reasonable for the original manifesto to highlight translator to be heard too, because it was implicitly assumed that e.g. code contributors will be able to have their say anyway. Note this is also reflected in the statues of TDF: the NDM promised to not forget about translators and the statues made clear it valued contributions – including those of translators.

However, a lot as changed in the meantime and will continue to do so over the next decade: These days, very, very few are able to work on LibreOffice itself full time as a day job – while the situation did not change that much for e.g. translators, this is very much a change e.g. for code contributors. The trajectory of the project currently is that only TDF staff will be able to work full time on LibreOffice itself – and given the donation stream of the foundation, this will never be more than a handful.

In summary: When the original manifesto was written, the project was in the comfortable situation to be able to assume that development would be sponsored by companies allowing members of their workforce to contribute full time to LibreOffice there was a reasonable concern for those not having those opportunities – e.g. in translation – not being heard. Unfortunately, these days, with the exception of a very few privileged people on the foundations staff, the number of people working full time on LibreOffice is small and going down.

In 2010, the project “just” needed translators. Today, the project still needs translators. But it also needs contributors in all other areas. Ignoring that reality would hurt the project and diminish its output with significant impact for local communities.

Best Regards,

Bjoern

1 Like
#9

The first TDF Manifesto was developed by John McCreesh, and was based on the ideas of the founders. It was developed behind the curtains, because the entire project was developed behind the curtains while OpenOffice was going through the dark times of Oracle, IBM and ASF dominance.
At that time, the community was not aware of that development, and followed the founders because they didn’t want to follow the companies (apart from a few people, who decided to follow the companies). So, TDF Manifesto was accepted but not developed by the community.
Today we are in a completely different situation, with an active community which is helping to grow the project on a global scale. The new TDF Manifesto should be the manifesto of this global community, and not of a small group of people (even if they are significant contributors).
I have decided to run for TDF BoD as an independent candidate because I believe that only by reaching consensus at every level we can bring the project back to its roots. Sorry, but over the past few years I have seen too many times a lack of consensus based on inflexible positions about a document (which could probably be discussed to find a solution).
I am sure that this is not the case of the proposed TDF New Manifesto, so I expect that the people who are backing it will be happy to see the document improved by other contributors. I am myself rather positive about the text, but I would like to have the time to provide a thoughtful feedback.

#10

Hi Italo,

Thank you for that constructive feedback!

I would love to see improvements suggested by other contributors and an active discussion around this – and even for that IMHO translations of the current manifesto might foster access to this discussion. Obviously, the new manifesto is not a TDF position. Not yet at least, though it might become one if we can build a consensus around it. That possibly needs concrete incremental modifications that we can win additional supporters with. This will take time and is unlikely to be resolved before the new BoD term starts.

And I think it would be helpful to discuss the new manifesto entirely on what is needed today and what is a fit for the foundations mission and statutes.

I am not entirely sure we will find an absolute consensus that each and every trustee will agree on for each and every word and I would disagree that would be required to approve a new manifesto over one that most trustees had no word in creating at all. Formally, the new Board of Directors might make that call – but morally it should primarily have the rough consensus of the trustees – which is something we never tested or retested the old manifesto for.

Best Regards,

Bjoern

#12

French translation.

Manifeste pour une ère nouvelle.

Au cours des dix dernières années, la communauté LibreOffice a développé, soutenu et promu la première suite bureautique à code source ouvert de classe mondiale. Nous avons attiré le soutien de dizaines de milliers de personnes individuelles et morales au cours de cette période.

Nous appelons maintenant tous nos contributeurs à nous suivre dans la prochaine phase de notre développement, tout en nous efforçant de rendre les outils de productivité open source à la fois collaboratifs et distribués, permettant aux individus et aux groupes du monde entier de disposer d’un plein pouvoir, d’une totale possession et contrôle souverain sur leurs documents.

Nous nous engageons à

  • Etendre les outils de productivité bureautique pour permettre l’édition collaborative sécurisée et respectueuse de la vie privée de documents basés sur une technologie auto-hébergée qui n’introduit pas de dépendance à l’égard de services centralisés.
  • Veiller à conserver, développer, élargir et rafraichir les compétences, l’expertise et le savoir-faire concernant les fonctionnalités de base existantes des outils de productivité bureautique dans le groupe des contributeurs actifs actuels et futurs.
  • Permettre la maintenance des outils de productivité bureautique et leur développement ultérieur pour la communauté mondiale et de nombreuses communautés locales dans le monde entier.
  • Permettre aux utilisateurs de logiciels de productivité bureautique de conserver la propriété intellectuelle des documents qu’ils créent en utilisant des formats de documents ouverts et des normes ouvertes.
  • Promouvoir un processus de développement de logiciels ouvert et transparent, évalué par les pairs, où l’excellence technique est valorisée.

Nous rejetons

  • La limitation des utilisateurs d’outils de productivité bureautique de pouvoir utiliser totalement l’édition collaborative ou à être à la merci d’un petit oligopole de fournisseurs SaaS qui utilisent des modèles commerciaux basés sur la surveillance et pourraient demander des frais arbitraires aux utilisateurs.
  • Le verrouillage des compétences, de l’expertise et du savoir-faire en matière de développement d’outils de productivité bureautique au sein de la main-d’œuvre d’un petit groupe de grandes entreprises.
  • La propriété des formats de fichiers par des sociétés de logiciels propriétaires - les documents appartiennent à leurs créateurs, pas aux vendeurs de logiciels.
  • Un processus de développement logiciel fermé où les erreurs peuvent être cachées et où la mauvaise qualité est acceptée.
3 Likes
#13

I think it’s clear that a translation is NOT the opinion of the translator. It’s a proposition with good spirit of free software inside.

2 Likes
#14

Hi @regisperdreau ,

It’s a proposition with good spirit of free software inside.

Thank you for that. Your (and other) opinions and comments are of course welcome non the less independent of translation!

In that case, I would just ask to keep translation and commentary/discussion separate (just like you did).

For now, the translations of the new-era manifesto will enable more people to join the discussion and provide feedback, which is much appreciated.

Best Regards,

Bjoern

#15

Spanish translation.

Manifiesto para una Nueva Era

Durante los últimos diez años, la comunidad LibreOffice ha desarrollado, apoyado y promovido la suite ofimática de productividad de código abierto líder en el mundo. Durante este periodo hemos atraído el apoyo de decenas de miles de individuos y entidades corporativas.

Ahora hacemos un llamamiento a todos nuestros seguidores para que nos sigan en la próxima fase de nuestro desarrollo, a medida que avanzamos para hacer que las herramientas de productividad de código abierto sean colaborativas y distribuidas, permitiendo a individuos y grupos de todo el mundo tener representación, propiedad y control soberano sobre sus documentos.

Nos comprometemos

· A ampliar las herramientas de productividad ofimática, para permitir una edición colaborativa de documentos basada en tecnología de alojamiento propio, segura y respetuosa con la privacidad, y que no introduzca dependencias de servicios centralizados.
· Garantizar la conservación, el crecimiento, la ampliación y la actualización de las capacidades, la competencia y los conocimientos sobre las funciones básicas existentes de las herramientas de productividad ofimática en el conjunto de los colaboradores actuales y futuros, a fin de permitir su mantenimiento y posterior desarrollo para las comunidades globales y locales de todo el mundo.
· Permitir a los usuarios de software de productividad ofimática conservar la propiedad intelectual de los documentos que crean mediante el uso de formatos de documentos abiertos y estándares abiertos.
· A un proceso de desarrollo de software abierto y transparente, revisado por pares, en el que se valore la excelencia técnica.

Rechazamos:

· Limitar, a los usuarios de herramientas de productividad ofimática, a que se vean privados por completo del uso de la edición colaborativa o a estar a merced de un pequeño oligopolio de proveedores de SaaS que utilizan modelos de negocio basados en la vigilancia y podrían pedir tarifas arbitrarias a los usuarios.
· Bloquear en la fuerza de trabajo de un pequeño conjunto de grandes corporaciones, las habilidades, la experiencia y los conocimientos sobre el desarrollo de herramientas de productividad ofimática.
· La propiedad de los formatos de archivo por parte de empresas de software propietario, documentos que pertenecen a sus creadores, no a los vendedores de software.
· Un proceso de desarrollo de software cerrado en el que los errores pueden quedar ocultos y se acepta la mala calidad.

Este manifiesto fue creado, en colaboración, entre miembros activos de la comunidad LibreOffice, en diciembre de 2023.

3 Likes
#16

Here is the translation to Brazilian Portuguese. I share this translation to make it easier to discuss the proposed manifest in our community:

Manifesto da Nova Era

Nos últimos dez anos, a comunidade do LibreOffice desenvolveu, apoiou e promoveu a principal suíte de produtividade de escritório de código aberto do mundo. Atraímos o apoio de dezenas de milhares de indivíduos e entidades corporativas durante esse período.

Agora, chamamos todos os nossos apoiadores a nos acompanharem na próxima fase de nosso desenvolvimento, à medida que avançamos para tornar as ferramentas de produtividade de código aberto colaborativas e distribuídas, permitindo que indivíduos e grupos ao redor do mundo tenham autonomia, propriedade e controle soberano sobre seus documentos.

Comprometemo-nos a:

  • Ampliar as ferramentas de produtividade de escritório para permitir a edição colaborativa segura e que respeite a privacidade de documentos com base em tecnologia auto-hospedada que não introduza dependências em serviços centralizados.
  • Garantir a retenção, crescimento, ampliação e renovação de habilidades, competências e conhecimento sobre a funcionalidade central existente das ferramentas de produtividade de escritório entre os contribuidores ativos atualmente e futuros novos contribuidores para possibilitar sua manutenção e desenvolvimento adicional para as comunidades globais e locais ao redor do mundo.
  • Permitir que os usuários de software de produtividade de escritório mantenham a propriedade intelectual nos documentos que criam por meio de formatos de documento e padrões abertos.
  • Um processo de desenvolvimento de software aberto, transparente e revisado por pares, onde a excelência técnica é valorizada.

Rejeitamos:

  • Limitar os usuários de ferramentas de produtividade de escritório a se restringir a não utilizar a edição colaborativa ou ficar à mercê de um pequeno oligopólio de provedores de software como serviço (SaaS) que utilizam modelos de negócios baseados em vigilância e podem cobrar taxas arbitrárias dos usuários.
  • O aprisionamento de habilidades, competências e conhecimento sobre o desenvolvimento de ferramentas de produtividade de escritório na força de trabalho de um pequeno conjunto de grandes corporações.
  • A propriedade dos formatos de arquivo por empresas de software proprietárias - os documentos pertencem aos seus criadores, não aos fornecedores de software.
  • Um processo de desenvolvimento de software fechado, onde erros podem ficar ocultos e a baixa qualidade é aceita.

Este manifesto foi criado colaborativamente por membros ativos da comunidade do LibreOffice em dezembro de 2023.

2 Likes
#17

Hi @mariosv, Hi @rafaelhlima,

Thank you very much for the translations to Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese! :bowing_man:

Glad to have these translations available to the community to help foster a broad discussion around what we – as trustees – want the foundation to be. The new-era manifesto started this off hopefully constructively and I am glad that e.g. Simon also provided a more detailed vision that I feel quite a lot sympathy for. Lets hope this continues and we can incorporate more concrete cooperation here!

Best,

#18

@Sweetshark : Can you explain who the target audience of this manifesto is? And - how it relates to the board elections? … and actually - it doesn’t even seem to be about LibreOffice in particular.

#19

But why is that an issue? The Document Foundation was never meant to be just for LibreOffice?

#20

Hi @EyalRozenberg ,

Indeed all these recently documents recently proposed – manifests, visions and pledges – have only a very limited function: The relevant framework in which the foundation can operate is set in the statutes – and only there. That months-old thread, where I argued that providing binaries can still be justified using ONLY the statutes was needed exactly for that: If something can reasonably derived from the statutes as first principles then is justifiable for TDF. Using only other documents that formally have no relevance to the foundation as a base for board decisions is putting the foundation at risk. I hope the hyperbole that was created recently around that old discussion was indeed just a misunderstanding and not intentionally malicious misrepresentation. I think the litmus test for this is if the unsustainable claims will be retracted.

So, if manifests, visions and pledges cant extend the framework of what the foundation is allowed to do, why write them in the first place? Well, the statutes still allow the foundation a very broad range of actions. In fact, much more than it has resources for.

So, the smaller and more concrete the set of goals lined out in the document are the better: they give trustees an idea what those committing to it intend to focus the foundations resources on.

You can see that the new-era manifesto keeps two commitments that are pretty much undisputed in the community and updates two that give a clear idea on:

  • where the focus for the product would be in the next years: namely collaborative editing.
  • where the focus for the project would be: namely community growth.

That should give trustees a good idea on how candidates committing to it intend to allocate the foundations resources.

OTOH, If you have a document that promises (incomplete list):

  • LibreOffice in the browser (with no concrete plan, so hire a product manager?)
  • LibreOffice on mobile (with no concrete plan, so hire a product manager?)
  • translating board minutes to all(?) languages used by trustees (so hire or contract multiple translators?)
  • introducing a liquid democracy system
  • making LibreOffice recognized by governments and the EU (so hire a lobbyist?)
  • hiring one or more staff developers
  • hiring an independent business partner manager
  • bringing back tenders
  • bringing back hackfests
  • (lots more)

A quick look at the foundations finances shows that not all of it can be done at the same time, and that is likely true even if cutting back on the preexisting expanses. Thus, such a document gives trustees little orientation on what a candidate committing on it will allocate resources for: If there is just money left for one of two things, e.g. either “Hackfests (lots of them)” or an “independent business partner manager”, what do they chose? That document doesnt say: You might end up with an EU lobbyist and a business partner manager, because after that the foundation is out of money.

Now, one reply might be “not everything needs to be payed from the foundations funds, the community can contribute too”. That is right, but the board is the body that manages the allocation of the foundations resources. If a candidate wants something to be done by the community, why didn’t they do it themselves before? Board membership gives no special power in what the community contributes.

tl;dr: A short manifesto can give trustees a hint on where the candidates that commit to it intend to focus the allocation of the foundations limited resources. For the new-era manifesto that is: collaborative editing and community-growth.

Best Regards,

Bjoern

#21

Hey @EyalRozenberg,

Addendum:
Forgot this, for historical context: Yes, ultimately this is intended as a proposal to replace the “next decade manifesto” that is … older than a decade, but all attempts to update it in the last three years have failed.

The “next decade manifesto” was a broad sketch to what later became the trustees on how the foundation would be set up. Of course, the situation is different today: the foundation and its statutes exist and a manifesto does not need to repeat what has been encoded in the statutes, while the original manifesto also shaped what would be in the statutes in the first place (which formally replaced the manifesto with something more binding).

Best Regards,

Bjoern

Impressum (Legal Info) | Datenschutzerklärung (Privacy Policy)   Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.