A new version of the strategic marcom plan has been uploaded to
Nextcloud: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/4pLtn9xn76BkxFK
Please refer to this version for your comment, as it clarifies some
specific points which were raised during the discussion, although not
mentioned at all in the previous slide deck.
Thanks for the update Italo,
I didn’t find what TBD is at the presentation so I search the internet and get this result from wikipedia [1]
TBD … to be done, to be dated, to be designed
Please add what TBD mean
Thanks for notifying us of an acronym that may lead to misunderstanding.
In this context it means To Be Decided.
We are still receiving feedback so nothing has been decided yet.
Ciao
Paolo
On 15/07/2020 17:46, kainz.a wrote:
Thanks for the update Italo,
I didn’t find what TBD is at the presentation so I search the internet and get this result from wikipedia [1]
TBD … to be done, to be dated, to be designedPlease add what TBD mean
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/TBD
Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 16:07 Uhr schrieb Italo Vignoli <italo@libreoffice.org>:
A new version of the strategic marcom plan has been uploaded to
Nextcloud: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/4pLtn9xn76BkxFKPlease refer to this version for your comment, as it clarifies some
specific points which were raised during the discussion, although not
mentioned at all in the previous slide deck.–
Italo Vignoli - LibreOffice Marketing & PR
mobile/signal +39.348.5653829 - email italo@libreoffice.org
hangout/jabber italo.vignoli@gmail.com - skype italovignoli
GPG Key ID - 0xAAB8D5C0
DB75 1534 3FD0 EA5F 56B5 FDA6 DE82 934C AAB8 D5C0–
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
A new version of the strategic marcom plan has been uploaded to
Nextcloud: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/4pLtn9xn76BkxFKPlease refer to this version for your comment, as it clarifies some
specific points which were raised during the discussion, although not
mentioned at all in the previous slide deck.
Thanks for this new version.
Since Dries Buytaert's blog post “Balancing Makers and Takers to Scale
and Sustain Open Source” got multiple slides (slides 10-13), and there
were various discussions and different opinions on what use of
LibreOffice is considered morally acceptable and what is not, I think
it's worth reading the actual blog post [1] to get a clearer
understanding of how the term "takers" is used there; quote:
Next, I'd like to extend the distinction between "Open Source
software being a public good" and "Open Source customers being a
common good" to the free-rider problem: we define software
free-riders as those who use the software without ever contributing
back, and customer free-riders (or Takers) as those who sign up
customers without giving back.All Open Source communities should encourage software free-riders.
Because the software is a public good (non-rivalrous), a software
free-rider doesn't exclude others from using the software. Hence,
it's better to have a user for your Open Source project, than having
that person use your competitor's software. Furthermore, a software
free-rider makes it more likely that other people will use your Open
Source project (by word of mouth or otherwise). When some portion of
those other users contribute back, the Open Source project benefits.
Software free-riders can have positive network effects on a project.However, when the success of an Open Source project depends largely
on one or more corporate sponsors, the Open Source community should
not forget or ignore that customers are a common good. Because a
customer can't be shared among companies, it matters a great deal for
the Open Source project where that customer ends up. When the
customer signs up with a Maker, we know that a certain percentage of
the revenue associated with that customer will be invested back into
the Open Source project. When a customer signs up with a customer
free-rider or Taker, the project doesn't stand to benefit. In other
words, Open Source communities should find ways to route customers to
Makers.
I personally agree with the above.
Obviously, it doesn't mean that everybody needs to be of the same
opinion. 
Best regards,
Michael
[1]
https://dri.es/balancing-makers-and-takers-to-scale-and-sustain-open-source
Hello Italo,
Thanks for explaining the reasoning behind the choice of words (p. 49-50). Perhaps I come from another filter bubble, so let me explain my perspective. To me, Personal Edition suggests a no-cost version of a proprietary application, with limits to commercial use. For example: [1] Personal Edition can also mean a time-limited trial version: [2] I'm not aware of any "Personal Editions" of FOSS applications.
On the other hand, Community Edition tends to mean that you get a fully open-source version of the application with community support only. This describes TDF's version of LO much better. I disagree with the assertion that CE versions are necessarily "crippled". AFAIK Debian, Gnome and KDE use the Community Edition of GitLab, i.e. it's fully usable even for big projects, even though some features are reserved for the Enterprise Edition.
It's true that "CE" branding usually suggests that the corresponding EE is proprietary. But as MPL/LGPL allow for making a version of LO with proprietary additions, anyway, I'm not sure how TDF could guarantee that EEs will always be fully open source?
BTW, despite the criticism above, I think there are many good ideas in the plan in general.
BR,
Tuomas
[1] https://store.unity.com/products/unity-personal
[2] https://www.microfocus.com/products/visual-cobol/visual-cobol-for-visual-studio/personal-edition/trial/
Italo Vignoli kirjoitti 15.7.2020 17:05:
Hi
A new version of the strategic marcom plan has been uploaded to
Nextcloud: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/4pLtn9xn76BkxFK
Very much improved indeed
Two minor naggings:
Slide 3 (in regard to 4) maybe better (?)
"The Document Foundation is a charitable organization, and as such is not supposed to release commercial software /as well as to fund programming of software/.
Slide 28
What is the surplus of the sum of "volonteers" and "ecosystem" to form the "community"? Users? Takers?
And my "ceterum censeo..."
Slide 49/50
This is why I and some others propose "" set as TDB - so we get "LibreOffice" and "LibreOffice Enterprise,[brought to you by XYZ]" as a result. This avoids all of the possible negative connotations each of the proposed "additions" to the build distributed by TDF brings. And allows the intended discrimination as well:
Basically we say there is a "LibreOffice" (vanilla) and "LibreOffice with benefits" (Enterprise,...) - and that's exactly what we want to tell the people, isn't it?
Hi,
Slide 3 (in regard to 4) maybe better (?)
"The Document Foundation is a charitable organization, and as such is not supposed to release commercial software /as well as to fund programming of software/.
Doesn't TDF fund programming of software when it does tenders?
Best regards,
Michael
Yes, but only in special cases and under limited conditions. Therefore the tenders have to be carefully thought of and cannot be at free will.
Thanks for the update; I wasn't really aware about the legal background
here.
Slide 28
What is the surplus of the sum of "volonteers" and "ecosystem" to form the "community"? Users? Takers?
That is a visual representation of the relationships between volunteers
and ecosystem inside the community, and has no relation with the size of
the constituents. So outside community and ecosystem there is nothing,
but an oval which contains both smaller ovals to show that they are part
of the same community has some extra space as a consequence of the oval
shape (if I has used circles, the extra space would have been bigger).
And my "ceterum censeo..."
Slide 49/50
This is why I and some others propose "" set as TDB - so we get "LibreOffice" and "LibreOffice Enterprise,[brought to you by XYZ]" as a result. This avoids all of the possible negative connotations each of the proposed "additions" to the build distributed by TDF brings. And allows the intended discrimination as well:
Basically we say there is a "LibreOffice" (vanilla) and "LibreOffice with benefits" (Enterprise,...) - and that's exactly what we want to tell the people, isn't it?
We have to find a solution where there is consensus by all parties, and
it looks that consensus is partially missing on the one you suggest.
I may or may not agree with the proposed solutions (there will be a day
when I will write a lengthy blog post where I will tell in a transparent
way what I think about this story and the people involved, but this is
not the right time), so the objective is to reach consensus with an
acceptable compromise.
What is the targeted objective? To get a marketing communication plan passed? I prefer to put that on hold. Consensus about what to do, yes. A plan preparing a change. A Schedule. List of things what needs to be done. Research. Investigating options products/solutions. Markets/ Products. Say, should there be Personal Edition with some extra's (StarOffice) or doesn't that work (StarOffice again?).
Setting a *5 year*!! communication plan is surely not go. If really, really want to push that thing through, do it for 1 or 2 years an re-evaluate.
However I a Marketing Communication Plan still really problematic as this should be an part of large Marketing Plan which is part of a clear business plan (or business plans)
Those other elements (Business Plan, Marketing plan) are pre-requirements for a Communication Plan. And even more problematic because we are talking about Communication Plan of TDF, and not vendors
Yes, compromises are needed. And there are a lot of compromises to be made. However a Communication plan is build on the other building blocks (Business plan/Marketing plan).
First a compromise must be found about the business plan, next the marketing plan and at that point the Communication plan. Not the other way around. The foundation is missing. Hanging in air with loses ends everywhere. Not enough substance. Enough munition to shoot (criticize) sharp. There is no clear vision/proposition target. Nor an evaluation if the target makes sense. One/two big fish or plenty of small fishes? Losing a big fish is far more painful compared to few small fishes.
The whole input here, by different people shows this (jonathon / Lionel Élie Mamane / me). Their are lose ends everywhere
There should be consensus how to move forwards. Doing a Market analyses (what is the market/market needs; type of customers) / Developing a Marketing Strategy/ crushing the numbers what returns would be/ overthinking the position of TDF. Assessing why there is no interest in paid services. L1/2 support relevant for Goverments/University/s NGO or those doing this kind of stuff in house? Overthinking if there should be multiple Enterprise Desktop editions by different powered by different company's. The whole forking thing is typically for open source. The one year Ubuntu the number one, next Mint, next OpenSuse, or Arch or should I use Debian. Everybody repeating lots of stuff, wasting resources & capital to make point on some "minor" differences. Ubuntu didn't want to include codecs? Mint did. Mint became bigger. Ubuntu changed minds [not that I follow the Linux community regular basis, but I assume it's gone this way]. And Collabora/CIB are already convicted to each other anyhow, I think. Both can't maintain LibreOffice alone as the knowledge about the code is distributed across. So combine resources. Start some kind of joint venture, where the Enterprise (or other editions are sold). And make agreements about how profits are shared and the new projects etc. It's not much different compared to the current case. Not sure how to fit in RedHat (or if it needs to). Again; I think things should be reshuffled a lot;
So I personally would prefer to leave the marketing communication plan. Use it as a starting point for a revamp of the whole Enterprise around LibreOffice. On that point consensus is needed. So start a business plan project. Make a schedule. Dividing tasks. To a market scan (and write it out). Develop product options/ assess the feasibility product options. Developing strategy's etc. Making people responsible. Ideally the eco-partners should take the lead; it's about their business. TDF should be in the loop. And people possibly want to help (because this is shared effort) to the continuity of LibreOffice.
Introducing a business strategy at the LibreOffice 7.0 release would have be a nice thing. However, we pasted that station already. The preparation should have been started 1,5-2 year ago (to make it for 7.0). You maybe lucky to get it done before 7.2 release. Or bend the rules, and jump to 8.0 at 7.2?
If the company's are gonna promote of the shelf editions, a webshop must be build. You have to take rules of VAT in account (different country's different rules) or some kind of payment provider servicing that. So lots of research etc. The Enterprise edition will not suddenly sell million of copy's. Large organizations are hard to convert taking years. And I hope that the company's involved have enough cash to survive 1/2 years without major cuts in Development. And have some budget (quite) available to short this whole thing out; this is surely a upfront investment, with intended to repay itself.
Are those plan of StarOffice/Oracle still around? Market has changed, of course, but might be some thing useful in it. Or something from Ubuntu of whatever you can get a hold off. Sparring partners operating commercially in same type of eco-system could be helpful. As their are commercial and other interest to be taking into account. Of course LibreOffice is not the same thing as say Ubuntu or Firefox.
I'm not wanting to stall or create differences within board. I want everybody to talk, being very, very precise what the want (and why its right move). And an argument if things are feasible based on facts. Research. Not some notations; idea's. You can publish the market analyses (maybe you overlooked something). You can publish some concept Marketing plan (to get feedback). Not sure how many people are able/wanting to asses that (being in the scope of their interest). However idea is should be public. How open you want to be about development costs/revenue in public is up to the company's. However at the end the Directions of eco-system partners and Board of directions at TDF need to decide. With lots of info publicly available you can defend the discussions made. People will disagree; see things differently. At minimum the large stackholders support it. I read quite some useful things. Also quite some 'cruft' lacking substance. Or wrong arguments (which should be countered within based on the research done). Not boldly ignore, reject. as non-sense. Disproof. Try to explain (some people can't be convinced; sure), but never stop trying. However you might have to rephrase or choose a different perspective to make the point clear. People have different ways of thinking. Miscommunication easily arises.. as we have seen about change in license fuzzy with a Personal Edition. Which wasn't the intention
It's really needed that every body speaks out himself. Not holding back to much to 'get a compromise' or consensus; I prefer an open discussion. Everything on the table. The group of people who makes the decisions isn't to large. They should now everybody's position; how and why. The community has role; but lots comes down on the persons in charge (the government decides in the interest of the people; even if a small groups sees that differently.) I think the interests a the top are pretty aligned and clear. Communicating that the community, yes that might be bit of a thingy. Note: this not an invitation to object against everything, but convincing people on basis of arguments, facts, insights.
Oh, for the record, compromises can not always be made. Sometimes you have to choose between evils; not ending up in the middle. With some watered down solution which won't work for nobody, except being a compromise. A compromise isn't always a target by its own.
tough decisions maybe be somethings better. Of course consensus is preferred. So convincing people; making people see things your way. Ideally the discussion is made in consensus (and published that way). Or opting for dissenting opinion system; where they objection are made clear (similar to Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (BVerfG). So everybody can see what's happening. Of course objections isn't blaming people. It's about arguments. It helps people understand a decision, whats talked about, why people disagreed. Open communication is of course also a lot work :-). However you might get people with you and sympathy. [there surely are nice books about change management books]. Yes, quite some stuff management guru's write is oversold crap. However so basic notions does give a framework and help you navigate.
Regard,
Telesto
Slide 28
What is the surplus of the sum of "volonteers" and "ecosystem" to form the "community"? Users? Takers?That is a visual representation of the relationships between volunteers
and ecosystem inside the community, and has no relation with the size of
the constituents. So outside community and ecosystem there is nothing,
but an oval which contains both smaller ovals to show that they are part
of the same community has some extra space as a consequence of the oval
shape (if I has used circles, the extra space would have been bigger).And my "ceterum censeo..."
Slide 49/50
This is why I and some others propose "" set as TDB - so we get "LibreOffice" and "LibreOffice Enterprise,[brought to you by XYZ]" as a result. This avoids all of the possible negative connotations each of the proposed "additions" to the build distributed by TDF brings. And allows the intended discrimination as well:
Basically we say there is a "LibreOffice" (vanilla) and "LibreOffice with benefits" (Enterprise,...) - and that's exactly what we want to tell the people, isn't it?We have to find a solution where there is consensus by all parties, and
it looks that consensus is partially missing on the one you suggest.I may or may not agree with the proposed solutions (there will be a day
when I will write a lengthy blog post where I will tell in a transparent
way what I think about this story and the people involved, but this is
not the right time), so the objective is to reach consensus with an
acceptable compromise.
reach consensus with an acceptable compromise.
Hi Italo,
I got a few questions regarding the branding part of the plan, p46-p53.
It seems that the need of “editions” is deemed to be necessary, and the “target audience” has been selected as the differentiate criteria implicitly.
My impression as a user regarding LibreOffice Personal ( or Individuals, Individuals WFH, students ) vs LibreOffice Enterprises is that they might be different in their features, where LibreOffice Enterprise might have a bunch of features that suits best in enterprise environments. However I wonder if it is really possible to make such kind of differentiation. In reality, LibreOffice TBD will be controlled by contributors. Unless someone invest energy explicitly, the feature of LibreOffice TBD will not match its name. Eventually it might be very hard to differ it from LibreOffice Enterprise.
Or do we want to differentiate is the support status of LibreOffice itself, ex,
LibreOffice without professional support subscription
LibreOffice with professional support subscription from certified ecosystem company X.
( I know these are too lengthy to be a good label and the wording of the first one might not feel comfortable. )
Or maybe the life cycle that differs.
LibreOffice half-year-supported-release v.s LibreOffice LTS from ecosystem company
Or maybe by the maintainers / technical support person
LibreOffice community vs LibreOffice enterprise
(despite everything you mentioned in p50)
I’m not a marketing person at all, so
I’m just trying to understand the intention and hope I found something that helps.
Best Regards.
Italo Vignoli <italo@libreoffice.org> 於 2020年7月15日 週三 下午10:07寫道：
A new version of the strategic marcom plan has been uploaded to
Nextcloud: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/4pLtn9xn76BkxFKPlease refer to this version for your comment, as it clarifies some
specific points which were raised during the discussion, although not
mentioned at all in the previous slide deck.–
Italo Vignoli - LibreOffice Marketing & PR
mobile/signal +39.348.5653829 - email italo@libreoffice.org
hangout/jabber italo.vignoli@gmail.com - skype italovignoli
GPG Key ID - 0xAAB8D5C0
DB75 1534 3FD0 EA5F 56B5 FDA6 DE82 934C AAB8 D5C0–
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
–
My impression as a user regarding LibreOffice Personal ( or Individuals,
Individuals WFH, students ) vs LibreOffice Enterprises is that they might
be different in their features, where LibreOffice Enterprise might have a
bunch of features that suits best in enterprise environments.
Most of the features that anything larger than a MicroBusiness want or
needs, require integration into other software, typically using an
extension for LibreOffice.
Enterprise users will see extensions such as WollMux as being part of
the default install.
Enterprise users are also more likely to see things like GIT, R, and
Zotero installed, as part of their LibreOffice, and treated as part of
LibreOffice, and not independent programs.
However I wonder if it is really possible to make such kind of differentiation.
Currently:
* NeoOffice is the core LibreOffice product, with a number of
modifications that improve performance, functionality, and capability on
the Mac OS X platform;
* EuroOffice is the core LibreOffice product, with a number of
modifications that make it more useful for multilingual documents, and
offices;
* OxOffice is the core LibreOffice product, with modifications that make
it much more suitable for use in CJKV environments;
* Depending upon what you ask for, when you ask for it, and how much an
organisation is willing to pay, Collabora can provide an organisation
with everything from Tier 1 through Tier 5 support. The client can be
using anything from stock LibreOffice, to something the compiled
specifically for the client by Collabora developers, with complete
integration into all of the client's workflow;
In reality, LibreOffice TBD will be controlled by contributors. Unless someone invest energy explicitly, the feature of LibreOffice TBD will not match its name. Eventually it might be very hard to differ it from LibreOffice Enterprise.
The way I see it, is that the LibreOffice Ecosystem support vendors will
be offering the core LibreOffice product, which has been customised for
the specific needs of the client organisation.
For the ecosystem partners, the crucial time to get into the client's
workplace, is when the client decides to migrate to LibreOffice. This is
when the client is most willing to spend additional money for the
customisations to LibO that are needed, for it to fit within their
existing workflow.
Or maybe the life cycle that differs. LibreOffice
half-year-supported-release v.s LibreOffice LTS from ecosystem company
Currently, different vendors offer long term support for periods of time
ranging from two years to ten years. That won't change under the
proposed Strategic MarCom Plan.
jonathon