Hi Laszlo, all, I'm not sure, if you as a former Collabora staff member don't any potential CoI in the whole topic.
I'd prefer if only community members without potential CoI share their opinion on this topic. I also have no idea why it's not possible to work on a common ground of LOOL (LibreOffice Online) and why it is/was instead necessary to fork the code away from the LibreOffice community and rename it. If I look over the fence into another OSS community there is no such behavior. Maybe because the license is GPL and there is a contributor assignment for the foundation in place (or there is more common spirit in the project and the professional contributors are more divers). Regards, Andreas Am 24.06.22 um 17:27 schrieb [email protected]: > Hi, > > On 2022-06-23 17:09, Paolo Vecchi wrote: >> Hi Andreas, >> >> thank you for letting us know that you are working on it. >> >> Ideally it would be great to have a few developers working on it, >> especially to fix known security issues, and sufficient activity to >> make it viable. >> >> It is true that LOOL has been in a kind of limbo. The repository has >> been frozen "temporarily" but it kind of became a permanent situation. >> >> In your opinion, would reopening the repository for 12 months provide >> enough time for a community to form around it? >> >> It would require warnings until all the security bugs have been fixed >> and that it might not be well maintained until we see constant and >> sufficient activity but it could be an option to make it up for the >> longer than expected temporary freeze of the repository. > > We need not only a security warning, but clear information that the > recommended versions of LOOL are still CODE and Collabora Online > (LibreOffice Technology (TM)). > > A few months ago my corporate client wasted time and money because > they didn't notice on the > TDF site that LOOL is not actively developed. Thanks to the > helpfulness of employees of > Collabora Productivity, now they can test its fork with an up-to-date > LibreOffice in their intranet, and > started to contribute back to CODE (they have already been one of the > biggest contributors > of LibreOffice Desktop). > > Why do we need to emphasize that CODE/Collabora Online are the > recommended versions (by TDF, too: > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/LibreOffice_Online#Current_Status)? > > Not only because LOOL was the idea and for the most part, product of > Collabora Productivity, > but because the original core LOOL developers still work for Collabora > in the spirit of the > free software: CODE is the only actively developed version of LOOL, > and this is the only maintained > version which contributes back to LibreOffice actively. > > More information: https://collaboraonline.github.io/post/faq/ (by the > way, Collabora's description > mentions other maintained versions, like OSSII and Zimbra Docs). > >> >> If after 12 months we don't see much activity then we could be certain >> that the community is not really interested in working on LOOL. >> >> It would be great to know if others have other >> takes/options/alternatives on this subject. > > I'm sure, the potential corporate contributors will prefer > CODE/Collabora Online, so it's really important to inform them (and > every LibreOffice users) correctly, like in > https://collaboraonline.github.io/post/faq/. > > As CODE/Collabora Online are LibreOffice Technology (TM), and for the > healthy long-term LibreOffice development, I would like to see more > contribution with Collabora Productivity. In my opinion, as LOOL was, > CODE is still the key for the survival of LibreOffice. In the spirit > of a successful free software contribution, respecting the decision of > Collabora Productivity, TDF must help CODE development, as much as > possible, for the sake of LibreOffice! As a first step, we shouldn't > hijack future CODE users and as described above, future (and recent) > LibreOffice users and contributors with false hopes and misleading > information. > > Best regards, > László > >> >> Ciao >> >> Paolo >> >> On 21/06/2022 21:14, Andreas Mantke wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> only a short info that I'm currently working on an update of the LOOL >>> source code with the latest patches. Because I have an issue with my >>> newly bought hardware I had to migrate my environment (etc.) to another >>> hardware (will need some hours of spare time). Thus I was not able to >>> finish my work during this week. >>> >>> If someone wants to join me, feel free to send me an email. >>> Once the necessary bits are done, I'll come back and try to make a >>> proposal for the further process to get LOOL back under the TDF >>> umbrella. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Andreas >>> >>> >>> Am 21.06.22 um 14:15 schrieb Paolo Vecchi: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> just a heads up in case the community would like to come up with >>>> proposals in regards to LibreOffice On-Line. >>>> >>>> As you might be aware LOOL's repository has been frozen since the >>>> major code contributor decided to move it to GitHub and not contribute >>>> back to TDF's repository. >>>> >>>> At the time there has been a debate about it but then nothing >>>> actionable seems to have been proposed by the community since then. >>>> >>>> Recently an ex-member of the ESC proposed to the ESC to archive LOOL >>>> [0] and during the following ESC meeting no concerns were expressed >>>> for doing so [1]. >>>> >>>> The "Attic Policy" [2], that has been written to archive obsolete >>>> projects, states that the Board will need to vote on the archival >>>> process to confirm ESC's choice. >>>> >>>> It is likely that the board will need to vote on it soon so if the >>>> community would like to do something with LOOL there might be a small >>>> window of opportunity to have your preferences on what to do with it >>>> heard. >>>> >>>> If nobody comes along proposing to look after it and update if so that >>>> it could be brought back into an usable form for the community then >>>> the board might have to vote for having LOOL archived. >>>> >>>> Ciao >>>> >>>> Paolo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [0] >>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-June/088982.html >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-June/089018.html >>>> >>>> [2] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Policies/Attic >>>> >>> >>> -- ## Free Software Advocate >>> ## Plone add-on developer >>> ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog >>> >>> > -- ## Free Software Advocate ## Plone add-on developer ## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected] 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
