https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161941
--- Comment #23 from Buovjaga <[email protected]> --- (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #22) > Here there is no imperative that the fonts contributed as part of the Google > "DocRepair" project be removed. Community member Collabora either had a > direct request for them or it was just a Dev's inkling to implement--end of > story. End of "process". As that is the means by which the project is > maintained, features are spawned, and dead/obsolete code is pruned. > > If you more directly want/need something--code it up and submit patches for > peer review. Devs, aka Doers, decide. Then if there is a real reason to > revert, ESC would provide such guidance--user issues and trustee concerns > should not be beat to death in a BZ issue. Yet you do... > > Likewise, if for TDF concerns, the BoD takes up a sponsorship position of > the FOSS Google DocRepair project--granting it could be a means to support > hosting our own LibreOffice or Document Liberation font requirements (e.g. a > home for OpenSymbol)--that discussion and any guidance would filter down > through ESC, or be formally tendered by BoD. That's not accurate. Both TDF marketing and the design team want the fonts removed. Everyone involved knows or should know the discussions around dropping/replacing/adding fonts in the recent years. It's clear that this should have been a topic for ESC at the very least. I understand why such a process can slip from the mind when you are laser-focused on getting some cool thing done, I'm no stranger to it myself. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
