<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - UI: Branding: LibreOffice Personal edition" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134486#c22">Comment # 22</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - UI: Branding: LibreOffice Personal edition" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134486">bug 134486</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:telesto@surfxs.nl" title="Telesto <telesto@surfxs.nl>"> Telesto</a> <pre>There is only one edition from TDF point of view. Which can be used by everyone. So every ‘edition’ misplaced, IMHO The eco-system partners deliver + Service/support + A orked versions of TDF versions with own branding + a few patches. Say a 6.1 line with some batches back ported still being back ported.. at least I think they do The eco-partners want profit of the LibreOffice label (or have to use it, no sure if there is legal obligation) at the one hand. OTOH, the want distinct from LibreOffice. Making the TDF builds an edition, would make the difference more obvious (for promotion/marketing) The goal is more to promote/raise awareness of the commercial variant from the eco-system partners. I assume. This is technically not a TDF issue. Except TDF heavily relaying on the eco-system partners (from development perspective + board). I don’t see LibreOffice being actively developed without them. And what they do flows back into LibreOffice (as far I can tell) The whole symbiosis with TDF and the one hand and eco-partners at the other will always be problematic. OTOH, I can’t think of any model without flaws. The current model apparently works in some way. And not if this is the right timing for an internal focus. On experimenting with the whole TDF eco-partners structure. It’s claiming a lot of resources and waisting precious time. I personally prefer speeding up development. The product quality needs to be improved, to keep in line with competitors. The user base will move on, if we not keep up. This is problematic at community level (less volunteers, less activity) and eco-system partners (no paying customers, no developers). So a lovely spiral to the bottom. We are running behind already from my point of view. Office is a commodity; rather easy to replace. There is really a need for developers. If the eco-system partners think the benefit for some ‘edition’ which end up in more people working on LibreOffice, please go ahead. Developers, developers, developers is my adagium, currently. Not saying that a new model isn’t needed in the long run. It’s more about priority’s. We don’t have the luxury to start battling each other on multiple fronts. Another part of the issue is TDF with spending restrictions at the TDF side.. I’m heaving the impression lots of time/money is ‘waisted’ in the tedious process of writing a tender. Which maybe not most efficient. Except to comply with the law. I would prefer if TDF could hire a developer (partime, full time). We are losing developers, and/or the time the are able to spend on LibreOffice. And most project require lots of time, so can’t be done by volunteers. And contributions of volunteers is of course more ‘ ad hoc’. Where as paid developers can do work continuously (for example the welding project). The view is based on my current observation and impressions and afloat. It can change/develop based on input/visions etc. -- The ‘edition’ story is not a ‘natural’ requirement, more a compromise. The addition: “The Personal edition is supported by volunteers and intended for individual use" Has to change. Personal is load terminology. And individual use is wrong This already going in the right direction “Intended for individuals and organizations that do not need professional support…" But not sure if a negative formulation is allowed. Being positive is mostly better. I think. Even if this is ‘technically’ a proper statement. But didn’t do a study (marketing) communication. And “do not need professional support”. Direct to: IT department deploying LibreOffice (more technically) or user support (how do I). Another question is if people actually would read that line anyhow. So is this really necessary. Or we just revert tot the initial line. And assume the ‘edition’ stuff being enough. Again another story is how prominent the edition should be present inside LibreOffice. Does there need to be a ‘ ….. Edition’ shown in the Start Center (will large fat letters) I prefer not, but that’s me. And if that needs to be so, please make it more artistic. Same thing for the title bar. Prefer not heaving an edition text in it either. Somewhere in the Start-up splash screen (fine). About Window window image. Background in Start Center should be enough (with a nice design. I think I have seen a community logo already. Else something should be made.. But that's the UX/Design departement) The edition marketing should be done at website level. Not to much in-app. Again another part is the story how the process went. A last moment marketing strategy and large noticeable change on a touch area. If you want to people getting pissed off... And backfire with negative PR on <a href="https://planet.documentfoundation.org">https://planet.documentfoundation.org</a> I still surprised how many departements/ people went along with this (or let it happen, without objecting).. based on gerrit commit: dev, ux, marketing. There needs to be a better protocol. I have the impression that some people letting this go along on purpose, to get it escalated, because this easier way to make a point. It surely works, but until people just drop out being pissed how things are going.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>