> the parent question was "what would you describe IBM's motivation for creating *Apache* OpenOffice"..." which was what I addressed.
The full question was
>>>> what would you describe IBM's motivation for creating *Apache* OpenOffice instead of collaborating with the already-extant LibreOffice?
Which you explicitly dodged by saying
>>> I'm not going to go into details about why Apache was favored over LO other than to say it was not a decision based on only a single factor.
And now you say
> The decision to support OpenOffice at Apache was not made by a single person and it was not a decision between only two alternatives.
Yet *something* "favored" and made a "decision" to use your explicit, reifying words. The ensemble of particular actors is completely irrelevant to the decision you explicitly mention.
I'm asking what the reasoning (that you clearly possess since you must have such knowledge from you quote above) was for the decision to go with Apache and not with the already-extant LibreOffice. If you find it to be relevant, please feel free to add the other alternatives that existed. Mentioning two options explicitly does not preclude the existence of other options.