Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon

Posted May 17, 2012 23:59 UTC (Thu) by rcweir (guest, #48888)
In reply to: Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon by Trelane
Parent article: Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon

Actually, the parent question was "what would you describe IBM's motivation for creating *Apache* OpenOffice"..." which was what I addressed.

Remember, just because you can grammatically form a question does not mean the question is logical or that it has an answer. For example, I could demand to know why the town of Gary, Indiana, did not vote for a particular candidate for town council in a 5 person race. The question is grammatical, but does it make sense? It errs in the reification of the town, as if it was a unitary mind with a single preference and a single choice. It also errs in thinking that the vote was against a particular candidate rather than a voting process in which one candidate had the greatest support, and the others, by logical necessity, lost.

The decision to support OpenOffice at Apache was not made by a single person and it was not a decision between only two alternatives. So it is incorrect to say that anyone made a decision not to go with LibreOffice other than by the logical necessity that making any choice eliminates the alternatives not chosen.

Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon

Posted May 18, 2012 0:20 UTC (Fri) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] (5 responses)

> 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.

Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon

Posted May 18, 2012 0:32 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (4 responses)

Again, the logical fallacy of assuming that because there was a decision there was a consensus reason for that decision. What did Gary, Indiana choose candidate A over B, C, D and E? Voting is one way of making a decision that does not yield an answer to "why?". I'm sure you can think of other decision making processes that have that same quality.

This is my last word on that question.

Anyone have questions on Symphony? Or are we going to listen to the same tired old whining? Sometimes it feels like I'm being stalked by some jilted old girlfriend....

Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon

Posted May 18, 2012 0:44 UTC (Fri) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] (2 responses)

> This is my last word on that question.

Fair 'nuff. I will say that I completely disagree with what you said prior to this particular thing and then I'll end it too. :)

> Anyone have questions on Symphony?

Sure. Why now instead of back when it was at Sun?

Will this just be a code drop, or will you continue to work closely to get it integrated into AOO?

Will you be willing to help the LO group integrate it as well?

Do you have a reply to Michael Meeks' posting on this (http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2012-05-17-symphony...)?

Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon

Posted May 18, 2012 1:06 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (1 responses)

> Why now instead of back when it was at Sun?

Again, you make the fallacy of assuming there was a positive decision not to do that rather than simply the lack of a positive decision to do that,

>Will this just be a code drop, or will you continue to work closely to get it integrated into AOO?

What happens to the code is a community decision, not something IBM unilaterally decides. My preference is certainly that we combine the best improvements of Symphony with the great work already ongoing with Apache OpenOffice. There are several technical approaches and ways of doing this. That will be decided among the Committers in the project.

>Will you be willing to help the LO group integrate it as well?

I look forward to receiving requests for help from LO.

>Do you have a reply to Michael Meeks' posting on this

His blog does not seem to allow replies. Regardless, I don't see anything new in his post. He is mainly complaining about past event, right?

Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon

Posted May 21, 2012 17:27 UTC (Mon) by simosx (guest, #24338) [Link]

> His blog does not seem to allow replies.

You can use your own blog, by writing a new blog post, in order to reply.

Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon

Posted May 23, 2012 2:39 UTC (Wed) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link]

> Again, the logical fallacy of assuming that because there was a decision there was a consensus reason for that decision. What did Gary, Indiana choose candidate A over B, C, D and E? Voting is one way of making a decision that does not yield an answer to "why?". I'm sure you can think of other decision making processes that have that same quality.

And that there is the biggest reason why AOO will fail.

Weasel words from the head honcho in response to a straightforward question.

Not knowing the motivations of the corporate overloads, and seeing them squirm when asked direct questions, does not exactly inspire one to contribute.