The Document Foundation ejects its core developers • Hacker News Board

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#111

Post by elphinstone » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 2:17 PM UTC

sgbeal wrote: post #106

Please help me understand where the missing comma is supposed to be in: > their Membership Committee has decided to eject from membership all Collabora staff and partners over thirty people who ... Is it: 1) "eject from membership all Collabora staff and partners, over thirty people ..." 2) "eject from membership all Collabora staff and partners over thirty, people who ..." :-? Edit: that's from the article this post…

Has to be #1, as the blog makes no mention of age restrictions. Ejecting people for being over 30 would be unheard of outside of Logan's Run! (vintage scifi movie)

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#112

Post by JoshTriplett » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 2:18 PM UTC

mksaunders2 wrote: post #60

Everyone, please also read TDF's side of the story, before speculating: https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2026/04/01/comment-...

Reading TDF's "side" of the story gives me firm confidence that Collabora was in fact in the right, here. Collabora seems to have the facts on their side, which is why TDF's account here is so vague and passive-aggressive and filled with FUD.

Comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47604892 (in particular, the mention that Collabora was not in fact intending to leave) lend further credence.

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#113

Post by clcaev » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 2:19 PM UTC

Why do these open source foundations (like Mozilla) have direct products anyway? Why not a certification? Who should the users be and why? Who are the collaborators and competitors? These are hard questions.

At least with free software licenses we can separate the copyrights from the trademarks, and exercise the right to fork if a trademark owner is captured and misbehaves.

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#114

Post by bakugo » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 2:20 PM UTC

tclancy wrote: post #74

bakugo wrote: post #71

Why does an open source project, apparently developed by a handful of core developers, have a "board", a "membership committee", "elections" etc? And why do these include people who do not contribute directly to development at all? Let me guess, these same people also pushed to introduce a "code of conduct" to the project?

Because to accomplish anything at scale you need organization. And organizing humans in anything other than forced labor involves respecting them, thus things like codes of conduct. These stories could be about anything and you gamergate veterans will show up grinding one of those axes. Care to throw in wild speculation about whether they use “master” as their main branch name, “slave” as backup database terminology…

TIL open source projects simply didn't work before a certain (often big tech associated) crowd of non-contributors started forcing bureaucracy and codes of conduct down everyone's throats less than a decade ago.

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#115

Post by kstrauser » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 2:21 PM UTC

sgbeal wrote: post #106

Please help me understand where the missing comma is supposed to be in: > their Membership Committee has decided to eject from membership all Collabora staff and partners over thirty people who ... Is it: 1) "eject from membership all Collabora staff and partners, over thirty people ..." 2) "eject from membership all Collabora staff and partners over thirty, people who ..." :-? Edit: that's from the article this post…

I read that as they’re ejecting all but 30 people.

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#116

Post by phkahler » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 2:21 PM UTC

How about a different take: This isn't really about two open source organizations fighting. It's a psyop from the powers that want to stop the digital sovereignty initiatives going on around the world by amplifying some friction that already existed. People won't want to use products with so much drama and uncertainty.

TDF needs to eject the members who pulled the strings hardest on this - they are plants.

Damn I didn't know I had that much of a tinfoil hat.

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#117

Post by mrks_hy » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 2:24 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #116

How about a different take: This isn't really about two open source organizations fighting. It's a psyop from the powers that want to stop the digital sovereignty initiatives going on around the world by amplifying some friction that already existed. People won't want to use products with so much drama and uncertainty. TDF needs to eject the members who pulled the strings hardest on this - they are plants. Damn I did…

Hah. Anyone with some tokens to burn can compose a report on the data?

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#118

Post by bokchoi » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 2:25 PM UTC

mikkupikku wrote: post #72

What are the plausible motivations for the TDF board members here? Do they pay themselves with org funds, or is it just a fight for turf and clout? I think identifying factors like this might be helpful, because if these factors could be eliminated or reduced it might save future orgs from infestations of the sort of people who seek out boards to sit on, as they'd find a better opportunity for parasitism in some othe…

From their blog: https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2026/04/01/comment-...

> The Community Bylaws require that employees of companies involved in legal disputes with The Document Foundation be removed from TDF membership because, in the past, people made decisions in the interest of their employers rather than in the interest of The Document Foundation.

and

> The Document Foundation could have lost its charitable status, which would have had unforeseen consequences.

I'm not sure why they would have lost charitable status, but that seems like a legitimate concern.

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#119

Post by bee_rider » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 2:26 PM UTC

fn-mote wrote: post #98

bee_rider wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on that table it looks like “LibreOffice the name” ejected “LibreOffice the software development project” basically. Although, it isn’t really a corporate takeover, right? There was one company that was doing most of the work, now they’ve been ejected. So why not just fork it under a new name.

> So why not just fork it under a new name. Again? Sigh. Isn't that how we got LibreOffice in the first place? (From OpenOffice.)

I don’t think LibreOffice ever really took over the mindspace of OpenOffice anyway. Maybe they can a more distinct split will give it a more independent identity.

Since Collabora already has an online version, maybe they should fork completely and call this offline version something that implies independence. So, I suggest: SolOffice. Haha.

Re: The Document Foundation ejects its core developers

#120

Post by sgbeal » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 2:26 PM UTC

kstrauser wrote: post #115

sgbeal wrote: post #106

Please help me understand where the missing comma is supposed to be in: > their Membership Committee has decided to eject from membership all Collabora staff and partners over thirty people who ... Is it: 1) "eject from membership all Collabora staff and partners, over thirty people ..." 2) "eject from membership all Collabora staff and partners over thirty, people who ..." :-? Edit: that's from the article this post…

I read that as they’re ejecting all but 30 people.

> I read that as they’re ejecting all but 30 people.

i had to re-read the original sentence several times to figure out how you came to that conclusion but can see it now: "all people over/above/beyond [a limit of] 30..."