Suggestion: Governance Structure for Euro Office

I have no support/technical question and have seen the support category. (Be aware that direct support questions will be deleted.)

on

Which general topic do you have

Please no flame thread; total respect to all. I want to make a suggestion, assuming Euro Office is an AGPL-compliant fork from before OnlyOffice removed mobile editing from DocumentServer back in 5.5.0

Suggestion: Nextcloud Should Consider a Formal Governance Model for Office Integrations

(EuroOffice, OnlyOffice, Collabora, etc.)

  • The Document Foundation is in conflict with Collabora, despite Collabora maintaining most of LibreOffice Online for many years.
  • OnlyOffice is in conflict with Nextcloud and Euro Office, despite Euro Office being a legitimate AGPL fork and Nextcloud being a long‑time partner.

Both cases show the same underlying issue:
When a project steward and a major contributor have no shared governance framework, conflict is inevitable.

To avoid repeating these failures, Euro Office could benefit from a more formal governance model. Nextcloud relies on external office software for collaborative editing. When upstream projects experience licensing changes, branding disputes, or governance conflicts, it directly affects:

  • stability for users
  • long‑term support
  • compatibility
  • trust

Adding structure now would allow for a predictable, vendor‑neutral foundation for future integrations, collaboration and forks. Yes, I absolutely asked CoPilot to help with explicit suggestions based on past OnlyOffice changes in addition to both current situations, because this is complex. I hope this at least inspires further suggestions and ideas, whatever those are.

Suggested Governance Principles

1. Clear Trademark & Branding Rules
Define explicit expectations for:

  • how forks (like EuroOffice) must handle branding
  • how integrations should refer to upstream projects
  • how vendors may present themselves within the Nextcloud ecosystem

This protects both Nextcloud and vendors from trademark disputes.

2. A Committee Based on Actual Code Contributions
Representation should be tied to real work:

  • integration maintenance
  • bug fixes
  • security patches
  • documentation
  • API compatibility

This prevents a foundation from “reclaiming” a project without the maintainers, and prevents a vendor from dominating branding or direction.

3. Public Roadmaps
Require all integrated office vendors to publish:

  • a 12‑month roadmap
  • deprecation notices
  • licensing changes
  • major feature plans

This eliminates surprises like sudden feature removals or licensing shifts.

4. Public Comment Periods for Major Changes
Before any major integration or governance change:

  • publish a proposal
  • allow a defined comment period (e.g., 30–90 days)
  • gather community and vendor feedback

This ensures transparency and avoids abrupt decisions.

What This Achieves

A governance model like this would:

  • stabilize the Nextcloud office ecosystem
  • protect users from upstream conflicts
  • ensure fair influence for contributors
  • support AGPL‑compliant forks like EuroOffice
  • prevent vendor lock‑in
  • avoid the governance failures seen in both TDF/Collabora and ONLYOFFICE/Nextcloud

I hope this at least inspires further conversation. Best to all of you.

If you have legal experience or in general experience with governance of open source projects, I’d rather reach out directly to EuroOffice. They already have started a FAQ with a point about governance: