When Oracle acquired Sun, they ceased to govern and pulled their developers off of the project. At that point it became impossible for the community to continue working within the existing project, so the remaining developers forked to create LibreOffice. It is not adequate to say that "governance choices" killed the project, Oracle killed it but held on to the trademark.
I can think of no reason why Oracle would decide to donate the OOo project to the Apache foundation other than to generate confusion in the marketplace and deflect criticism.
At this point, I don't think the AOO has done anything wrong governance-wise, but there's just very little reason for LO to work with them. AOO development is mostly stagnant, and going through another governance restructuring and licensing change probably doesn't seem appealing to LO. I doubt the Apache project will donate the trademark to LO because they probably don't want to give up on an Apache-licensed project.
I do completely agree that governance requires assent by the governed, and the project owning the OOo trademark does not have that, but your post mis-attributed the who and the how.
For a tax break? No, those assets have already been written off as R&D. Maybe it's just for the PR. I cannot conceive of Larry Ellison doing anything out of altruism.
Oracle and Apache's accounts would show what's happening there.
I did NOT mean to imply that it was the Apache foundation that killed (or at least mortally wounded) Open Office. What I was trying to state was that a series of governance choices killed it, the breaking point can be identified in time as the moment LO forked itself. Then from that point forward, you can compare the governance choices made by the OO lineage, and the governance choices made by the LO lineage, and see what worked and what did not. And that is what makes it such a great example (in my opinion).
For people reading and following along, and who might be considering being the steward of an open source project, they might take a moment and look at both paths thoughtfully to understand the limitations of being "the boss" on a project and how those limitations are manifested.
I get where you are coming from Cam, I screwed up by not pointing out it was Oracle in charge of Open Office when LO forked, but as that screw up changes nothing about how governance is perceived by the governed or rejected by the governed, I expect that is why your point might be considered a quibble.