Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Jun 2, 2011, at 8:12 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: TL;DR version: I think I see people talking past each other for a bunch of reasons, and I have a compromise proposal that might make things easier. It's at the bottom, and explained in some detail in the middle. Welcome to the discussion. Thx for seeing the potential opportunities that are now available. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
Hi Rob, On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 21:26 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Finally, I think we're exaggerating the difficulty of getting out a release of OpenOfice. LibreOffice did it very quickly. And so did IBM with Symphony. This is not rocket science. I am impressed by your optimism. Let us see how quickly you personally manage a windows build yourself of what ends up inside the initial Apache code-base (incidentally, I'm eagerly awaiting that myself, when do we see it ? only after acceptance of the podling?). We could even have a small race :-) As for infrastructure, we are blessed with an amazing Apache Infrastructure Team. I have full confidence in their capabilities. Last I looked OO.o 3.3.1 is 70+Gb of binary data to compile and distribute to a mirror infrastructure. Shipping source is quite easy, binaries are more troublesome to both create, and distribute. No doubt it can be done - but it is less than trivial. I suspect that Symphony does not cater for the diversity of locales that the community will expect (as one data point). As for continuity of OpenOffice releases, there was a full stable release of OpenOffice in January and a preview 3.4.0 release in April. It is very reasonable for the new ApacheOffice project to start up, and even while in incubation produce a release. It is unclear to me whether you can release binaries with all the copy-left dependencies bundled as Apache. If that is so - easy enough. If not, life will be harder, more development will be required, and the result will be much less feature-full. Which makes me wonder - who would provide the binaries for the project ? is that typically done by a single individual ? or a company ? (I assume not) or is it a requirement that anyone can do that ? I ask because - it is a non-trivial amount of work to setup a Windows (particularly) build environment capable of compiling OO.o, and clearly diversity is useful there. Then again, if you have Eric and IBM that can compile there perhaps that is robust enough. As for the general quality of the 3.4.0 preview release, it seems to me that there is some considerable work left to make that release-able. Will there be a longer-than-user delay between releases as we produce our first release? Of course. But I'm not particularly troubled by this. My take is (and some of this depends on Apache policy, and what code arrives out of the process) that it could take a handful of months to get back to the OO.o position. But of course, I look forward to being proved wrong. HTH, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
El 03/06/11 05:15, Ian Lynch escribió: We are getting demand for OpenOffice certification not any other name. +1 This is a global and urgent demand by the companies that migrate to OpenOffice.org... and we can't satisfier. -- --- Prof. Román H. Gelbort No busquemos aplicaciones que reemplacen aplicaciones, sino aplicaciones que resuelvan problemas específicos... http://www.piensalibre.com.ar --- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Jun 3, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: Hi Rob, On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 21:26 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Finally, I think we're exaggerating the difficulty of getting out a release of OpenOfice. LibreOffice did it very quickly. And so did IBM with Symphony. This is not rocket science. I am impressed by your optimism. Let us see how quickly you personally manage a windows build yourself of what ends up inside the initial Apache code-base (incidentally, I'm eagerly awaiting that myself, when do we see it ? only after acceptance of the podling?). We could even have a small race :-) Stupid question time: If TDF already has the *build* infrastructure, then isn't *that* a clear choice of where at least some level of cooperation can occur. After all, the ASF provides source... the TDF could provide the builds?? (but that's not all, of course)... Just an idea... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
That is what I was suggesting and which Rob claims he won't need because its
so easy.
{Terse? Mobile!}
On Jun 3, 2011 3:23 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
Hi Rob,
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 21:26 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Finally, I think we're exaggerating the difficulty of getting out a
release of OpenOfice. LibreOffice did it very quickly. And so did IBM
with Symphony. This is not rocket science.
I am impressed by your optimism. Let us see how quickly you personally
manage a windows build yourself of what ends up inside the initial
Apache code-base (incidentally, I'm eagerly awaiting that myself, when
do we see it ? only after acceptance of the podling?). We could even
have a small race :-)
Stupid question time: If TDF already has the *build* infrastructure,
then isn't *that* a clear choice of where at least some level of
cooperation can occur.
After all, the ASF provides source... the TDF could provide
the builds?? (but that's not all, of course)...
Just an idea...
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
Stupid question time: If TDF already has the *build* infrastructure, then isn't *that* a clear choice of where at least some level of cooperation can occur. After all, the ASF provides source... the TDF could provide the builds?? (but that's not all, of course)... what a fantastic idea! Nothing to add at the moment, but when I read it, I knew this might be a very good direction. So... is your suggestion that all development works might happen at apache, but the real downloads and packages are done within TDF? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
Um, it seems to me that this discussion of builds and distribution belongs on the dev list of the podling when/if there is a podling. Unless someone feels that there's a problem so gigantic that it should motivate -1 votes for the podling itself. On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote: Stupid question time: If TDF already has the *build* infrastructure, then isn't *that* a clear choice of where at least some level of cooperation can occur. After all, the ASF provides source... the TDF could provide the builds?? (but that's not all, of course)... what a fantastic idea! Nothing to add at the moment, but when I read it, I knew this might be a very good direction. So... is your suggestion that all development works might happen at apache, but the real downloads and packages are done within TDF? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On 03/06/2011 16:04, Benson Margulies wrote: Um, it seems to me that this discussion of builds and distribution belongs on the dev list of the podling when/if there is a podling. Unless someone feels that there's a problem so gigantic that it should motivate -1 votes for the podling itself. I agree that a decision on this is not required before the vote. However I'd like to encourage discussion on this topic since it is an area for solid collaboration between the TDF and the proposed Apache project. That being said, it is important that we recognise this is a decision for the project to make not the incubator PMC or even the ASF. Ross On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote: Stupid question time: If TDF already has the *build* infrastructure, then isn't *that* a clear choice of where at least some level of cooperation can occur. After all, the ASF provides source... the TDF could provide the builds?? (but that's not all, of course)... what a fantastic idea! Nothing to add at the moment, but when I read it, I knew this might be a very good direction. So... is your suggestion that all development works might happen at apache, but the real downloads and packages are done within TDF? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On 03/06/2011 16:00, Christian Grobmeier wrote: Stupid question time: If TDF already has the *build* infrastructure, then isn't *that* a clear choice of where at least some level of cooperation can occur. After all, the ASF provides source... the TDF could provide the builds?? (but that's not all, of course)... what a fantastic idea! Nothing to add at the moment, but when I read it, I knew this might be a very good direction. Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very similar suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these two threads together. Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
Of course it does... but we are discussing ways where we can use all aspects of the existing communities to give the IPMC a warm-and-fuzzy regarding voting +1 On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: Um, it seems to me that this discussion of builds and distribution belongs on the dev list of the podling when/if there is a podling. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
I'll go away on this. My concern has been to avoid setting an impossible bar of organized cooperation as a prerequisite to voting for the podling. It would be a wonderful thing if cooperation breaks out, but I think that it is unrealistic to achieve very much of it before the podling launches. On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Of course it does... but we are discussing ways where we can use all aspects of the existing communities to give the IPMC a warm-and-fuzzy regarding voting +1 On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: Um, it seems to me that this discussion of builds and distribution belongs on the dev list of the podling when/if there is a podling. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 03/06/2011 16:00, Christian Grobmeier wrote: Stupid question time: If TDF already has the *build* infrastructure, then isn't *that* a clear choice of where at least some level of cooperation can occur. After all, the ASF provides source... the TDF could provide the builds?? (but that's not all, of course)... what a fantastic idea! Nothing to add at the moment, but when I read it, I knew this might be a very good direction. Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very similar suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these two threads together. Simon's suggestion folded in the concept of TDF's open repository as a factor, which confuses things most awkwardly. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very similar suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these two threads together. Simon's email, from what I can tell, boils down to: 1. The podling goes along as suggested. 2. The TDF continues business as usual. If the whole point of this discussion is to figure out *how* the communities will work together, I fail to see how that helps... After all, if that was the case, then why even discuss things w/ TDF (you guys just keep on doing what you're doing... don't worry about what's going on here. :) ). We could have done all that already. color me confused: first Simon slams the ASF for not actively engaging TDF and others (although we, of course, did) but now his suggestion is to basically ignore each other... At no point did I see anyone suggest that TDF totally shut down and stop doing anything... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On 03/06/2011 16:43, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very similar suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these two threads together. Simon's email, from what I can tell, boils down to: 1. The podling goes along as suggested. 2. The TDF continues business as usual. I read it differently and more like what was proposed in this thread. The podling goes along as suggested and TDF continues to provide essential support to existing users of the the end user product that is currently called OpenOffice.org to some and LibreOffice to others). In this thread there was talk of sharing the build infrastracture TDF has created for the product called LibreOffice. There are some other issues in Simons proposal that might be less palatable, but there are some that seem to be alinged with the ideas in this thread. I probably should have pulled out the parts in Simons mail that I felt were relevant here. Unfortunately I'm now out of time as I'm off on a camping trip. I'm sure it'll be thrashed out. Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 03/06/2011 16:43, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very similar suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these two threads together. Simon's email, from what I can tell, boils down to: 1. The podling goes along as suggested. 2. The TDF continues business as usual. I read it differently and more like what was proposed in this thread. The podling goes along as suggested and TDF continues to provide essential support to existing users of the the end user product that is currently called OpenOffice.org to some and LibreOffice to others). But what of the *development* of the code? If business-as-usual is both sides independently developing the codebase, then how does that address what is, I guess, a main issue? Is the idea that the ASF contribute code which is then consumed by TDF and that any patches to TDF remain unaccessible to the ASF? Does this result in the communities driving closer together or farther apart? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very similar suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these two threads together. Simon's email, from what I can tell, boils down to: 1. The podling goes along as suggested. 2. The TDF continues business as usual. That's so far from being a valid interpretation of my proposal I almost don't know where to begin. What I am saying is that ASF is being entrusted with something it has never had before; a consumer brand of inestimable value, combined with an enormous, non-technical end-user community. OpenOffice.org is probably the most recognised open source consumer brand after Linux. Servicing that responsibility is a massive task. I've seen a few e-mails with people with hand-waving it away (how hard can it be? etc) but those of us with experience of OpenOffice know that it's daunting. If I were voting on this incubator proposal (and of course I know I am not), I would want to know that the people proposing it had a grasp of the enormity of the task and a plan for dealing with it /from day one/ and not from an undefined point in the future after which Apache has a serious reputational problem with that end-user community and a serious enforcement problem with that trademark. Since I did not see any hint of this in the proposal, my suggestion for how to deal with it from day one is to explore co-operation with LibreOffice, who have the build infrastructure, distribution infrastructure, translation and localisation infrastructure and indeed marketing infrastructure already in place, following eight months of hard work on their part. Ask them if they would be willing to create OpenOffice.org-the-binary-download for you. Ask them to host that binary download. Then as the Apache project falls into place, continue to collaborate for the good of the open source community. color me confused: first Simon slams the ASF for not actively engaging TDF and others (although we, of course, did) but now his suggestion is to basically ignore each other... Actually I thought my whole e-mail was pretty reasonable and in fact a call for ASF and TDF /not/ to ignore each other. But apparently my lame attempts to talk of collaboration and conciliation are slamming and the people who are flinging mud at TDF are just fine and get no rebuke from the ASF President. I must have done a terrible writing job... S.
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote: Ahhh... Yes I see something missing from Simons mail here. I assumed that the LibreOffice distribution would gradually migrate to using the core components proposed here (Apache ODFSuite as Simin called it) and thus collaboration on those components would also migrate here. Yes, that's exactly what I assumed would happen in time. But my e-mail was already TL;DR :-) If I understand correctly the donations from Oracle are not going to enable us to build an appropriately licenced end user product without significant work. Furthermore, the proposal and various press releases seem to indicate that A key focus of this project will be componentisation of the code base making it easier to reuse. That is also my understanding. That's also why it's so important to have a plan for how to sustain the end-user binary at least at a no-worse-than-now level while the Apache project works out what has to go, what can stay, what needs rewriting and so on. I may be being naive, I prefer to think I'm an optimist. Me too! S.
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: If I were voting on this incubator proposal (and of course I know I am not), I would want to know that the people proposing it had a grasp of the enormity of the task and a plan for dealing with it /from day one/ and not from an undefined point in the future after which Apache has a serious reputational problem with that end-user community and a serious enforcement problem with that trademark. As we all want to know... we are not idiots. Since I did not see any hint of this in the proposal, my suggestion for how to deal with it from day one is to explore co-operation with LibreOffice, who have the build infrastructure, distribution infrastructure, translation and localisation infrastructure and indeed marketing infrastructure already in place, following eight months of hard work on their part. Ask them if they would be willing to create OpenOffice.org-the-binary-download for you. Ask them to host that binary download. Then as the Apache project falls into place, continue to collaborate for the good of the open source community. and tell me *exactly* HOW we have not been doing that? color me confused: first Simon slams the ASF for not actively engaging TDF and others (although we, of course, did) but now his suggestion is to basically ignore each other... Actually I thought my whole e-mail was pretty reasonable and in fact a call for ASF and TDF /not/ to ignore each other. But apparently my lame attempts to talk of collaboration and conciliation are slamming and the people who are flinging mud at TDF are just fine and get no rebuke from the ASF President. I must have done a terrible writing job... No, but *ignoring* the obvious efforts by numerous people who have been talking of collaboration and conciliation does them a real disservice. I fail to see why you suggesting that the ASF and the TDF not ignore each other, and that we practice collaboration and conciliation, is something you see as new in this whole discussion. I've been pushing it from the start. And FWIW, I have quite often slammed others... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: If I were voting on this incubator proposal (and of course I know I am not), I would want to know that the people proposing it had a grasp of the enormity of the task and a plan for dealing with it /from day one/ and not from an undefined point in the future after which Apache has a serious reputational problem with that end-user community and a serious enforcement problem with that trademark. As we all want to know... we are not idiots. I must have missed the e-mails asking about it. Can you give me pointers please? S.
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:14, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: ... color me confused: first Simon slams the ASF for not actively engaging TDF and others (although we, of course, did) but now his suggestion is to basically ignore each other... Actually I thought my whole e-mail was pretty reasonable and in fact a call for ASF and TDF /not/ to ignore each other. But apparently my lame attempts to talk of collaboration and conciliation are slamming and the people who are flinging mud at TDF are just fine and get no rebuke from the ASF President. I must have done a terrible writing job... When I read Jim's email, I took it to mean your tweets[1]. Not your emails to this list. Cheers, -g [1] http://twitter.com/webmink - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: When I read Jim's email, I took it to mean your tweets[1]. Not your emails to this list. Greg: I am being told by Sam Ruby to not talk about these topics so I will not respond apart from to acknowledge I am not ignoring you. To be clear, the topics being your tweets and use of terms like bitch-slapped and ideological on this list. S. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
Hello Simon, This is a noble proposal, but there are is an important prerequisite. The LibreOffice is currently only accepting contributions licensed under the LGPL. The LibreOffice project cannot take those contributions and insert them into an Apache Licensed project without the approval of those contributors. So this goes back to the point I raised in my last post: has anyone contacted the major LibreOffice contributors to determine if they are willing to contribute code to an Apache licensed project? Second, I am strongly against adopting any name other than OpenOffice. The world is looking for an official distribution. If the Apache project does not adopt the OpenOffice name, then someone else will, and this will confuse users even more. For example, even as we speak, a small company in San Francisco has filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to trademark the name OpenOffice. A copy of this application is attached in PDF format. This company is the current operator of http://openoffice.us.com and apparently, they envision that they will become the exclusive distributor of OpenOffice. Obviously, that must be stopped, which I was planning to post on in more detail. The bottom line however is that the only way to stop that is for a recognized organization to step up and distribute the official OpenOffice distribution. Allen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On 3 Jun 2011, at 02:32, Allen Pulsifer wrote: Hello Simon, This is a noble proposal, but there are is an important prerequisite. The LibreOffice is currently only accepting contributions licensed under the LGPL. The LibreOffice project cannot take those contributions and insert them into an Apache Licensed project without the approval of those contributors. I believe LibreOffice accepts contributions under any license that is compatible with LGPLv3, including the Apache license. But anyway, contributions can be made to the New Thing project and then used by the Business-As-Usual project if that's what the contributor wants. Second, I am strongly against adopting any name other than OpenOffice. The world is looking for an official distribution. If the Apache project does not adopt the OpenOffice name, then someone else will, and this will confuse users even more. I am proposing that Apache designate the business-as-usual project as the current official distribution on its behalf. There would be far greater confusion if there was /no/ official OpenOffice distribution for many months, which seems a risk at the moment. For example, even as we speak, a small company in San Francisco has filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to trademark the name OpenOffice. A copy of this application is attached in PDF format. This company is the current operator of http://openoffice.us.com and apparently, they envision that they will become the exclusive distributor of OpenOffice. Obviously, that must be stopped, which I was planning to post on in more detail. The bottom line however is that the only way to stop that is for a recognized organization to step up and distribute the official OpenOffice distribution. In which case Apache should get the trademark from Oracle as soon as possible, put it to use on a valid distribution as soon as possible, and challenge the application. S. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/02/2011 08:12:40 PM: 2. This incubator project, which sets out to be the Firefox of OpenOffice, should proceed pretty much as described, but under a name other than OpenOffice (just as Firefox got a different name). Something like Apache ODF Suite that describes the intent to be the core code of a fresh start. Picking an alternative name will help avoid those millions of current users getting confused, and I suspect will cool down some of the emotions in this discussion. I'm sure Rob and the others behind the proposal will be able to populate a podling to get this started. I could certainly see at some future time, if we did a generational rewrite or refactoring of the code, that we could call it OpenOffice2. There is precedent for doing that at Apache, e.g., Xalan2, Xerces2, etc. But that is branding discussion best left to the project in conjunction with ASF branding experts. But initially the proposal, as it has been made, is for the continuation of the existing OpenOffice code base under the existing OpenOffice trademark. 3. Given that a substantial part of the effort that the LibreOffice project has committed has been the creation of an open repository and build system coupled with an effective international distribution system, I suggest that we collectively ask LibreOffice to take on the task of business-as-usual for OpenOffice, so that the Incubator project can focus on rebirth and not get swamped in the minutiae of business as usual. If existing LibreOffice developers should wish to join in support of the Apache OpenOffice project proposal [1], and work, within Apache, under the Apache 2.0 license, and then wish to specialize on tasks that support the needs of existing OpenOffice users, then I would warmly extend my hand to them. But I don't think anyone can can carve out an exclusive domain for them in Apache and say only they can work on that release. Every member will identify what tasks they wish to work on. But in my experience, you want the version N and version N+1 to occur in the same project, with the same PMC, but in different components. Often there will be an wide overlap of developers, but also of users, test cases, and certainly bug reports. This supports backwards compatibility as well, which you know if critical in this product category. So I would not support splitting this across Apache projects. [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal Finally, I think we're exaggerating the difficulty of getting out a release of OpenOfice. LibreOffice did it very quickly. And so did IBM with Symphony. This is not rocket science. As for infrastructure, we are blessed with an amazing Apache Infrastructure Team. I have full confidence in their capabilities. As for continuity of OpenOffice releases, there was a full stable release of OpenOffice in January and a preview 3.4.0 release in April. It is very reasonable for the new ApacheOffice project to start up, and even while in incubation produce a release. Will there be a longer-than-user delay between releases as we produce our first release? Of course. But I'm not particularly troubled by this. Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy
On 6/2/2011 7:12 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: This is purely my own thoughts, and there's no doubt room for improvement although I have run it past a few wise friends before posting it. But I suggest that without this clear demarcation of new-project and business-as-usual-project it will be very hard to disentangle the two sets of needs and fulfil the worthy objective at the start of the proposal, Both Oracle and ASF agree that the OpenOffice.org development community, previously fragmented, would re-unite under ASF to ensure a stable and long term future for OpenOffice.org. Simon, thank you for sharing these thoughts. Obviously the project contributors themselves will have to determine their direction, and the TDF folk will determine theirs, but this a unique perspective that community members (broader defn.) would do well to bookmark :) I've also appreciated Sam's comments on these threads, reiterated by yourself and others, that the status quo was a liberally licensed codebase to the select few, along with the free software license to the masses. In that sense, adoption of the AL for some reflection or new superset of OpenOffice doesn't seem at odds with the licensing 'politics' of contributors, as they were already offering their code to both closed and open ecosystems by virtue of the Sun(Oracle) CCA which they had signed. That said, it will be individual choices which lead to contributions to the ASF, TDF and/or elsewhere. I can see a role for some LGPL elements of an office suite built for a copyleft platform, and a purpose for AL elements for cooperative elements or even other platforms, as a free and non-discriminatory form of the licenses which Sun(Oracle) previously sold. Especially as it relates to document processing, the AL clearly offers the advantage of broader adoption, and I can't imagine anyone within the TDF or other OOo communities arguing against free standardization of free document formats. I can't yet envision how TDF and ASF based projects will partition this larger work and community, but I'm reassured by several recent posts, including yours, that this is likely happen to a net positive outcome. Still hoping for some assurance that individuals who happen to be Oracle employees will not be discouraged from participating on their own time, should it interest them, and some assurance that the scope of the non-granted files is not insurmountable on some realistic timetable for a useful release. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
