Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:31 AM, RA Stehmann anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de wrote: Two thoughts: 1. Concerned people found it problematically that OOo depended so much on SUN and later Oracle. So the situation under the roof of the Apache Software Foundation is a real progress. So we shouldn't complain that IBM doesn't try to dominate our project by creating new dependencies, but encourage people to join our project as developers and more companies to support us. 2. For a Productivity Suite the release cycle is proper. Neither bigger companies nor smaller enterprises want to roll out a new version of an office suite each quarter. So even a bigger time lag between versions would fit. And the brand is so well known that we don't need press releases every month. We should continueing (and maybe force) our marketing activities; saying our users we make a non harum-scarum but firm progress. So concerns are needed but no lamenting. We should find out, what our opportunities are, and jump at them in time. +1 Those who have been with the project for a while have seen the full range of criticism: -- IBM will not contribute to AOO at all. IBM will just take code. -- IBM will dominate the project with too many IBM developers -- IBM will not contribute Symphony like they said they would -- IBM will contribute Symphony but not any developers to work on it They will just take code. -- IBM has stuffed the project with Chinese developers with an intent to force Symphony to be the new AOO -- IBM does not have enough Chinese developers -- IBM is not leading the project enough One might ask, exactly how many IBM developers do we need in order to elicit praise from the critics? What is the magic number that is neither too little nor too much? Or, will critics merely complain, regardless? When the project started, I invoked the old proverb, The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on. We have more important things to discuss than what dogs are barking today. -Rob Regards Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On 2014-10 -23, at 07:36, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:31 AM, RA Stehmann anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de wrote: Two thoughts: 1. Concerned people found it problematically that OOo depended so much on SUN and later Oracle. So the situation under the roof of the Apache Software Foundation is a real progress. So we shouldn't complain that IBM doesn't try to dominate our project by creating new dependencies, but encourage people to join our project as developers and more companies to support us. 2. For a Productivity Suite the release cycle is proper. Neither bigger companies nor smaller enterprises want to roll out a new version of an office suite each quarter. So even a bigger time lag between versions would fit. And the brand is so well known that we don't need press releases every month. We should continueing (and maybe force) our marketing activities; saying our users we make a non harum-scarum but firm progress. So concerns are needed but no lamenting. We should find out, what our opportunities are, and jump at them in time. +1 Those who have been with the project for a while have seen the full range of criticism: -- IBM will not contribute to AOO at all. IBM will just take code. -- IBM will dominate the project with too many IBM developers -- IBM will not contribute Symphony like they said they would -- IBM will contribute Symphony but not any developers to work on it They will just take code. -- IBM has stuffed the project with Chinese developers with an intent to force Symphony to be the new AOO -- IBM does not have enough Chinese developers -- IBM is not leading the project enough One might ask, exactly how many IBM developers do we need in order to elicit praise from the critics? What is the magic number that is neither too little nor too much? Or, will critics merely complain, regardless? When the project started, I invoked the old proverb, The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on. We have more important things to discuss than what dogs are barking today. -Rob Regards Michael Thanks, Rob. Best, Louis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
This problem has indirectly to do with the lack of marketing efforts the community has been victim off. Without going into further rant, there should be some attention being put to what the project is communicating right now. On Oct 23, 2014 6:37 AM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:31 AM, RA Stehmann anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de wrote: Two thoughts: 1. Concerned people found it problematically that OOo depended so much on SUN and later Oracle. So the situation under the roof of the Apache Software Foundation is a real progress. So we shouldn't complain that IBM doesn't try to dominate our project by creating new dependencies, but encourage people to join our project as developers and more companies to support us. 2. For a Productivity Suite the release cycle is proper. Neither bigger companies nor smaller enterprises want to roll out a new version of an office suite each quarter. So even a bigger time lag between versions would fit. And the brand is so well known that we don't need press releases every month. We should continueing (and maybe force) our marketing activities; saying our users we make a non harum-scarum but firm progress. So concerns are needed but no lamenting. We should find out, what our opportunities are, and jump at them in time. +1 Those who have been with the project for a while have seen the full range of criticism: -- IBM will not contribute to AOO at all. IBM will just take code. -- IBM will dominate the project with too many IBM developers -- IBM will not contribute Symphony like they said they would -- IBM will contribute Symphony but not any developers to work on it They will just take code. -- IBM has stuffed the project with Chinese developers with an intent to force Symphony to be the new AOO -- IBM does not have enough Chinese developers -- IBM is not leading the project enough One might ask, exactly how many IBM developers do we need in order to elicit praise from the critics? What is the magic number that is neither too little nor too much? Or, will critics merely complain, regardless? When the project started, I invoked the old proverb, The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on. We have more important things to discuss than what dogs are barking today. -Rob Regards Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
Am 10/23/2014 01:36 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:31 AM, RA Stehmann anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de wrote: Two thoughts: 1. Concerned people found it problematically that OOo depended so much on SUN and later Oracle. So the situation under the roof of the Apache Software Foundation is a real progress. So we shouldn't complain that IBM doesn't try to dominate our project by creating new dependencies, but encourage people to join our project as developers and more companies to support us. 2. For a Productivity Suite the release cycle is proper. Neither bigger companies nor smaller enterprises want to roll out a new version of an office suite each quarter. So even a bigger time lag between versions would fit. And the brand is so well known that we don't need press releases every month. We should continueing (and maybe force) our marketing activities; saying our users we make a non harum-scarum but firm progress. So concerns are needed but no lamenting. We should find out, what our opportunities are, and jump at them in time. +1 Those who have been with the project for a while have seen the full range of criticism: -- IBM will not contribute to AOO at all. IBM will just take code. -- IBM will dominate the project with too many IBM developers -- IBM will not contribute Symphony like they said they would -- IBM will contribute Symphony but not any developers to work on it They will just take code. -- IBM has stuffed the project with Chinese developers with an intent to force Symphony to be the new AOO -- IBM does not have enough Chinese developers -- IBM is not leading the project enough One might ask, exactly how many IBM developers do we need in order to elicit praise from the critics? What is the magic number that is neither too little nor too much? Or, will critics merely complain, regardless? When the project started, I invoked the old proverb, The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on. We have more important things to discuss than what dogs are barking today. thanks for your words. Exactly what I think of, too. :-) Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On 10/23/2014 04:36 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:31 AM, RA Stehmann anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de wrote: Two thoughts: 1. Concerned people found it problematically that OOo depended so much on SUN and later Oracle. So the situation under the roof of the Apache Software Foundation is a real progress. So we shouldn't complain that IBM doesn't try to dominate our project by creating new dependencies, but encourage people to join our project as developers and more companies to support us. 2. For a Productivity Suite the release cycle is proper. Neither bigger companies nor smaller enterprises want to roll out a new version of an office suite each quarter. So even a bigger time lag between versions would fit. And the brand is so well known that we don't need press releases every month. We should continueing (and maybe force) our marketing activities; saying our users we make a non harum-scarum but firm progress. So concerns are needed but no lamenting. We should find out, what our opportunities are, and jump at them in time. +1 Those who have been with the project for a while have seen the full range of criticism: -- IBM will not contribute to AOO at all. IBM will just take code. -- IBM will dominate the project with too many IBM developers -- IBM will not contribute Symphony like they said they would -- IBM will contribute Symphony but not any developers to work on it They will just take code. -- IBM has stuffed the project with Chinese developers with an intent to force Symphony to be the new AOO -- IBM does not have enough Chinese developers -- IBM is not leading the project enough One might ask, exactly how many IBM developers do we need in order to elicit praise from the critics? What is the magic number that is neither too little nor too much? Or, will critics merely complain, regardless? When the project started, I invoked the old proverb, The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on. We have more important things to discuss than what dogs are barking today. -Rob This list is astoundingly accurate! :} and I love the proverb! :) +1 on Michael's comments as well! Regards Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- - MzK Success breeds complacency. Complacency breeds failure. Only the paranoid survive. -- Andy Grove, Intel Co-founder - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On 21/10/14 18:00, Mateusz Zasuwik wrote: For instance, here: In other words, for some reason, development of OpenOffice has all but stalled, while LibreOffice remains an active project. Much of OpenOffice's recent decline may be due to IBM's withdrawal from the project. OpenOffice 4.1.1. An anonymous informant alleges -- and web searches appear to confirm -- that IBM did nothing to publicize OpenOffice 4.1.1 when it was released on August 21, and that, since then, IBM developers have disappeared from the OpenOffice mailing lists. well I see still IBM developers here on the list frequently but of course less. It is simply because we do less but it does not mean anything else. But the question is of course more why does it matter. If we do to much people say we control the project,if do to less people say OpenOffice is dead. Really strange and people should think about Apache and how Apache works. It is potentially a harder time for OpenOffice if we do less but it is up to the community to keep the project alive together with us. Nobody should rely on our resources and expect that we will do it. OpenOffice is and remains a powerful brand even if the projects runs slower. Important is the quality and if it solves the daily tasks of our users. Juergen http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-Blog/LibreOffice-OpenOffice-and-rumors-of-unification So if everything is ok, can someone reveal list of planned features for AOO 5.0 and answer for my other questions? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
2014-10-22 9:56 GMT+02:00 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com: On 21/10/14 18:00, Mateusz Zasuwik wrote: For instance, here: In other words, for some reason, development of OpenOffice has all but stalled, while LibreOffice remains an active project. Much of OpenOffice's recent decline may be due to IBM's withdrawal from the project. OpenOffice 4.1.1. An anonymous informant alleges -- and web searches appear to confirm -- that IBM did nothing to publicize OpenOffice 4.1.1 when it was released on August 21, and that, since then, IBM developers have disappeared from the OpenOffice mailing lists. well I see still IBM developers here on the list frequently but of course less. It is simply because we do less but it does not mean anything else. But the question is of course more why does it matter. If we do to much people say we control the project,if do to less people say OpenOffice is dead. Really strange and people should think about Apache and how Apache works. It is potentially a harder time for OpenOffice if we do less but it is up to the community to keep the project alive together with us. Nobody should rely on our resources and expect that we will do it. OpenOffice is and remains a powerful brand even if the projects runs slower. Important is the quality and if it solves the daily tasks of our users. Hey Juergen. Thank you for answer. So, for me, the most important question is why IBM minimize its involvement?. The part about controlling project is irrelevant for me, because every project has its own carriage horse. For OO it was Sun/Oracle/IBM, for LibreOffice it's SUSE, Collabora, Lanedo. The role of community is hype for me. I am just a little surprised with speed of AOO development, especially when we recall from memory IBM's announcements about Lotus Symphony's end of life and when we recall their promises about release IBM OpenOffice Edition. I thought this company will do their best to renew code, interface and it will undertake tries to monetize this project what should let OpenOffice thrive. Lotus contained many nice solutions i.g. tabs system and now everything seems to be going down. People (users) are worrying about OpenOffice status so I would like to just rectify some opinions floating around. Many says that IBM alone stop believing in OpenOffice. You confirm that IBM is doing less. Wiki is not updated for a long time. So this symptoms are showing... what exactly?
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
2014-10-22 20:35 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Zasuwik mzasu...@gmail.com: 2014-10-22 9:56 GMT+02:00 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com: On 21/10/14 18:00, Mateusz Zasuwik wrote: For instance, here: In other words, for some reason, development of OpenOffice has all but stalled, while LibreOffice remains an active project. Much of OpenOffice's recent decline may be due to IBM's withdrawal from the project. OpenOffice 4.1.1. An anonymous informant alleges -- and web searches appear to confirm -- that IBM did nothing to publicize OpenOffice 4.1.1 when it was released on August 21, and that, since then, IBM developers have disappeared from the OpenOffice mailing lists. well I see still IBM developers here on the list frequently but of course less. It is simply because we do less but it does not mean anything else. But the question is of course more why does it matter. If we do to much people say we control the project,if do to less people say OpenOffice is dead. Really strange and people should think about Apache and how Apache works. It is potentially a harder time for OpenOffice if we do less but it is up to the community to keep the project alive together with us. Nobody should rely on our resources and expect that we will do it. OpenOffice is and remains a powerful brand even if the projects runs slower. Important is the quality and if it solves the daily tasks of our users. Hey Juergen. Thank you for answer. So, for me, the most important question is why IBM minimize its involvement?. The part about controlling project is irrelevant for me, because every project has its own carriage horse. For OO it was Sun/Oracle/IBM, for LibreOffice it's SUSE, Collabora, Lanedo. The role of community is hype for me. I am just a little surprised with speed of AOO development, especially when we recall from memory IBM's announcements about Lotus Symphony's end of life and when we recall their promises about release IBM OpenOffice Edition. I thought this company will do their best to renew code, interface and it will undertake tries to monetize this project what should let OpenOffice thrive. Lotus contained many nice solutions i.g. tabs system and now everything seems to be going down. People (users) are worrying about OpenOffice status so I would like to just rectify some opinions floating around. Many says that IBM alone stop believing in OpenOffice. You confirm that IBM is doing less. Wiki is not updated for a long time. So this symptoms are showing... what exactly? If people are worried they just need to start contributing to AOO, for example translating http://www.openoffice.org/pl/. Just drop an email to l10n and the AOO community will provide tools and instructions to let you all become active stakeholders. *Ask* not, what AOO can do for you. *Ask* what, you can do for AOO. We value people by their actions, everyone is pretty much welcome in a community where meritocracy and diversity are the only way forward. Roberto
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On 21/10/2014 Mateusz Zasuwik wrote: ...Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-Blog/LibreOffice-OpenOffice-and-rumors-of-unification In short, your links are not very significant. I assume you are doing it in good faith, but the above is not well-sourced (and the disappeared developers all reappeared since the day that article was written), Github (which is not the official repository: see the website for the official one) and Ohloh misrepresent the OpenOffice contributions for a number of reasons that you can find in the archives and placeholder wiki pages are, well, placeholders (the 5.0 page you mention was created back in May without a special meaning or plan). The role of community is hype for me. It isn't to me. Like many others, I help OpenOffice in my (vanishing... so don't expect me to engage in a long e-mail conversations with you or anyone!) spare time and I strongly believe that a well-functioning community is vital. I believe that the suggestion Roberto just gave is very good: help us bring the Polish site up-to-date, it is an excellent way to experience our community! Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On 10/22/2014 12:18 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: 2014-10-22 20:35 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Zasuwik mzasu...@gmail.com: 2014-10-22 9:56 GMT+02:00 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com: On 21/10/14 18:00, Mateusz Zasuwik wrote: For instance, here: In other words, for some reason, development of OpenOffice has all but stalled, while LibreOffice remains an active project. Much of OpenOffice's recent decline may be due to IBM's withdrawal from the project. OpenOffice 4.1.1. An anonymous informant alleges -- and web searches appear to confirm -- that IBM did nothing to publicize OpenOffice 4.1.1 when it was released on August 21, and that, since then, IBM developers have disappeared from the OpenOffice mailing lists. well I see still IBM developers here on the list frequently but of course less. It is simply because we do less but it does not mean anything else. But the question is of course more why does it matter. If we do to much people say we control the project,if do to less people say OpenOffice is dead. Really strange and people should think about Apache and how Apache works. It is potentially a harder time for OpenOffice if we do less but it is up to the community to keep the project alive together with us. Nobody should rely on our resources and expect that we will do it. OpenOffice is and remains a powerful brand even if the projects runs slower. Important is the quality and if it solves the daily tasks of our users. Hey Juergen. Thank you for answer. So, for me, the most important question is why IBM minimize its involvement?. The part about controlling project is irrelevant for me, because every project has its own carriage horse. For OO it was Sun/Oracle/IBM, for LibreOffice it's SUSE, Collabora, Lanedo. The role of community is hype for me. I am just a little surprised with speed of AOO development, especially when we recall from memory IBM's announcements about Lotus Symphony's end of life and when we recall their promises about release IBM OpenOffice Edition. I thought this company will do their best to renew code, interface and it will undertake tries to monetize this project what should let OpenOffice thrive. Lotus contained many nice solutions i.g. tabs system and now everything seems to be going down. People (users) are worrying about OpenOffice status so I would like to just rectify some opinions floating around. Many says that IBM alone stop believing in OpenOffice. You confirm that IBM is doing less. Wiki is not updated for a long time. So this symptoms are showing... what exactly? If people are worried they just need to start contributing to AOO, for example translating http://www.openoffice.org/pl/. Just drop an email to l10n and the AOO community will provide tools and instructions to let you all become active stakeholders. *Ask* not, what AOO can do for you. *Ask* what, you can do for AOO. EXACTLY! :) Thanks for pointing this out. We value people by their actions, everyone is pretty much welcome in a community where meritocracy and diversity are the only way forward. Roberto -- - MzK Success breeds complacency. Complacency breeds failure. Only the paranoid survive. -- Andy Grove, Intel Co-founder - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
3. So... Is it true that IBM withdrew their dev employees? Rumor or hoax Where did you hear this? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
For instance, here: In other words, for some reason, development of OpenOffice has all but stalled, while LibreOffice remains an active project. Much of OpenOffice's recent decline may be due to IBM's withdrawal from the project. OpenOffice 4.1.1. An anonymous informant alleges -- and web searches appear to confirm -- that IBM did nothing to publicize OpenOffice 4.1.1 when it was released on August 21, and that, since then, IBM developers have disappeared from the OpenOffice mailing lists. http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-Blog/LibreOffice-OpenOffice-and-rumors-of-unification So if everything is ok, can someone reveal list of planned features for AOO 5.0 and answer for my other questions?
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
Reading this thread really makes me sad ! Its basicually the same discussion I experienced when I joined 2 years ago, not much have changed.. The tone is still the same AOO is superior and LO lives by copying our code. In my opinion BOTH projects have made a lot of progress on their own (NOT by using code from the other), and that should be acknowledged. Independent of the number of mails, It is a fact that this list, even though called dev@, contains nearly no development discussions nor does these discussions take place elsewhere publicly. It is also a fact (SADLY) that LO and AOO will never be one againbut should that be a reason to continue wasting volunteer time (in my last count 84% of all strings in AOO and LO was identical, and we still translate both projects independent). In my humble opinion we could easily have a shared codebase of minimun 80% of the code. Put it in a common git repository and allow LO as well as AOO committers to write code. The 2 projects would then have the last 20% in their own respective repositories. Doing that would require only 3 changes: a) all common code must be multi licensed, which is the case for most of code already. b) AOO should grant LO committers committer status and visa versa. c) The people in charge should be told that this is what the communities want, and make it happen. and of course the old guys should either obstain from commenting or be positive in the choise of words. Before I get flamed, please look at the beginning of the thread where jürgen has a very well formulated positive mail. One way of showing, that AOO is a vibrant community, would be to publish the result of the recent survey (I dont know the reason why it has not been published), that would be a good way of showing the activity level (the survey was targeted to find out more about the community). For those who do not know it, I resigned recently from AOO-PMC mainly because I felt it next to impossible to get processes started to make our community more active. AOO with Apache has so much to offer, but we do need to accept facts, stop discussing and start doing ! rgds jan I.
RE: Concerns about the AOO community
orcnotes below. -Original Message- From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2014 07:58 To: dev Subject: Re: Concerns about the AOO community [ ... ] In my opinion BOTH projects have made a lot of progress on their own (NOT by using code from the other), and that should be acknowledged. [ ... ] In my humble opinion we could easily have a shared codebase of minimun 80% of the code. Put it in a common git repository and allow LO as well as AOO committers to write code. The 2 projects would then have the last 20% in their own respective repositories. Doing that would require only 3 changes: a) all common code must be multi licensed, which is the case for most of code already. b) AOO should grant LO committers committer status and visa versa. c) The people in charge should be told that this is what the communities want, and make it happen. [ ... ] rgds jan I. orcnote I think there are grounds for collaboration. However, adding committers requires that the Apache Software Foundation requirements for committers must be honored. At least one TDF Member has done so. That participation is to be cherished. There is already a common codebase but not via shared repository. To create a shared repository of common components that are collaboratively maintained probably requires different modularization of the code base. Having it be outside of the ASF infrastructure and also multi-licensed raises all kinds of issues that appear to be far above the pay grade of the AOO Project. The AOO SVN trunk is already mirrored on GitHub. Is there any process for accepting pull requests to it? There is no problem with AOO code being relied upon by LibreOffice. At the ASF, forking is a feature. I think we need to take that to heart. That LibreOffice has relied on that is, after all, that argument that was made in the podling days of AOO on why having OpenOffice.org granted to the ASF was no problem, since everything AOO might do was readily available to LibreOffice the same as to anyone. There is no problem with LibO partaking of the Symphony-originated contributions that have been merged into AOO. It hurts that there is no acknowledgment of that mutual benefit, especially for accessibility improvements. The problem is the barrier presented by what could be common fixes not being able to travel from LibO to AOO because of licensing conflicts (absent those developers becoming ASF committers). This is not so important for feature differences unrelated to interoperability via ODF as it is for fixes and improvements to the common 80%. Interoperability improvements that are not sharable are an user-community issue though and I fear the consequences of the resulting incompatibilities will be felt far beyond the preferences of the individual projects and their developers. Also, there would have to be some common refactoring in order for the different personalities of releases to be separated and a common core being mutually maintained. Better modularization would be great anyhow, since it could radically improve build and testing time. Yet that is a big distraction from the main work of either project. An approach involving smaller steps is better. I think these are simple matters of fact. And licensing issues will still impact what AOO can and cannot rely on and how dependencies are managed accordingly. I suppose the best that can be done on the AOO side of this is to persist in being good neighbors and being a good example of cooperative development wherever opportunities arise. /orcnote - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Concerns about the AOO community
FWIW, I want to share some of my own concerns. The problem here is not with Apache's willingness to contribute to LO, but with Apache's willingness to accept contributions from LO under whatever FOSS license LO settles on. Does anyone here believe that even .001% of the users of either version of Open Office gives a crap that we might turn this valuable software into a compendium of FOSS software components, each component under its own FOSS license, some Apache and some something else? The entire package will be FOSS as far as any end-user is concerned. This is something Apache can solve by accepting LO's contributions under LO's license. We don't have to wait for LO to do that for us. I gather they made it even easier for us by transitioning LO from GPL to MPL 2.0. Only the antiquated Apache Third Party License Policy stands in the way and that's just a document that can be changed. Stop letting FOSS licensing arguments among projects interfere with technical solutions! The rest, as Dennis and Jan point out, is merely the easy stuff of getting people on different FOSS projects to work well with each other. To quote Jan I: c) The people in charge should be told that this is what the communities want, and make it happen. /Larry -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2014 10:13 AM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: RE: Concerns about the AOO community orcnotes below. -Original Message- From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2014 07:58 To: dev Subject: Re: Concerns about the AOO community [ ... ] In my opinion BOTH projects have made a lot of progress on their own (NOT by using code from the other), and that should be acknowledged. [ ... ] In my humble opinion we could easily have a shared codebase of minimun 80% of the code. Put it in a common git repository and allow LO as well as AOO committers to write code. The 2 projects would then have the last 20% in their own respective repositories. Doing that would require only 3 changes: a) all common code must be multi licensed, which is the case for most of code already. b) AOO should grant LO committers committer status and visa versa. c) The people in charge should be told that this is what the communities want, and make it happen. [ ... ] rgds jan I. orcnote I think there are grounds for collaboration. However, adding committers requires that the Apache Software Foundation requirements for committers must be honored. At least one TDF Member has done so. That participation is to be cherished. There is already a common codebase but not via shared repository. To create a shared repository of common components that are collaboratively maintained probably requires different modularization of the code base. Having it be outside of the ASF infrastructure and also multi-licensed raises all kinds of issues that appear to be far above the pay grade of the AOO Project. The AOO SVN trunk is already mirrored on GitHub. Is there any process for accepting pull requests to it? There is no problem with AOO code being relied upon by LibreOffice. At the ASF, forking is a feature. I think we need to take that to heart. That LibreOffice has relied on that is, after all, that argument that was made in the podling days of AOO on why having OpenOffice.org granted to the ASF was no problem, since everything AOO might do was readily available to LibreOffice the same as to anyone. There is no problem with LibO partaking of the Symphony-originated contributions that have been merged into AOO. It hurts that there is no acknowledgment of that mutual benefit, especially for accessibility improvements. The problem is the barrier presented by what could be common fixes not being able to travel from LibO to AOO because of licensing conflicts (absent those developers becoming ASF committers). This is not so important for feature differences unrelated to interoperability via ODF as it is for fixes and improvements to the common 80%. Interoperability improvements that are not sharable are an user-community issue though and I fear the consequences of the resulting incompatibilities will be felt far beyond the preferences of the individual projects and their developers. Also, there would have to be some common refactoring in order for the different personalities of releases to be separated and a common core being mutually maintained. Better modularization would be great anyhow, since it could radically improve build and testing time. Yet that is a big distraction from the main work of either project. An approach involving smaller steps is better. I think these are simple matters of fact. And licensing issues will still impact what AOO can and cannot rely on and how dependencies are managed accordingly. I suppose the best that can be done on the AOO side of this is to persist in being good
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 10:58 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: . . . Independent of the number of mails, It is a fact that this list, even though called dev@, contains nearly no development discussions nor does these discussions take place elsewhere publicly. . . . Hi Jan, are you having problems with your list subscription? You might want to check the list archives to see if you missed posts. In the last *half week*, since October 1st, we've had traffic on the following development related threads: 1. New dev volunteer Ankit looking for an issue to start working on. 2. Kay reporting she broke the build in helpcontent2 and fixed it. 3. Andrea reminding committers that SSH access will now require keys 4. Amali, a new dev volunteer, asking for help on fixing issue 111808 5. Zimuzo, a new volunteer, getting help leading to a successful build 6. Andrea confirming our FOSDEM devroom has been approved 7. Amali asking for another issue to work on, 8. Zimuzo asking for a review of his patch 9. Discussion on Release Manager for next release. This is in addition to other more general project-related discussions. Remember, that is also what a dev list is for. Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 10:58 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Independent of the number of mails, It is a fact that this list, even though called dev@, contains nearly no development discussions nor does Hi Jan, are you having problems with your list subscription? You might want to check the list archives to see if you missed posts. Sorry for stepping in, but discussions like this won't get us anywhere. I think I see the point each of you makes. One problem is that this list, by Apache policy, hosts all technical discussions and all project management discussion, as well as random discussions like this one where people tend to participate more often and in a more noisy way. So, we do have technical discussions here, but most of the messages (not of the threads) are non-technical. We could open a code@ list, but this would not be in line with the procedures commonly adopted at Apache. And a second problem is that future strategies or plans are not discussed here. For example, I thought that Andre's messages about the new OOXML framework would then be followed by regular updates, like it happened for the Sidebar, where at the end more than 100 people were involved in bug reporting and testing. This didn't happen and indeed this should happen more often, simply as a way to keep everybody in the loop. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
jan i wrote: Its basicually the same discussion I experienced when I joined 2 years ago, not much have changed.. I'm mostly ignoring this thread since it is based on a premise that is not true. But you make some good points below, so I'll address them. It is also a fact (SADLY) that LO and AOO will never be one againbut should that be a reason to continue wasting volunteer time Obviously, not. I've long said that I would find it perfectly reasonable to have one community with two products (to cite a scenario you haven't covered, QA would be a great use case too). We co-organized a common devroom at FOSDEM 2014 and will do the same for 2015, so this is more than words. Doing that would require only 3 changes: a) all common code must be multi licensed, which is the case for most of code already. b) AOO should grant LO committers committer status and visa versa. c) The people in charge should be told that this is what the communities want, and make it happen. This is a very simplified view of things. But for sure if a developer contributes useful code to OpenOffice he will be offered committer status by OpenOffice. Honestly, I believe you are overlooking corporate interests (not in the Apache project, but in other projects) here. But this scenario looks very good to me, if implemented properly. One way of showing, that AOO is a vibrant community, would be to publish the result of the recent survey (I dont know the reason why it has not been published) Just read my mail: http://markmail.org/message/k2hf7qwbf3c5wi7u ; results will be shown in my talk at ApacheCon in November. I felt it next to impossible to get processes started to make our community more active. And hopefully we are already proving you wrong. It's a fact that in recent weeks we got more code contributors actively involved with providing patches than in any similar periods before. And we are not going to stop here... we do need to accept facts, stop discussing and start doing ! We have already started doing. And we'll continue, with your help and everybody else's. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On 02/10/2014 Roman Sausarnes wrote: And I'm here to help, not just complain :) I'm still working out how I can contribute... Well, start by improving the wiki then! I agree that the building guide can be restructured better, especially in the steps that lead you from the main page to the individual platforms. I've just created an account for you on the wiki. You have been sent a temporary password. Feel free to edit pages as you wish to make them easier to follow for newcomers. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On 02/10/14 01:44, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: On G+ I have hold a conversation with Bruce Byfield and Jos from KDE about the continuation of the Apache OpenOffice community and how the way that the community has enter lately into a dormant stage with very little traffic. Althought I do seem that is an exageration, I feel that is true that traffic has reach its lowest in several months. I wonder what is going on with the community as well as overal adoption and concern of a lack of marketing strategy. I would love to hear from the community managers to have an evaluation. Community mangers? Come on, you know that is not how we roll at Apache! What is amazing to be is how much LO sees a merger of the projects as a threat to them. Here's the background. At the LO conference one of the presenters spoke in favor of merging LO with AOO, of combining the efforts. This was the IT Head from the Swiss Supreme Court IT office, who also said that they preferred to use AOO for its superior stability compared to LO. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor/news/open-and-libre-office-projects-should-reunite As you can imagine, having a speaker at a LO conference say nice things about AOO and to suggest cooperation with AOO was an insult that could not be permitted. So LO marketing went into over-drive to try to kill that message. That's why we see articles like this, and recent related blog posts by Simon and Charles. But it does make me wonder: What are they so afraid of? Why do they think the idea of cooperation so dangerous? Why do they think that users are so wrong to value stability and to think that the two projects would work better together? This is indeed a good question. I believe the TDF and LO community did a really good job to setup the foundation, the community and the project. But it is also a fact that LO benefits a lot of the things we have done and do in AOO. It's still a valid question why both projects doesn't cooperate better and focus together on important improvements. From my perspective it simply doesn't make sense and together we could reach much more. Juergen -Rob -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
It would be better for the projects to merge, but the details (license, community) clearly matter a lot to some people. If there was a better spirit of cooperation most of the effort could go into AOO with just some minor things for the GPL version derived from it in an agreed way so that that could satisfy the needs of that particular market. But to do that we would have to get a lot more trust and friendliness between the two projects. It doesn't seem too likely at present. On 2 October 2014 12:55, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/10/14 01:44, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: On G+ I have hold a conversation with Bruce Byfield and Jos from KDE about the continuation of the Apache OpenOffice community and how the way that the community has enter lately into a dormant stage with very little traffic. Althought I do seem that is an exageration, I feel that is true that traffic has reach its lowest in several months. I wonder what is going on with the community as well as overal adoption and concern of a lack of marketing strategy. I would love to hear from the community managers to have an evaluation. Community mangers? Come on, you know that is not how we roll at Apache! What is amazing to be is how much LO sees a merger of the projects as a threat to them. Here's the background. At the LO conference one of the presenters spoke in favor of merging LO with AOO, of combining the efforts. This was the IT Head from the Swiss Supreme Court IT office, who also said that they preferred to use AOO for its superior stability compared to LO. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor/news/open-and-libre-office-projects-should-reunite As you can imagine, having a speaker at a LO conference say nice things about AOO and to suggest cooperation with AOO was an insult that could not be permitted. So LO marketing went into over-drive to try to kill that message. That's why we see articles like this, and recent related blog posts by Simon and Charles. But it does make me wonder: What are they so afraid of? Why do they think the idea of cooperation so dangerous? Why do they think that users are so wrong to value stability and to think that the two projects would work better together? This is indeed a good question. I believe the TDF and LO community did a really good job to setup the foundation, the community and the project. But it is also a fact that LO benefits a lot of the things we have done and do in AOO. It's still a valid question why both projects doesn't cooperate better and focus together on important improvements. From my perspective it simply doesn't make sense and together we could reach much more. Juergen -Rob -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Ian Ofqual Accredited Qualifications https://theingots.org/community/index.php?q=qualifications Headline points in the 2014, 2015, 2016 school league tables Baseline testing and progress measures https://theingots.org/community/Baseline_testing_info The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. +44 (0)1827 305940
RE: Concerns about the AOO community
A side comment. It seems that it has escaped everyone's attention that the latest release(s) of LibreOffice are not under [L]GPL. The releases are under MPL 2.0 (the Mozilla license). The LibreOffice codebase itself is now a combination of Apache licensed code (from guess where?) and MPL 2.0 modifications. It appears to me that the source code is now multi-licensed (not dual-licensed) under both Apache License 2.0 (for the base code) and MPL (for the changes made by the TDF to make their core source code). I agree that the osmosis between the projects is still one-way and it is not easy to change because the contributors to LibO have only granted a dual MPL and LGPL license to their contributions. TDF has taken the MPL option. That is still toxic for incorporation as source code in any Apache Software Foundation Project code base. With regard to potential remedies, I am in complete accord with Ian's appraisal. Especially for matters applicable to the interoperable usage of ODF, the lack of cooperation is very troublesome and may, if not addressed, be fatal to both projects. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Ian Lynch [mailto:ianrly...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2014 05:47 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Concerns about the AOO community It would be better for the projects to merge, but the details (license, community) clearly matter a lot to some people. If there was a better spirit of cooperation most of the effort could go into AOO with just some minor things for the GPL version derived from it in an agreed way so that that could satisfy the needs of that particular market. But to do that we would have to get a lot more trust and friendliness between the two projects. It doesn't seem too likely at present. [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
I've seen quite a number of new people show up here lately indicating interest coming from someplace. If one out of 10 of them sticks and becomes a regular contributor the project is in a very good position I think. My observations regarding LO: 1) They've copied some features from MS Office that make it equally difficult to useIt's not as pleasant to use as AOO. It's very unfortunate the distributions have adopted LO in lieu of AOO. 2) Their constant AOO bashing is a real turn-off for me and I hope others as well. I don't think I want their people in our camp. 3) They seem to be very proud of getting rid of Java and replacing it with Python. I've looked at Python a little and it seems to me any language dependent on indentation rather than syntax is justdumb! There is nothing wrong with Java -- especially now that OpenJDK is the reference implementation and is being worked on by every major player except MS. 4) LO seems to have major QC issues. The quality is definitely several notches below where AOO rests in my experience. These are just my observations as a long time OpenOffice user. And Apache has some very interesting related projects (i.e. ODF Toolkit) that can propel ODF as a standard reporting framework as well as the new project to read and write OOXML for document exchange. My advice: stay the course. Emphasize quality and dependability over glitz. If developers are not attracted to AOO on those terms they're not developers the project needs. Those of us in business just need a tool to get our work done and it doesn't need to be fancy -- just dependable. LO falls on it's face at this point. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
Hello, As a newcomer to development who is looking for a way to get involved in one project or the other, I thought I would share my impressions. The LibreOffice website and development materials seem friendlier to newcomers. It is easier to navigate and find simple instructions for how to get the code, set up a development environment, or contribute in other ways. I use a Mac, and almost right away I found a detailed set of instructions that was (relatively) current for how to build LO for the first time on my machine. The AOO website is confusing and disorganized for people approaching it for the first time and some of the information is outdated. I still haven't found simple instructions for how to build on a Mac. I have found a set of instructions but they are confusing, appear to be outdated, and suggest that I need to install older Xcode, etc., without any suggestions or resources on how to do it, if it is really necessary, etc. I haven't given up on AOO, and part of me wants to figure out how to do it and then write the instructions clearly for the next person who comes along, but you can understand how a person who is given two opportunities is tempted to choose the one that is easier to get started on (the hard work comes later - entry should be easy) and more clearly structured. Just my two cents. On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Chuck Davis cjgun...@gmail.com wrote: I've seen quite a number of new people show up here lately indicating interest coming from someplace. If one out of 10 of them sticks and becomes a regular contributor the project is in a very good position I think. My observations regarding LO: 1) They've copied some features from MS Office that make it equally difficult to useIt's not as pleasant to use as AOO. It's very unfortunate the distributions have adopted LO in lieu of AOO. 2) Their constant AOO bashing is a real turn-off for me and I hope others as well. I don't think I want their people in our camp. 3) They seem to be very proud of getting rid of Java and replacing it with Python. I've looked at Python a little and it seems to me any language dependent on indentation rather than syntax is justdumb! There is nothing wrong with Java -- especially now that OpenJDK is the reference implementation and is being worked on by every major player except MS. 4) LO seems to have major QC issues. The quality is definitely several notches below where AOO rests in my experience. These are just my observations as a long time OpenOffice user. And Apache has some very interesting related projects (i.e. ODF Toolkit) that can propel ODF as a standard reporting framework as well as the new project to read and write OOXML for document exchange. My advice: stay the course. Emphasize quality and dependability over glitz. If developers are not attracted to AOO on those terms they're not developers the project needs. Those of us in business just need a tool to get our work done and it doesn't need to be fancy -- just dependable. LO falls on it's face at this point. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Roman Sausarnes romansausar...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, As a newcomer to development who is looking for a way to get involved in one project or the other, I thought I would share my impressions. The LibreOffice website and development materials seem friendlier to newcomers. It is easier to navigate and find simple instructions for how to get the code, set up a development environment, or contribute in other ways. I use a Mac, and almost right away I found a detailed set of instructions that was (relatively) current for how to build LO for the first time on my machine. The AOO website is confusing and disorganized for people approaching it for the first time and some of the information is outdated. I still haven't found simple instructions for how to build on a Mac. I have found a set of instructions but they are confusing, appear to be outdated, and suggest that I need to install older Xcode, etc., without any suggestions or resources on how to do it, if it is really necessary, etc. Can you please be more explicit on this. From our angle, we create modules so that people could easily find the right information of the way they want to contribute. Going to www.openoffice.org and selecting you want to contribute will lead you to a series of tutorials on how to better get involved. Development starts with building for different platforms, including OSX. All in all is 4 clicks: Homepage - Contributing page - Development - Building - OSX ( https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Building_on_MacOsX ) The instructions are for 4.1 so they are pretty current. I haven't given up on AOO, and part of me wants to figure out how to do it and then write the instructions clearly for the next person who comes along, but you can understand how a person who is given two opportunities is tempted to choose the one that is easier to get started on (the hard work comes later - entry should be easy) and more clearly structured. Just my two cents. On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Chuck Davis cjgun...@gmail.com wrote: I've seen quite a number of new people show up here lately indicating interest coming from someplace. If one out of 10 of them sticks and becomes a regular contributor the project is in a very good position I think. My observations regarding LO: 1) They've copied some features from MS Office that make it equally difficult to useIt's not as pleasant to use as AOO. It's very unfortunate the distributions have adopted LO in lieu of AOO. 2) Their constant AOO bashing is a real turn-off for me and I hope others as well. I don't think I want their people in our camp. 3) They seem to be very proud of getting rid of Java and replacing it with Python. I've looked at Python a little and it seems to me any language dependent on indentation rather than syntax is justdumb! There is nothing wrong with Java -- especially now that OpenJDK is the reference implementation and is being worked on by every major player except MS. 4) LO seems to have major QC issues. The quality is definitely several notches below where AOO rests in my experience. These are just my observations as a long time OpenOffice user. And Apache has some very interesting related projects (i.e. ODF Toolkit) that can propel ODF as a standard reporting framework as well as the new project to read and write OOXML for document exchange. My advice: stay the course. Emphasize quality and dependability over glitz. If developers are not attracted to AOO on those terms they're not developers the project needs. Those of us in business just need a tool to get our work done and it doesn't need to be fancy -- just dependable. LO falls on it's face at this point. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
Le 02.10.2014 19:38, Alexandro Colorado a écrit : On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Roman Sausarnes romansausar...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, As a newcomer to development who is looking for a way to get involved in one project or the other, I thought I would share my impressions. The LibreOffice website and development materials seem friendlier to newcomers. It is easier to navigate and find simple instructions for how to get the code, set up a development environment, or contribute in other ways. I use a Mac, and almost right away I found a detailed set of instructions that was (relatively) current for how to build LO for the first time on my machine. The AOO website is confusing and disorganized for people approaching it for the first time and some of the information is outdated. I still haven't found simple instructions for how to build on a Mac. I have found a set of instructions but they are confusing, appear to be outdated, and suggest that I need to install older Xcode, etc., without any suggestions or resources on how to do it, if it is really necessary, etc. Can you please be more explicit on this. From our angle, we create modules so that people could easily find the right information of the way they want to contribute. Going to www.openoffice.org and selecting you want to contribute will lead you to a series of tutorials on how to better get involved. Development starts with building for different platforms, including OSX. All in all is 4 clicks: Homepage - Contributing page - Development - Building - OSX ( https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Building_on_MacOsX ) The instructions are for 4.1 so they are pretty current. I am a newcomer as well to the Apache OpenOffice community and I have the same feeling. One thing that struck me is the number of websites/wiki that exists. You have openoffice.org. ( which actually looks a little different from openoffice.org/fr ! ) Then you have http://openoffice.apache.org And there are Confluence and MediaWiki Wikis. All websites looks great but I think it needs consolidation at one place. But the new volunteer orientation modules are great. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Roman Sausarnes romansausar...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, As a newcomer to development who is looking for a way to get involved in one project or the other, I thought I would share my impressions. The LibreOffice website and development materials seem friendlier to newcomers. It is easier to navigate and find simple instructions for how to get the code, set up a development environment, or contribute in other ways. I use a Mac, and almost right away I found a detailed set of instructions that was (relatively) current for how to build LO for the first time on my machine. The AOO website is confusing and disorganized for people approaching it for the first time and some of the information is outdated. I still haven't found simple instructions for how to build on a Mac. I have found a set of instructions but they are confusing, appear to be outdated, and suggest that I need to install older Xcode, etc., without any suggestions or resources on how to do it, if it is really necessary, etc. Can you please be more explicit on this. From our angle, we create modules so that people could easily find the right information of the way they want to contribute. Going to www.openoffice.org and selecting you want to contribute will lead you to a series of tutorials on how to better get involved. Development starts with building for different platforms, including OSX. All in all is 4 clicks: Homepage - Contributing page - Development - Building - OSX ( https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Building_on_MacOsX ) Furthermore I went to LibreOffice tutorials and they are mostly the same process: Homepage - Community/Development - Development wiki - OSX What I can say is that you dont have to read an intro in Development to find the link to OSX since Development is not an 'article' but a macro menu where you can find ways to jumpstart things like 'Getting Started' and/or 'Easy Hacks'. However I find it confusing on the first Development menu as Learning is not the first option but instead is getting the code. Perhaps having a visual menu would be better than just filling out pages with text. The instructions are for 4.1 so they are pretty current. I haven't given up on AOO, and part of me wants to figure out how to do it and then write the instructions clearly for the next person who comes along, but you can understand how a person who is given two opportunities is tempted to choose the one that is easier to get started on (the hard work comes later - entry should be easy) and more clearly structured. Just my two cents. On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Chuck Davis cjgun...@gmail.com wrote: I've seen quite a number of new people show up here lately indicating interest coming from someplace. If one out of 10 of them sticks and becomes a regular contributor the project is in a very good position I think. My observations regarding LO: 1) They've copied some features from MS Office that make it equally difficult to useIt's not as pleasant to use as AOO. It's very unfortunate the distributions have adopted LO in lieu of AOO. 2) Their constant AOO bashing is a real turn-off for me and I hope others as well. I don't think I want their people in our camp. 3) They seem to be very proud of getting rid of Java and replacing it with Python. I've looked at Python a little and it seems to me any language dependent on indentation rather than syntax is justdumb! There is nothing wrong with Java -- especially now that OpenJDK is the reference implementation and is being worked on by every major player except MS. 4) LO seems to have major QC issues. The quality is definitely several notches below where AOO rests in my experience. These are just my observations as a long time OpenOffice user. And Apache has some very interesting related projects (i.e. ODF Toolkit) that can propel ODF as a standard reporting framework as well as the new project to read and write OOXML for document exchange. My advice: stay the course. Emphasize quality and dependability over glitz. If developers are not attracted to AOO on those terms they're not developers the project needs. Those of us in business just need a tool to get our work done and it doesn't need to be fancy -- just dependable. LO falls on it's face at this point. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614 -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Alain Sanguinetti al...@sanguinetti.eu wrote: Le 02.10.2014 19:38, Alexandro Colorado a écrit : On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Roman Sausarnes romansausar...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, As a newcomer to development who is looking for a way to get involved in one project or the other, I thought I would share my impressions. The LibreOffice website and development materials seem friendlier to newcomers. It is easier to navigate and find simple instructions for how to get the code, set up a development environment, or contribute in other ways. I use a Mac, and almost right away I found a detailed set of instructions that was (relatively) current for how to build LO for the first time on my machine. The AOO website is confusing and disorganized for people approaching it for the first time and some of the information is outdated. I still haven't found simple instructions for how to build on a Mac. I have found a set of instructions but they are confusing, appear to be outdated, and suggest that I need to install older Xcode, etc., without any suggestions or resources on how to do it, if it is really necessary, etc. Can you please be more explicit on this. From our angle, we create modules so that people could easily find the right information of the way they want to contribute. Going to www.openoffice.org and selecting you want to contribute will lead you to a series of tutorials on how to better get involved. Development starts with building for different platforms, including OSX. All in all is 4 clicks: Homepage - Contributing page - Development - Building - OSX ( https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_ Guide_AOO/Building_on_MacOsX ) The instructions are for 4.1 so they are pretty current. I am a newcomer as well to the Apache OpenOffice community and I have the same feeling. One thing that struck me is the number of websites/wiki that exists. You have openoffice.org. ( which actually looks a little different from openoffice.org/fr ! ) Then you have http://openoffice.apache.org And there are Confluence and MediaWiki Wikis. All websites looks great but I think it needs consolidation at one place. But the new volunteer orientation modules are great. When OOo join apache we were stuck with a website and wiki that apache used for their projects (Confluence and .apache.org). That's where the duplication happened. Semantically on the project we delegate the apache website/wiki to project-related information (new launch, etc). And openoffice.org website/wiki to product-related information (release notes, etc). Ideally the apache.org assets should be on an extranet while the openoffice.org should be public. This being a public project we have them both. In principle I agreed, that it would be easier if we just forward everything to the openoffice.org sites. Confluence has proven to be a pain in the butt while the apache.org website have content that can easily be handled on the main openoffice.org site. I guess is just a decision the project most make. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
I swear I am technically savvy, but I have not found an easy link to the materials you reference. I start at the homepage - www.openoffice.org I click on I want to participate in OpenOffice link which takes me here: http://openoffice.apache.org/get-involved.html I clink on the New Volunteer Orientation Modules http://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/index.html link which takes me here: http://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/index.html I click on the Introduction to Development http://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/intro-development.html link which takes me here: http://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/intro-development.html I click on the Building Guide http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO link which takes me here: https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO That page has no instructions for how to build on Mac OS X, but it does have a link titled Step-by-Step Building Guide for Different Platforms http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step which of course looks very promising. But when you click on that link, it takes you here: https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step And that page offers detailed instructions for Ubuntu and Windows, but has no links whatsoever to any materials regarding Mac OS X. When I click on the link that you provided, I see the requirements for Mac OS X and I see how to get started that is very helpful. But compare that to the LibreOffice materials. I google LibreOffice on Mac OS X and I get the following link: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/BuildingOnMac I go to that link and it has step by step instructions on what to do. I'm smart enough to be able to find what I am looking for, but I'm just saying that as a total newcomer to both projects LibreOffice made it much easier. On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Roman Sausarnes romansausar...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, As a newcomer to development who is looking for a way to get involved in one project or the other, I thought I would share my impressions. The LibreOffice website and development materials seem friendlier to newcomers. It is easier to navigate and find simple instructions for how to get the code, set up a development environment, or contribute in other ways. I use a Mac, and almost right away I found a detailed set of instructions that was (relatively) current for how to build LO for the first time on my machine. The AOO website is confusing and disorganized for people approaching it for the first time and some of the information is outdated. I still haven't found simple instructions for how to build on a Mac. I have found a set of instructions but they are confusing, appear to be outdated, and suggest that I need to install older Xcode, etc., without any suggestions or resources on how to do it, if it is really necessary, etc. Can you please be more explicit on this. From our angle, we create modules so that people could easily find the right information of the way they want to contribute. Going to www.openoffice.org and selecting you want to contribute will lead you to a series of tutorials on how to better get involved. Development starts with building for different platforms, including OSX. All in all is 4 clicks: Homepage - Contributing page - Development - Building - OSX ( https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Building_on_MacOsX ) The instructions are for 4.1 so they are pretty current. I haven't given up on AOO, and part of me wants to figure out how to do it and then write the instructions clearly for the next person who comes along, but you can understand how a person who is given two opportunities is tempted to choose the one that is easier to get started on (the hard work comes later - entry should be easy) and more clearly structured. Just my two cents. On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Chuck Davis cjgun...@gmail.com wrote: I've seen quite a number of new people show up here lately indicating interest coming from someplace. If one out of 10 of them sticks and becomes a regular contributor the project is in a very good position I think. My observations regarding LO: 1) They've copied some features from MS Office that make it equally difficult to useIt's not as pleasant to use as AOO. It's very unfortunate the distributions have adopted LO in lieu of AOO. 2) Their constant AOO bashing is a real turn-off for me and I hope others as well. I don't think I want their people in our camp. 3) They seem to be very proud of getting rid of Java and replacing it with Python. I've looked at Python a little and it seems to me any language dependent on indentation rather than syntax is justdumb! There is nothing wrong
RE: Concerns about the AOO community
What gets me about development is that the most contorted possible ever development process is builds for Windows, yet a lot of interest is from people who want that case to work. And, of course, we know that the sweet spot for Apache OpenOffice adoption is on the Windows platform. It is clear why that disparity exists, but the result is an awkward situation, especially for attracting developers and testers. I have no idea how to streamline the build and also get to where there is an x64 release also. My brain melts when I even consider it and I have avoided going through the developer training materials. My bad. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Roman Sausarnes [mailto:romansausar...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2014 10:26 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Concerns about the AOO community Hello, As a newcomer to development who is looking for a way to get involved in one project or the other, I thought I would share my impressions. The LibreOffice website and development materials seem friendlier to newcomers. It is easier to navigate and find simple instructions for how to get the code, set up a development environment, or contribute in other ways. I use a Mac, and almost right away I found a detailed set of instructions that was (relatively) current for how to build LO for the first time on my machine. [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On 10/02/2014 11:18 AM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
On 10/2/14, Roman Sausarnes romansausar...@gmail.com wrote:
I swear I am technically savvy, but I have not found an easy link to the
materials you reference.
I start at the homepage - www.openoffice.org
I click on I want to participate in OpenOffice link which takes me here:
http://openoffice.apache.org/get-involved.html
I clink on the New Volunteer Orientation Modules
http://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/index.html link which takes me
here: http://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/index.html
I click on the Introduction to Development
http://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/intro-development.html link
which takes me here:
http://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/intro-development.html
I click on the Building Guide
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO link
which takes me here:
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO
That page has no instructions for how to build on Mac OS X, but it does
have a link titled Step-by-Step Building Guide for Different Platforms
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step
which
of course looks very promising.
But when you click on that link, it takes you here:
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step
And that page offers detailed instructions for Ubuntu and Windows, but has
no links whatsoever to any materials regarding Mac OS X.
When I click on the link that you provided, I see the requirements for Mac
OS X and I see how to get started that is very helpful.
But compare that to the LibreOffice materials. I google LibreOffice on Mac
OS X and I get the following link:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/BuildingOnMac
I go to that link and it has step by step instructions on what to do.
I'm smart enough to be able to find what I am looking for, but I'm just
saying that as a total newcomer to both projects LibreOffice made it much
easier.
Perhaps the thinking was that mantaining 3 guides is more dificult
than having just 1 guide with annotation for each platform.
I think this is an accurate statement.
Of course, based on the comments in this thread, we certainly could
shorten the path to finding information.
The nice thing about having the development information on the wiki is
having developers contribute, especially, to the platform specific areas.
However it only took me a few seconds figuring out where the OSX
information was. But if you think that mantaining 3 guides is the way
to go, you can make the comment at doc@openoffice
There are also some formating that could definetly help like having
special alerts and notes for the wiki which you can find here:
{{Documentation/Caution| some text }}
{{Documentation/Notes| some text }}
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Roman Sausarnes
romansausar...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
As a newcomer to development who is looking for a way to get involved
in
one project or the other, I thought I would share my impressions.
The LibreOffice website and development materials seem friendlier to
newcomers. It is easier to navigate and find simple instructions for
how
to
get the code, set up a development environment, or contribute in other
ways. I use a Mac, and almost right away I found a detailed set of
instructions that was (relatively) current for how to build LO for the
first time on my machine.
The AOO website is confusing and disorganized for people approaching it
for
the first time and some of the information is outdated. I still haven't
found simple instructions for how to build on a Mac. I have found a set
of
instructions but they are confusing, appear to be outdated, and suggest
that I need to install older Xcode, etc., without any suggestions or
resources on how to do it, if it is really necessary, etc.
Can you please be more explicit on this. From our angle, we create
modules
so that people could easily find the right information of the way they
want
to contribute. Going to www.openoffice.org and selecting you want to
contribute will lead you to a series of tutorials on how to better get
involved. Development starts with building for different platforms,
including OSX.
All in all is 4 clicks:
Homepage - Contributing page - Development - Building - OSX (
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Building_on_MacOsX
)
The instructions are for 4.1 so they are pretty current.
I haven't given up on AOO, and part of me wants to figure out how to do
it
and then write the instructions clearly for the next person who comes
along, but you can understand how a person who is given two
opportunities
is tempted to choose the one that is easier to get started on (the hard
work comes later - entry should be easy) and more clearly structured.
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
Chuck Davis wrote: I've seen quite a number of new people show up here lately indicating interest coming from someplace. If one out of 10 of them sticks and becomes a regular contributor the project is in a very good position I think. Agreed. My observations regarding LO: 1) They've copied some features from MS Office that make it equally difficult to useIt's not as pleasant to use as AOO. Can you please give some specific examples of what you mean by copied some features from MS Office? I have been an OOo user since Sun (theoretically) open sourced the code and today I use/test both AOO and LO. Can you please enlighten me in what way LO is more difficult to use than AOO? I am obviously missing something, because I find them equally pleasant to use. It's very unfortunate the distributions have adopted LO in lieu of AOO. That's mainly because a number of the distros were already unhappy about the control Sun/Oracle held over the code. When TDF/LO was formed some of code from the (distro driven) Go-OO fork was merged into LO. This happened well before Oracle gave the OOo trademark and domain name to the ASF. 2) Their constant AOO bashing is a real turn-off for me and I hope others as well. I don't think I want their people in our camp. Sorry, but this is just FUD. Ignoring the Weir - Vignoli blog battle and other external sources, please give examples of Their constant AOO bashing on any the TDF/LO controlled sources (eg. website, mailing lists, etc.). For every instance you can sight, I can match two for one the near vitriol I have seen poured out on this list alone. In another part of this thread there is talk of better cooperation between the two projects. Comments such as I don't think I want their people in our camp. only serve to further promote the silly negative us them attitude. It is not a competition, because neither project is selling anything. Reality Check: Other than the occasional defector :)) (in both directions) you don't have to concern yourself about their people moving into your camp. There is no possibility that TDF is going give up years of hard work and expense and hand LO over to the ASF, any more than there is of the ASF handing AOO over to TDF. 3) They seem to be very proud of getting rid of Java and replacing it with Python. I've looked at Python a little and it seems to me any language dependent on indentation rather than syntax is justdumb! There is nothing wrong with Java -- especially now that OpenJDK is the reference implementation and is being worked on by every major player except MS. The movement to get rid of Java has been around even before Sun sold out to Oracle. There are developers working on AOO code today who are on record promoting the removal or reduced reliance on Java. Python is also supported by AOO. 4) LO seems to have major QC issues. The quality is definitely several notches below where AOO rests in my experience. Is this just fan-boy talk, or can you sight anything to substantiate this (apparently ill-informed) claim. I closely follow the development of both projects and my experience is very different to yours. These are just my observations as a long time OpenOffice user. And Apache has some very interesting related projects (i.e. ODF Toolkit) that can propel ODF as a standard reporting framework as well as the new project to read and write OOXML for document exchange. True. Hopefully it will not be too long before the fruits of these projects are incorporated into AOO. The TDF has been closely involved with external projects working on improvements to the ODF - OOXML document compatibility. I don't have the details to hand right now, but IIRC the code improvements are, or will be, made available under Apache License, Version 2.0 My advice: stay the course. Emphasize quality and dependability over glitz. If developers are not attracted to AOO on those terms they're not developers the project needs. Those of us in business just need a tool to get our work done and it doesn't need to be fancy -- just dependable. LO falls on it's face at this point. Please, please, please can we stop this childish nonsense. There is no reason why we should care, one way or the other, if LO is worse or better than AOO. Our only interests should be: 1. Making AOO as good as we can possibly make it. 2. Where possible work cooperatively with TDF and others in the interest of promoting and improving ODF. We already do this on matters of security. It is highly unlikely that AOO is going to die or disappear in the foreseeable future and the same holds true for LO. If, for whatever reason. the existence of TDF/LO upsets anyone here, I suggest they get over it and move on. Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Dave Barton d...@tasit.net wrote: Chuck Davis wrote: I've seen quite a number of new people show up here lately indicating interest coming from someplace. If one out of 10 of them sticks and becomes a regular contributor the project is in a very good position I think. Agreed. My observations regarding LO: 1) They've copied some features from MS Office that make it equally difficult to useIt's not as pleasant to use as AOO. Can you please give some specific examples of what you mean by copied some features from MS Office? I have been an OOo user since Sun (theoretically) open sourced the code and today I use/test both AOO and LO. Can you please enlighten me in what way LO is more difficult to use than AOO? I am obviously missing something, because I find them equally pleasant to use. It's very unfortunate the distributions have adopted LO in lieu of AOO. That's mainly because a number of the distros were already unhappy about the control Sun/Oracle held over the code. When TDF/LO was formed some of code from the (distro driven) Go-OO fork was merged into LO. This happened well before Oracle gave the OOo trademark and domain name to the ASF. 2) Their constant AOO bashing is a real turn-off for me and I hope others as well. I don't think I want their people in our camp. Sorry, but this is just FUD. Ignoring the Weir - Vignoli blog battle and other external sources, please give examples of Their constant AOO bashing on any the TDF/LO controlled sources (eg. website, mailing lists, etc.). For every instance you can sight, I can match two for one the near vitriol I have seen poured out on this list alone. In another part of this thread there is talk of better cooperation between the two projects. Comments such as I don't think I want their people in our camp. only serve to further promote the silly negative us them attitude. It is not a competition, because neither project is selling anything. Reality Check: Other than the occasional defector :)) (in both directions) you don't have to concern yourself about their people moving into your camp. There is no possibility that TDF is going give up years of hard work and expense and hand LO over to the ASF, any more than there is of the ASF handing AOO over to TDF. 3) They seem to be very proud of getting rid of Java and replacing it with Python. I've looked at Python a little and it seems to me any language dependent on indentation rather than syntax is justdumb! There is nothing wrong with Java -- especially now that OpenJDK is the reference implementation and is being worked on by every major player except MS. The movement to get rid of Java has been around even before Sun sold out to Oracle. There are developers working on AOO code today who are on record promoting the removal or reduced reliance on Java. Python is also supported by AOO. 4) LO seems to have major QC issues. The quality is definitely several notches below where AOO rests in my experience. Is this just fan-boy talk, or can you sight anything to substantiate this (apparently ill-informed) claim. I closely follow the development of both projects and my experience is very different to yours. These are just my observations as a long time OpenOffice user. And Apache has some very interesting related projects (i.e. ODF Toolkit) that can propel ODF as a standard reporting framework as well as the new project to read and write OOXML for document exchange. True. Hopefully it will not be too long before the fruits of these projects are incorporated into AOO. The TDF has been closely involved with external projects working on improvements to the ODF - OOXML document compatibility. I don't have the details to hand right now, but IIRC the code improvements are, or will be, made available under Apache License, Version 2.0 Not so sure this is practical, but a noble goal, nonetheless; i.e. spirit of genuine open source cooperation. My advice: stay the course. Emphasize quality and dependability over glitz. If developers are not attracted to AOO on those terms they're not developers the project needs. Those of us in business just need a tool to get our work done and it doesn't need to be fancy -- just dependable. LO falls on it's face at this point. Please, please, please can we stop this childish nonsense. +1, let's move on from unproductive bashing. Pls. There is no reason why we should care, one way or the other, if LO is worse or better than AOO. Our only interests should be: 1. Making AOO as good as we can possibly make it. 2. Where possible work cooperatively with TDF and others in the interest of promoting and improving ODF. We already do this on matters of security. Indeed. It is highly unlikely that AOO is going to die or disappear in the foreseeable future and the same holds true for LO. If, for whatever
Concerns about the AOO community
On G+ I have hold a conversation with Bruce Byfield and Jos from KDE about the continuation of the Apache OpenOffice community and how the way that the community has enter lately into a dormant stage with very little traffic. Althought I do seem that is an exageration, I feel that is true that traffic has reach its lowest in several months. I wonder what is going on with the community as well as overal adoption and concern of a lack of marketing strategy. I would love to hear from the community managers to have an evaluation. -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
As a moderator of the dev list, I can't say I have noticed any reduction in traffic. If anything its increasing. On 1 October 2014 21:34, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: On G+ I have hold a conversation with Bruce Byfield and Jos from KDE about the continuation of the Apache OpenOffice community and how the way that the community has enter lately into a dormant stage with very little traffic. Althought I do seem that is an exageration, I feel that is true that traffic has reach its lowest in several months. I wonder what is going on with the community as well as overal adoption and concern of a lack of marketing strategy. I would love to hear from the community managers to have an evaluation. -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Ian Ofqual Accredited Qualifications https://theingots.org/community/index.php?q=qualifications Headline points in the 2014, 2015, 2016 school league tables Baseline testing and progress measures https://theingots.org/community/Baseline_testing_info The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. +44 (0)1827 305940
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
I see well they are still piling on if anyone interested in giving example how this community is not 'diying'. https://plus.google.com/u/1/107133120166691255011/posts/QUksBJiVLzd?cfem=1 Since Bruce is a prominent writer for Linux Magazine I think is worth to educate him on these matters, and maybe convert him int o an AOO spokesperson. On 10/1/14, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: As a moderator of the dev list, I can't say I have noticed any reduction in traffic. If anything its increasing. On 1 October 2014 21:34, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: On G+ I have hold a conversation with Bruce Byfield and Jos from KDE about the continuation of the Apache OpenOffice community and how the way that the community has enter lately into a dormant stage with very little traffic. Althought I do seem that is an exageration, I feel that is true that traffic has reach its lowest in several months. I wonder what is going on with the community as well as overal adoption and concern of a lack of marketing strategy. I would love to hear from the community managers to have an evaluation. -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Ian Ofqual Accredited Qualifications https://theingots.org/community/index.php?q=qualifications Headline points in the 2014, 2015, 2016 school league tables Baseline testing and progress measures https://theingots.org/community/Baseline_testing_info The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. +44 (0)1827 305940 -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: On G+ I have hold a conversation with Bruce Byfield and Jos from KDE about the continuation of the Apache OpenOffice community and how the way that the community has enter lately into a dormant stage with very little traffic. Althought I do seem that is an exageration, I feel that is true that traffic has reach its lowest in several months. I wonder what is going on with the community as well as overal adoption and concern of a lack of marketing strategy. I would love to hear from the community managers to have an evaluation. Community mangers? Come on, you know that is not how we roll at Apache! What is amazing to be is how much LO sees a merger of the projects as a threat to them. Here's the background. At the LO conference one of the presenters spoke in favor of merging LO with AOO, of combining the efforts. This was the IT Head from the Swiss Supreme Court IT office, who also said that they preferred to use AOO for its superior stability compared to LO. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor/news/open-and-libre-office-projects-should-reunite As you can imagine, having a speaker at a LO conference say nice things about AOO and to suggest cooperation with AOO was an insult that could not be permitted. So LO marketing went into over-drive to try to kill that message. That's why we see articles like this, and recent related blog posts by Simon and Charles. But it does make me wonder: What are they so afraid of? Why do they think the idea of cooperation so dangerous? Why do they think that users are so wrong to value stability and to think that the two projects would work better together? -Rob -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On 02/10/2014 Alexandro Colorado wrote: Since Bruce is a prominent writer for Linux Magazine I think is worth to educate him on these matters To answer the first false fact he mentions, why has it been so quiet in the last few weeks on the mailing lists? Not long ago, even a day without messages from the list was unheard-of. I can definitely confirm that this is wrong, this list receives several dozens messages per day as usual and it is quite impossible not to notice that. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 02/10/2014 Alexandro Colorado wrote: Since Bruce is a prominent writer for Linux Magazine I think is worth to educate him on these matters To answer the first false fact he mentions, why has it been so quiet in the last few weeks on the mailing lists? Not long ago, even a day without messages from the list was unheard-of. I can definitely confirm that this is wrong, this list receives several dozens messages per day as usual and it is quite impossible not to notice that. I have been wondering this myself, I have been on the list for quite a while (3 years) and I have notice that the dev mails have been more sporadically. At first I thought it was my email address that was bumped from the list. Going to markmail I do see that last month was the lowest month of traffic at 468 emails the whole month. http://markmail.org/search/+list:org.apache.incubator.ooo-dev I am sure there are reasons like, not really a release period or a QA period and most of the traffic was mostly on improving the website. Anyway feel free to join in the conversation on G+ mainly because of the effect it can have on high traffic publications like Linux Magazine. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614
