OK. My misunderstanding then. When you started the thread you wrote: "I assume that user guides similar to the existing ones are a desirable subset of user documentation, and that we wish to continue producing them.
Therefore, I propose that we agree the SOURCE FORMAT for the USER GUIDES will continue to be ODT. (The alternative is wiki format for the source.)" I mistakenly assumed that when an Apache OpenOffice committer talks about "we" on an Apache OpenOffice list, that the "we" being referred to was the Apache OpenOffice project. Me bad. -Rob On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 2011-06-26 at 21:45 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Andy Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Rob, >> > >> > I agree with Jean. The manuals can be uploaded or linked to the wiki >> > page. There is no need to reinvent a system that works as well as the >> > ODFAuthors does. Forcing people to lean a new system that they have no >> > interest in will only drive contributors away. >> > >> > Andy >> > >> >> Can you clarify, please? Is the intent to make ODFAuthors be part of >> the Apache OpenOffice project, e.g. run on Apache servers with >> PMC-elected committers having write access, other contributing authors >> submitting patches before being eventually voted in as committers, all >> working in the Apache project lists, transparently, with all work >> under the Apache license, with the PMC setting overall direction and >> approving releases? >> >> Is that the idea? If so, this would be great. >> >> -Rob > > Rob, > No. None of the above is the intent. ODFAuthors is, and intends to > remain, independent. Some variation on our existing workflow and > procedures could certainly be accommodated. For example, OOo-related > discussion could be carried out on a mailing list at Apache instead of > on the existing list at OOo (or the ODFAuthors list), and "release > candidates" of user guide chapters could be approved by the PMC. > > At present, the ODFAuthors lists and website are open and anyone can > comment, contribute, review docs, etc. It's a convenient, easy way for > people to participate in what is, effectively, community documentation. > > The existing OOo user guides are dual-licensed, with one of the licenses > being CC-BY. If that license does not fit with Apache (is CC-BY-SA > required?), I'm not sure what to do; I'm far from an expert on > licensing. Getting agreement from all the contributors to the existing > docs would be impossible; many of them can't be found and/or are dead. > > --Jean > > > > >
