On 07/30/2011 11:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
On another list, I saw a comment from Roy Fielding that resonated
with me. Others have mentioned it, but not here on ooo-dev.
My interpretation is that we could have Apache ooo as the identifier
of the core Apache project built on what we factor out of the Oracle
grant, leaving OpenOffice.org as a web site and a family of
distributions and support for end-user and adopter/integrator
activities that reach out beyond the development of a buildable
open-source code base.
This seems like a GREAT idea to me assuming it can be "done" vis a vis
current conditions -- the Apache way, etc. Also see below
I think we should consider that attempting to put OpenOffice.org atop
all of it is over-constraining and also confusing, even though the
result may be unrecognizably different at the end-user level.
- Dennis
MORE THOUGHTS BELOW THE QUOTATION
[Disclaimer. This inspired my thinking but any misunderstanding of
what Roy was thinking is mine and mine alone.]
-----Original Message----- From: Roy T. Fielding
[mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 09:51 [
... quoted by permission ] Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org branding
[ ... ]
BTW, my personal preference is to call our product Apache OOo and
leave the OpenOffice.org website as a joint forum and
redistribution site for all variations of the suite, docs,
tutorials, etc. However, such decisions are typically made by the
people doing the work.
Cheers,
yes... +1
....Roy T. Fielding, Director, The Apache Software Foundation
([email protected])<http://www.apache.org/>
([email protected])<http://roy.gbiv.com/>
MORE THOUGHTS
I am not invested in the history or passion around OpenOffice.org as
an ongoing development. My perspective is as someone who works from
the open standards and architectural perspective. So I beg your
forbearance if I have been insensitive to the history and the
familiarity that there is in how things have been done over the
years. It is not my intention to offend but to see what we can see
by thinking outside of the box.
I trust it is clear to all of us that it will be unlikely that we can
somehow revive OpenOffice.org to a place where it is a
business-as-usual continuation of the now-stalled effort.
Furthermore, my attention is on the suitability of Apache ooo as a
reference implementation with respect to ODF, with less emphasis on
what it takes to continue OpenOffice.org a desirable and thriving
software distribution. I'm in favor of that. It is not what my
attention is on. So this is not a balanced perspective.
Here are some loosely-conceived thoughts. I don't have a clear or
specific picture. But I think the conceptual separation of ooo and
OpenOffice.org is an opportunity that might unfreeze us from trying
to move ahead under one giant lump.
I agree...but...
I favor the idea of separating the "pure Apache-way" project effort
and from the OpenOffice.org identity and "brand" as a broader
umbrella for all of the variations that go into making end-user
distributions, providing documentation materials, end-user support,
and especially the various native-language efforts that are part of
the OpenOffice.org ecosystem.
HOW to do this? I mean from a practical, pragmatic perspective. How will
continued existence of what we might see as the "end user"
OpenOffice.org architecture (servers, administration architecture) be
carried out? What will we use, where will it be housed, how will it be
administered it and who will finance it? I am QUITE concerned about the
existence of the current site (on kenai). Maybe I missed it, but I
haven't seen a "drop dead" for removal of OpenOffice.org from this platform.
I also see separation as rather easy because at the moment we are
using "ooo" for these lists, for the podling's SVN repository branch,
for the two wikis, for the Apache Extras (although that has forked
already [;<), etc.
um....see my last comments. Easy from a philosophical standpoint, but
not necessarily from a practical one.
I favor the idea of a cleaner separation of the development of the
core ODF reference-implementation aspects from wider variations that
are typical and appropriate for a production-usable productivity
suite. A distribution will have incidental and discretionary
provisions that aren't particularly indicative of the "reference"
aspects and have not been the subject of standardization.
Important Context: There is wide latitude for discretion in the ODF
specifications and even wider latitude for user-interface,
non-UI-based processors, etc., that are not the subject matter of the
ODF specification at all. It would be good to remove confusion
around that. Also, a reference implementation, to the extent it is
usable in practice, should not be taken as being in any sense
compelling with regard to anything but its conformant support for the
file format itself. A reference implementation that can be operated
needs to do something in discretionary areas. The incidental and
discretionary choices should be soundly done and well-narrated. But
there must be no suggestion that the approach to such incidental and
discretionary cases reflect requirements of ODF. The user interface
and its functionality is not subject matter for the ODF specification
as it now exists. One wants ways to produce features of the format.
One wants ways to deal with provisions of the format in any input
that is processed. But the gap from input to user presentation and
interaction and from there to output is not prescribed in the ODF
specification, nor are mappings between different formats and the
treatment of different formats as defaults.
I'm not sure how much the technology transfer/deployment would work
from Apache ooo to OpenOffice.org and that is something we need to
figure out.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I'm confused.
When we have the code and the collateral artifacts in
hand, our inspection may provide insight into how we can get rolling
and also understand how the development can be modularized in a
productive way.
- Dennis
good discussion...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"If you can keep your head when all others around you
are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand
the situation!"
-- Unknown
