Hi Dennis, I went for a walk and shopped before replying to Kay. Between the two of us we certainly have consensus.
On Jul 31, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Thanks for your follow-up Kay. Keep asking! > > No, I was thinking that Apache ooo would be the place for code developers. > > OpenOffice.org for public web, downloads, forums, wikis, etc., and end-user, > power-user support in the ways it has come to be known and loved. Also the > place to hook in the several language communities. That is, they would be > where people already know where to look for them and those who support them > already would also be able to continue doing that. > > See the recent conversation with Terry Ellison and Mark Thomas on LAMP, etc. > as well. > > Some of the developer-centric content would migrate to apache.org but we can > figure that out. I share your concern about fragmenting the community. But > we know for certain that the code has to move and that the development on it > will be under the Apache Way and the ooo [P]PMP. We also have to deal with > the IP cleanups as part of that. > > What I am hoping for is that we can secure, preserve, and continue > OpenOffice.org pretty much as is, with the developer impact being what it > already is. > > I don't know what to do about bug-tracking. It really needs to move to > apache.org, I think. More creative thinking required here. Yes, definitely. This may now be the biggest unknown to the migration. Raphael Bircher was investigating ... I guess we have three choices - (1) Preserve current bugzilla. Requires people to support directly. (2) Convert to Apache Bugzilla. (3) Convert to Apache JIRA. Perhaps we should preserve the old bugzilla in openoffice.org as a read / comment-only resource on an appropriate VM and redirect to Apache JIRA / Bugzilla in the project's site for new issues. In many ways this is easier. We'll just need to assure we can support the infrastructure. Regards, Dave > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 15:18 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was > re:OpenOffice.org branding) > > > > On 07/30/2011 03:28 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Kay Schenk<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> That has been the plan since the start. We eventually have an >> openoffice.apache.org web site that has the project-facing website and >> services, like source repositories, dev lists, work by translators, >> documentation, etc. This is the web site where those who make OOo >> work, the project community. > > Well OK, at some point I got very confused by what this meant I guess. > Should I take this remark openoffice.apache.org will be primarily the > stop off for what I'll call "code developers"? > >> >> Then we have http:///www.openoffice.org, which remains the end-user >> facing portal, the entry way to downloads, to support, to templates >> and extensions, etc. > > Right, OK, but again, where will this and many other ancillary > openoffice.org sites (like the forums etc.) actually live? > >> >> There are some services that have dual personalities, like bugzilla, >> which is used by users as well as those on the project development >> side. > > -- more below.... > >> >> This would not be an attempt to create an artificial division between >> the project community and the users. I'm very sensitive to that. But >> in this space, we really need an extremely easy-to-use, slee, sexy, >> consumer-friendly portal for end users. This is the face of the >> project to millions of current and potential users. We should have >> hooks to draw them into the project community, for those with further >> interest. But we can't scare them initially with the bare-bones >> standard Apache look and feel project site. >> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >> >> Not business as usual. Business better than usual. But this is not >> something for arguing. It is for doing. >> >>>> 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. >>>> >> >> >> And why can't we do both? Is there some reason why an application >> cannot both be a good implementation of ODF and also be a thriving >> product? There are not mutually exclusive outcomes. >> >> >>>> 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. >>> >> >> I've heard this idea put forward by LibreOffice supports as well. The >> brand name of OpenOffice.org is very strong. The web site gets a lot >> of traffic. Far more than libreoffice.org. Far more than >> symphony.lotus.com. I think we'd all love a link from that website. >> Who wouldn't? If you look at other Apache projects you see that they >> are quite liberal about providing links to distributions of downstream >> consumers, including other ports, distros and derived applications. >> This comes with a disclaimed that these are not official Apache >> releases, but it does help give these other projects some greater >> visibility and "link love". See, for example, this Subversion page: >> >> http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html >> >> As you can see, there is also some degree of co-branding. So there is >> TortoiseSVN, uberSVN, visualSVN, etc >> >> I've always assumed we'd do something similar for Apache OpenOffice, >> provide links to other releases. And if someone wants to call their >> release "SuperDuper OpenOffice" or whatever, then we'd handle that >> request via the normal process for Apache branding discussions. >> >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> We've had discussions on the list on migration, some details here >> (look at the website transfer row of the table): >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Planning > > Yes, I know about this and have contributed to this but it doesn't > really answer my question...where do we go? > > The "user facing" sites are itemized in > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OOo-Sitemap > > assuming you exclude development, distribution, and api (maybe others > related to direct development). > > What is the suggestion to place this architecture elsewhere? > > >> >>>> >>>> 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 >>> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > MzK > > "If you can keep your head when all others around you > are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand > the situation!" > -- Unknown >
