On 24 Aug 2011, at 02:29, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think we still need to have a serious discussion about the scope of the >> ambitions of AOOo - it's been raised before but deferred pending actually >> having a repo to work on. If the project chooses to maintain core code >> rather than attempt a full-scale clone of the former OOo project, it's >> entirely possible that commonality will remain. >> >> > > We had that discussion. The proposal was made [1]. The scope of the > effort was defined in that proposal. You argued against that scope.. > You did not prevail. The proposal was approved. If anything has been > deferred, it has been your acceptance of these basic facts. Just > because you disagree with the approved scope does not mean that the > discussion did not take place, nor does it mean that the discussion > was not serious.
That's just not so, Rob. The time to have a scope discussion is once we are in a position to start development, and that's not happened yet. The incubator proposal merely set the stage. Meanwhile I am trying hard to positively work on the clause that says "We will make [the relationship with LibreOffice] a priority early in the life of the podlet", which does not seem to be happening. I invite you to build rather than inhibit that relationship. > > But regardless, I'd recommend a new thread, if you want to divert this > discussion to questions unrelated to next-gen user support. This is already a new thread, this is not a diversion since it relates to what is reasonable to plan regarding user support and collaboration with others. I look forward to your positive contribution and development of the ideas I'm suggesting in support of AOOo's realistic future. S.
