On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > I am changing the topic of this branch of the discussion. > > I am worried about some problems with mailing lists and migration of > OpenOffice.org. If the problems are allowed, it should be on purpose. > > I suggest discussing those problems before the situation is made worse. I > will move this topic to the OOOUSER wiki on the weekend. > > PERSONAL CONCERN: > > 1. The current list arrangement is technically superior to what is proposed > for replacement. >
Could be be more specific about what you think is technically superior about the existing approach? And by that I assume you mean the 332 existing OOo mailing lists? > 2. Shutting down the resources of a community and expecting that community > to migrate itself onto an alternative will deteriorate if not completely lose > the participation of that community. > Is this really true? Have you looked at recent traffic on [email protected] versus [email protected], for example? And was your dire prediction true of LibreOffice? I don't think so. Certainly there is a tipping point, when a critical mass of participants move over from one list to another. That takes time. This is encouraged by giving a consistent message about the migration, something we've failed to do so far. For example, even after we agreed to create ooo-users, I see you talking about this, on that list and elsewhere, as a mistake. That is not helping. -Rob > TO CONSIDER: > > Preservation of the existing mailing lists and their services; the means for > doing so. > > Migration of the existing mailing list services and content onto Apache > hosting along with OpenOffice.org hosting. > > Restoration of moderation and support of the lists themselves. > > Within the existing structure and subscriber community of each NL group: > simplification, consolidation, or retirement (with preservation) of existing > lists that are redundant, inactive, or too specialized to sustain. > > Adjustment of the operational support to satisfy ASF requirements for > oversight and accountability. > > Transfer of lists to different services and operation only when loss of > functionality and community disruption is minimized. > > Automatic continuation of the established community and subscriptions on any > migration onto different list systems. > > Involvement and engagement of the existing NL group community in each step of > the way. Minimize avoidable disaffection. > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 01:55 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Set up of ooo-dev-ja at incubator.apache.org > > Hello, > > Dave Fisher schrieb: >> > if you mix everything like user questions and answers, >> marketing, QA >> > et cetra on only *one ML*, you will alienate the poor users. >> > >> > But it seems to be the way it is. >> > so ... I wish you all the best. >> >> I understand your concerns about mixing marketing with users. >> What are the other categories besides marketing that users >> should be shielded from? Translation? We've been mentored to >> only have additional lists for good reason and with careful >> consideration of the community and our oversight >> responsibilities to the ASF. > > It is very, very simple. > > The list [email protected] is a list ONLY for german-speaking users. > This > users a _not Community-members_ but only users and this users cannot write > questions in english. > The list [email protected] is a support-list for users, not a list to > coordinate the activity of the project-members. > > OK, we can replace [email protected] by a german forum but the users > just > like [email protected], and it would be better to have a German-language > forum AND a german USERS-list. > > > > Greetings > Jörg > > -- > www.calc-info.de > > >
