On 10/12/2011 8:01 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
...snip...
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Shane Curcuru<[email protected]> wrote:
I'm just trying to understand what some of the other previous expectations
around OOo governance and the brand were, so we can better explain what the
new governance structure is (i.e., this PPMC and the Apache Way) and how we
(and others) should refer to the OOo brand now.
I think the old structures were universally derided and caused much
discontent, leading in part to the Novell fork and then to
LibreOffice. I see no benefit to dredging this up again. No one is
advocating replicating the former project structures.
Er, no, I have no interest in replicating former project structures
either. But I would like to understand what they were - especially
(briefly) who was on them and what specific names and brands they used -
so that we can understand what the rest of the world might still be
thinking about the term "OpenOffice".
This is not about us changing how we work internally. I'm thinking (in
this thread) about how to better explain to the world what's happened,
what things are now gone (like the CC and ESC and a whole bunch of OOo
project organizations), and what cool new things we're going to be
building (from this PPMC and a forthcoming Apache OOo product).
Especially because the more I think about it, we're really not doing a
very good job at all explaining who we are and what we're doing. At
least not in the ways I'd hope to see it explained in terms that the
*rest* of the world understands.
- Shane, starting to appreciate the scope of expectations for OOo
