On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Shane Curcuru <[email protected]> wrote: > 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". >
That's fine, but just understand that you are touching on topics that will be painful to some and could lead this list down paths I don't think we want to go right now. I really think we want to avoid a discussion of legacy OOo governance. -Rob > 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 >
