On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Shane Curcuru <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 10:32 AM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Shane Curcuru<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On 10/14/2011 7:56 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >>> >>>> I've been pondering what it takes to choreograph migration of the live >>>> OpenOffice.org properties into Apache custodianship. >>>> >>> ...snip... >>> >>> Great starts all. >>> >>> Where is the noodling and proposed list of what domains we want to keep >>> (i.e. host as *.oo.o to keep links, or host at ooo.a.o/* because it's >>> project oriented information) and what ones we're not going to keep? >>> >>> >> I would preffer an *.oo.o is easier to manage and recognized, create >> shorter >> URLs and also reinforce branding. >> > > I would prefer an ooo.a.o, since that reinforces the Apache branding. Note > that the primary homepage for the project - at least in terms of anyone > interested in participating in the project (i.e. any potential contributors) > - will be the ooo.a.o page. > Sorry I got distracted by the question mark and thought you were asking for feedback. > > oo.o can be used as an overall informational portal, to maintain some > end-user facing services that have high visibility/links, and as a way to > drive people to the relevant ooo.a.o pages. Plain end users could get all > of their basic work done on the oo.o pages, but we need to ensure that > they're also aware that this is a new, Apache project (which is continuing > much of the old OOo project they probably know). > > > >>> In particular, other than keeping some of the highly linked informational >>> domains from oo.o, I would expect that there would be significantly fewer >>> major domain names being used in the future project. But maybe that's >>> just >>> me. >>> >>> >> Surely many projects are not mantained anymore or their existance could be >> reincorporated into larger projects like development.openoffice.org as >> you >> could see on the traffic of the mailing list some components experience a >> low volume of traffic that could be re-incorporated into a larger project. >> Example the CD-ROM project back into distribution. >> > > Here's where it will be helpful to have a shared understanding of > terminology. For example, for me, there is a single project: Apache > OpenOffice. There are no other projects (at least, not at Apache). That's > OK, and I understand what you mean. But I'm also urging the PPMC to push as > hard as possible to get to a much flatter structure than the legacy OOo > project had. > > In particular, I strongly urge the PPMC to start with fewer mailing lists - > on the order of 10-15 *total*, presuming the forums migrate over to serve as > a major end-user support service. If, in the future, some of the mailing > lists are truly overloaded, then consider - carefully - adding more mailing > lists. Given the amount of community building it feels is needed for the > Apache OOo project, it's better to have fewer lists rather than more. > > - Shane > -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
