On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 25 Oct 2011, at 00:56, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> Hi Simon, do you have any other ideas for cooperation, preferably ones >> that are not redundant? > > While I am amused that your first words after "hopefully will attract fewer > trolls" themselves include a mean-spirited troll, I'm sorry you think a > collaborative security mailing list with shared, collaborative ownership is > "redundant". >
We already have a collaborative security mailing list that has 4 LO members on it, as well as several AOOo members, representatives from other vendors, security experts from Linux distros, etc. So we are already there. Creating a new list for the same thing would be redundant. > We clearly have very different views of the world. I continue to think such a > list holds great opportunity for collaboration since it was working in that > role for many months, but it's hard to see how it can now be the > securityteam@ list, unfortunately (unless your'e speaking alone, of course). > As above, the list exists and LO and AOOo members are already on it, Time to declare success and find additional areas to collaborate. >> I suggested cooperating on translations via >> a shard Pootle instance. > > Hard to see how that would work since it would require the source to be > highly similar and that looks unlikely to be the case. > I think the value would come from the "translation memory" aspect. So even if we had different source files, the UI's of the products are nearly identical, and the underlying concepts of the products remain very the same and likely will remain so for the foreseeable future. (it is not like spreadsheets and word processors have changed much in the past decade). So there may be some value in sharing translation memory of basic concepts and repeated patterns that are common to describing both products. It also makes it easier for translators who wish to contribute to both products at once, similar to what ODF Authors has done for documentation. >> Or maybe code browsing/searching facilities >> with OpenGrok. Or either of those possible? > > Hard to see how two very different source trees can have a shared browser. It > would be best for Apache to run its own instance. > >> Or maybe work on a collaborative Q&A site as an alternative user >> support option? > > Plausible in the future but a little early to be proposing it - YAGNI applies. > A little too early? It looks like someone is already trying this for LO, but they are failing to get enough participation needed to graduate on StackExchange. So it looks like an area ripe for collaboration: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/24564/libreoffice >> Or maybe a shared template and extensions site? > > I believe I once proposed such a thing, and was told by both communities that > licensing issues would largely prevent it. > I certainly proposed such a thing, and licensing was not an issue in my proposal. Maybe we should revisit, if you think this is a possible area for collaboration? Any other ideas? > Delighted to hear you are now such a fan of co-operation though, Rob. I'll be > sure to support any viable proposals you present to both communities. > I'll continue to float the ideas by you first, Simon. I'd like you to be able to find some success in your goal to lead these projects to find areas to collaborate. -Rob > S. > > > >
