Seems to me that while the focus is political point scoring, aggression, sarcasm and such the chances of getting cooperation are zero.
On 25 October 2011 00:32, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > > > > > > > > -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
