On Oct 25, 2011, at 2:38 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: > Seems to me that while the focus is political point scoring, aggression, > sarcasm and such the chances of getting cooperation are zero.
+1. We will need to crawl to co-operation before we walk and run. Regards, Dave > > 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.
