Hi Rob, I really didn't know what to think about Dennis's email. It seems peripheral to the issue.
On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It's not at all obvious to me why one couldn't just take a LibreOffice >> release such as 3.4, created from the same source outside the Apache >> community, and apply the same logic > > No official response has been given to this proposal. Any "logic" you > see is individual opinion on a discussion aimed at achieving > consensus. I think Dennis really jumped ahead with his comments. >> to it as is being applied to this 3.3.1 proposal. With the added bonus that >> no-one much has to do any work apart from change the splash screen. >> >> S. >> >> [for the humour-impaired, while this is making a serious point, it is not a >> serious suggestion] >> > If TDF wishes to make a serious proposal they are welcome to do so. Oh, more humor :-) Best Regards, Dave > >> >> On 25 Nov 2011, at 23:56, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >> >>> There are many details to figure out to have a maintenance release of >>> OpenOffice.org 3.3.0. >>> >>> This situation reminds me that here have been privately-produced and >>> distributed editions of OpenOffice.org. >>> >>> The ones in my experience were produced by Novell. They tracked *existing* >>> OpenOffice.org releases but were built by Novell with Novell features that >>> were not in the corresponding OpenOffice.org release. >>> >>> The screenshots give some sense for how this was done: >>> >>> 1. There was a Novell download site for the distribution. (Notice how the >>> files were identified). The code differences had to be maintained in >>> parallel and re-integrated with an OO.o release for each corresponding >>> Novell release. >>> >>> 2. The splash screen on startup of the release identified a Novell edition. >>> >>> 3. The About box identified the Novell edition. >>> >>> In other respects it was *all* OpenOffice.org and neither Sun nor Novell, >>> just OpenOffice.org. In particular, the support locations were >>> OpenOffice.org, and registration was at OpenOffice.org. >>> >>> It looks like what is thought of as OpenOffice.org branding did not appear, >>> though I haven't looked closely nor tracked down the last-ever Novell >>> edition. >>> >>> When I think of there being a Team OpenOffice.org edition 3.3.1, this comes >>> to mind. >>> >>> I would expect the OpenOffice.org site to be the user-centered support >>> location, with the Apache OpenOffice bugzilla used for bug reports just as >>> it continues to be used for OpenOffice 3.x bug reports. I would expect >>> registration, if done at all, to be done the same way as for continuing >>> downloads and installs of OpenOffice 3.3.0, though there is a problem with >>> where that goes now. >>> >>> If the Team OpenOffice.org contribution of a maintenance release goes >>> forward, I think there should be strong acknowledgment and a way for >>> individuals to learn more at the Team OO.o site. But for it to be in the >>> OpenOffice.org development line, it needs to operate as if it was produced >>> in the same manner and produced in the same way as 3.3.0 with adjustment >>> for the current realities. >>> >>
