Um, perhaps you could have asked Dennis? Not to appear unduly humorless (since I don't always decode what Simon says very well), I need to say I was not seeing a Team OO.o 3.3.1 as the same as an OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 Novell Edition, since 3.3.1 it is not intended to be a parallel line, but a maintenance edition on the existing line. (I see the humor for making an Apache OpenOffice edition of LO 3.x. It is not possible of course and Simon did wink.) My point was that the Novell approach apparently caused no damage to the brand and another edition with added functionality was provided. However, it was clearly an OpenOffice.org release with supplemental provisions and never a fork.
So how the Team OO.o could be acknowledged for its significant part in making the 3.3.1 release happen might be done with similar modifications in the appearance of the distribution and installer along the lines of what Novell did, or even how Sun acknowledged itself for being the producer of a distribution on the installer and splash screens. Oracle followed suit, even though these were Open Source distributions. (I trust 3.3.1 will not hawk Java, browser toolbars, or anything like that, however.) I suspect Apache OpenOffice binary releases will be clothed in a similar manner. I do not suggest that 3.3.1 be downloaded from anywhere but the same place that OO.o 3.3.0 comes from. The concluding point was at the end of my message. I suggest restraints so that 3.3.1 remains locked into OpenOffice.org 3.3 lineage: OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 could be presented gently as a Team OO.org contributed update of 3.3.0 but firmly in the OO.o 3.3 stream and distributed and supported entirely as if the OO.o project is its origin: registration is with OpenOffice.org, all live links concerning support, on-line help, downloading, etc., are OpenOffice.org. The identification of Team OO.o would not direct users to that site although there would be some provision for finding out more about Team OO.o including providing its (non-clickable?) URL. There are technical conditions on how OO.o 3.3.1 is developed such that Apache OpenOffice and the ASF can contemplate accepting it as an update of OpenOffice.org. That also has to be worked out. I have my eye on the end game: how does this reach users and what will it appear as to them? I suspect that Team OO.o has their attention on that aspect as well. This was also a clumsy effort to move a conversation about this to the broad ooo-dev forum. I'm not clear what success there is beside confirming that I and some others are humorless [;<). - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 07:53 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: OO.o 3.3.1 Maintenance Release Consideration 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: [ ... ] >>> 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. >>> >>
