On Nov 26, 2011, at 9:38 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Um, perhaps you could have asked Dennis?
Well, I did ask you - and this is now more on point. Thank you. > > 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. It is worth noting this. There will be packagers of AOO and OOo. It looks like what we allow as Apache OpenOffice vs. what was allowed as OpenOffice.org are now two different matters. A discussion of the Novell Edition gives one more example of a possible approach. Does it fit the TOOo example well, or is it more the general example of how to define a non-Apache OpenOffice.org "edition"? Perhaps we can find a policy here that works for the ASF, the PPMC, and the whole ecosystem. > > 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. Does this differ from the TOOo proposal? How long is this "same place" going to be supported by Oracle? > 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. The Team OOo proposal (not necessarily shared here) has registration and other linkage back to teamopenoffice,org and not openoffice.org. You are proposing a modification to their plan. I tend to agree that most of the linkage needs to remain with openoffice.org. Continued support for legacy downloads and the OOo mirror brain distribution cannot be ported to the ASF. We've discussed apache-extras for that. If TOOo is willing to migrate and support the LGPL legacy downloads currently offered through download.openoffice.org that would be helpful. > 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. There are twists and turns between now and the end game. We need to focus on both the twists and the end. > 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 [;<). I choose to take your humor as very subtle. There is so much happening ... let's not be afraid to make mistakes ... forward progress is being made. Best Regards, Dave > > - 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. >>>> >>> >
