On 2011-12-17 12:00 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 17 December 2011 16:57, Donald Harbison<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler
<[email protected]>wrote:
A further, related question (I'm working on a blog piece) would we say
"Apache OpenOffice (incubating) plans to release a reference
implementation of the OpenOffice.org suite in ...", or is some other
phrasing preferred?
What's your definition of a reference build? Would an official Apache
release of OpenOffice 3.4 meet that definition?
That's a good question and I think is probably what I'm asking ;-)
I'm a little confused as to what brand the release will push, Apache
OpenOffice or OpenOffice.org.
The PPMC voted a while back to call their product "Apache OpenOffice".
I would expect the primary branding will be updated to reflect that in
various places, including the main icons.
I strongly urge the PPMC to consider continuing the OOo version numbers
- 3.4 or 3.5 or the like. While many of us, as software engineers, have
a detailed understanding of release number nuances, the vast majority of
the rest of humanity does not have a clue. They'll expect - presuming
we're showing them that we're the obvious "next" release of an
OpenOffice.org-like product to install - to see something in the 3.x line.
The most important thing that I see Ross asking for is our best
projection at the big picture; the very basic bits of the marketing
message. That's what needs to be told to the world. The rest is just
details for the podling committers to continue to work out. (Obviously,
immensely important and hard details! But still - mostly just details
that the vast majority of humanity will never care about.)
- Shane
