Hello, Rob Weir wrote: > I don't see the need for fragmentation.
And i dont see 'fragmentation'. Rob, i think we understand only the concepts or words differently. "entity for national or local press releases" is only a synonym for people who write drafts for national press releases and bring this drafts in discussion by Apache. > The project speaks in one voice. With the help of volunteers we can > speak in many languages. But we cannot have sub-groups within the > project making press releases on behalf of the project, All press > releases come from the entire project, and require review and approval > from the PMC, as well as Apache. And thats is very fine, but is it really necessary that all work is done there, all drafts are written? > Think of it this way: OpenOffice supports multiple languages. But we > don't have independent groups compiling and releases OpenOffice. We > work together to have a single, multilingual product. Rob, i am sorry, but you are dont understand that AOO is more then technical thing. AOO is also a product for consumers called "users". These AOO-users are, by their nature, all other users such as the users of Apache HTTP Server. The users of Apache HTTP Server are IT-specialists and the users of AOO are normal people. > I'm familiar with LiMux, yes. Is this something that the project > needs to speak on? If so, let's have a draft of the press release. > Whether the issue is national, local, or international, it really > doesn't make a difference. The issue is that the press release is on > behalf of the Apache OpenOffice project. If it is in our name, then > it needs review. OK, clear. *Can I send in such cases, a German draft for discussion at [email protected]?* > An alternative would be to have a press release from some other > organization, like a local German users group or something like that. > But it would need to pick a different name. It could not claim to > speak for "Apache OpenOffice". Yes, thats clear for me. And I agree with this principle. But there is also a problem - *when* local groups must therefore arise *only because* the people who work in Apache conditions are too difficult, then weakens the project AOO, because "a local German users group" is, in my opinion, another word for really 'fragmentation'. > > >> I don't see a problem with that. > > > > I see a problem if for month users being not informed > enough and (OOo)/AOO constantly users loses. You not? > > > > No one is denying that we would benefit from more information. > > > And I see a problem if it is for beginners so difficult to > understand the workings of Apache. Many of us who are not > developers want to work for the success of AOO, but do not > always understand ways of working. > > > > Maybe it would help to think of it this way: > > There are many ways in which we can make information available about > the project. They differ in level of formality. > [...] OK, give me some time, I would first like to talk with others to better understand these things. > If this isn't clear, then please ask more questions. It is formally clear, but I do not understand why Apache is apparently wants everything to work itself. It would be very helpful to me if you would confirm once again that it is possible proposals or drafts for national press releases should be sent to Apache for discussing. I, or the German AOO community do not want to speak for Apache or for AOO, but we want to contribute together to address the users of AOO, eg through press releases. > In any case, it is probably worth us thinking about a communications > plan for the 3.4 release, one that will have local variations. OK, fine. Jörg
