On 03/12/12 14:48, Rob Weir wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Pedro Giffuni<[email protected]> wrote:
On 03/12/12 13:42, Rob Weir wrote:
I'm not suggesting we argue with anyone. I'm suggesting we make
truthful positive statements about this project and the experience
level of its participants.
FWIW, and just my humble opinion ...
I don't think we should spend time discussing such arguments
when we have the one instrument that defines the true
continuation of the project, namely www.openoffice.org .
Oh, I'm sure we all have our own preferred ways of doing this. The
nice thing is that they are not mutually exclusive. We only need to
agree to be accurate and positive. We don't need to agree on a
narrow set of specific communications. Some volunteers might work
better with HTML, others with YouTube videos, others with graphics.
Let's find more ways of saying "yes and" instead of "no, but".
-Rob
You didn't get it: the channel matters.
If a blog from the Apache Foundation says "OpenOffice is not
dead" and a blog from TDF says "OpenOffice.org is dead",
well ... both can be wrong or right ...
OTOH, If the openoffice.org says "alive and kicking" the
message is way more credible.
This said ... I don't feel confident enough to modify the
main page: if I, for example, screw things up badly and
want to revert my changes, can I do that easily in
Apache CMS?
cheers,
Pedro.
