The way to deal with these things is acknowledge the need to use the
qualifier. Where there is a reasonable argument (blog titles on the ASF
home page for example) undertake to improve things and move on.
These things come up occasionally when an interested IPMC member does a
review and sees things the rest of us missed. I brought it here in the hope
of preventing an IPMC mega-thread. Acknowledge it there, deal with it here.
If it helps, I'm not worried about the logo thing, but that might be just
me.
On Saturday, 23 June 2012, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton<[email protected]>
@ <[email protected]>acm.org <[email protected]>> wrote:
I think it would be good and wait until the original reporter identifies
what the specific infraction is and what its cure is. One part of the
complaint is how AOOi is mentioned in tweets by @TheASF. Those are not, as
far as I am aware, anything under our control whatsoever.
I would not dispense with full atom feeds.
Having "(incubating)" used at the beginning of a post, even with a link
to what that entails, could be useful. Whether it needs to be in the title
or not remains to be seen.
Of course, whatever the practice is asserted to be, it will need to be
honored by all incubating projects, of course.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir <[email protected]>@ <[email protected]>
apache.org <[email protected]>]
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 08:40
To: ooo-dev@
<[email protected]>incubator.apache.org<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Must use the incubating qualifier
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:53 AM, drew jensen
<drewjensen.inbox<[email protected]>
@ <[email protected]>gmail.com <[email protected]>> wrote:
On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 09:51 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, drew <drew@ <[email protected]>
baseanswers.com <[email protected]>> wrote:
On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 08:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Rob Weir <robweir<[email protected]>
@ <[email protected]>apache.org <[email protected]>> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Ross Gardler
<rgardler <[email protected]>@<[email protected]>
opendirective.com <[email protected]>> wrote:
It has been pointed out on the general list that AOO is not
always using
the incubating qualifier. For example recent blog posts don't
include it.
It is right there, first thing on the page, in a very large font,
for
every blog post: "Apache OpenOffice (incubating)"
E.g, :
https://<https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache>
blogs.apache.org<https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache>
/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache<https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache>
Note the <title> of the page says "Apache OpenOffice (incubating)".
Ditto for the largest (and first) header on the page.
Looking at the general list, it sounds like NIck's issue was that
blog
aggregators, such as used by Apache for generating content on the
home
page are not picking up on this.
Hi,
Maybe, I just read the incubator list also I think Nick is saying that
_any_ time the phrase Apache OpenOffice is used it must have the word
incubating included, not just in the title.
But that's not the policy. The policy is that it must be called out
as incubating at first mention in the document.
That's what I thought also - I'm saying how it reads to me, that's all.
Maybe the key is to realize that when we publish a blog post, we
publish two things:
1) A web page, which does IMHO have the correct incubation notices on it.
2) An Atom feed that will be used by websites and services outside of
our immediate control, and which will not bring along the full page
context from the blog.
On the second one, I think the remedy might be get the incubation
notice into the post ("entry") titles. It may be possible to do this
automatically (per my previous post), but it could be done manually as
well.
-Rob
-Rob
//drew
<snip>
