Hi, floris
I mistook David's email as one on the marketing mail list. The topic of re-branding is being discussed there. I was about to suggest people subscribe to that list but I noticed while composing this reply that an email I sent to the list has just been bounced. If you want to subscribe notwithstanding, the address to subscribe is [email protected] Regards, Terry P.S. I forwarded the mailer-daemon email to the marketing list's owner and that also has now bounced. >________________________________ >From: floris v <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 9:38 AM >Subject: Re: [Proposal] Change in Apache OpenOffice.org Branding... > >Op 27-10-2011 23:52, Terry schreef: >> I do not understand the point Michael made in that email. Is he suggesting >> that no version number be used? >> >> Terry >> >> >> >> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: David H. Lipman<[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 1:44 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Proposal] Change in Apache OpenOffice.org Branding... >>> >>> From: "Michael Acevedo"<[email protected]> >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have been reading the OOo forum and first let me congratulate the Apache >>>> OOo team in >>>> completing the transition of the source code earlier this month. As for my >>>> proposal, it >>>> stems from one statement made in the OpenOffice.org Forums indicating that >>>> "Fundamentally, >>>> as a project "OpenOffice.org" is done." If the following is true I think >>>> it creates a >>>> great opportunity to refresh the OpenOffice.org brand. My proposal has the >>>> following >>>> provision: - >>>> Drop the "3" or "3.4" suffix from the OpenOffice.org name and either leave >>>> the office >>>> suite name as "Apache OpenOffice.org" or "Apache OpenOffice.org 4 * The rationale for >>>> this >>>> provision is the fact that the OOo code will undergo (or has >>>> undergone substantial rewriting) to allow the source code to be compliant >>>> with the >>>> Apache >>>> 2.0. licence scheme. * Furthermore, IBM's decision to donate Lotus >>>> Symphony to Apache >>>> will >>>> most likely result in a "code merger" with the Apache OpenOffice project >>>> which will >>>> result >>>> in a very altered (compared to today's) OpenOffice.org source code. Well >>>> that's the >>>> basic >>>> idea behind proposal and I think the brand refresh will be beneficial for >>>> the Apache OOo >>>> project. >>>> Again, thank you for your time and keep up the good work! >>>> >>> I agree with all aspects of what Michael suggests and has stated. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dave ><snip> >>> >With lots of rewriting and going back to old software like myspell any >version number seems to me a very dubious affair. You might just as well >restart with Apache OOo 1.0. A higher version number suggests, after >all, that the developers built on an older version and added stuff and >removed bugs. Here the story is very different. It's probably my biggest >objection to this rebranding: there are quite a few annoying bugs and >shortcomings that have plagued users for years, and instead of tackling >those, the developers are discarding stuff that works in favour of old >software that may not work quite as well. Really. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- ><snip> > >
