On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Terry <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Terry, you are subscribed to the ooo-marketing list. I see a post by you from yesterday. So something is working. Make sure you are posting to ooo-marketing@[email protected] -Rob > > > >>________________________________ >>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> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
