Re: [tdf-discuss] Fwd: [marketing] Search at the beginning
On Tue Jan 04 2011 19:39:29 GMT-0800 (PST) todd rme wrote: On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Rogerio Luz Coelho wrote: 2011/1/5 Augustine Souza So long as the search backwards is retained. On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Nguyen Vu Hung wrote: ...Just let LibO search documents from the beginning by default. +1 I think the search should be from the beggining by default, but the option should be configurable. And it should be a one box selection. . My small 2 cents Personally I almost always search from the current location, so I would prefer it not search from the beginning by default. What they are referring to is that the search should go back to the start of the document when it reaches the end and search back to the starting point. Andy -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Fwd: [marketing] Search at the beginning
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Rogerio Luz Coelho wrote: > 2011/1/5 Augustine Souza > >> So long as the search backwards is retained. >> >> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Nguyen Vu Hung > >wrote: >> >> > ...Just let LibO search documents from the beginning by default. >> > +1 >> > >> > > I think the search should be from the beggining by default, but the option > should be configurable. And it should be a one box selection. > > . My small 2 cents Personally I almost always search from the current location, so I would prefer it not search from the beginning by default. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Fwd: [marketing] Search at the beginning
2011/1/5 Augustine Souza > So long as the search backwards is retained. > > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Nguyen Vu Hung >wrote: > > > ...Just let LibO search documents from the beginning by default. > > +1 > > > I think the search should be from the beggining by default, but the option should be configurable. And it should be a one box selection. . My small 2 cents Rogerio -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Fwd: [marketing] Search at the beginning
So long as the search backwards is retained. On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Nguyen Vu Hung wrote: > ...Just let LibO search documents from the beginning by default. > +1 > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Fwd: [marketing] Search at the beginning
Hello all,
FYI,
Just let LibO search documents from the beginning by default.
+1
-- Forwarded message --
From: Sean Haynes
Date: Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:40 AM
Subject: [marketing] Search at the beginning
To: d...@marketing.openoffice.org
To speed things up – instead of having OpenOffice's search read: *Do you
want OpenOffice to search the beginning of the document?* – just have it do
it as a default. Let Microsoft keep their bad interface. In the
settings/preferences – old users can check a box that reads: *Prompt to
search beginning of document?* A professional interface design will improve
your product significantly – users are fed up with poor interface.
Thanks for letting me vent.
Sean Haynes
SEO Web Designer
Keokee :: *a marketing communications firm*
208.263.3573 x 119
--
Best Regards,
Nguyen Hung Vu [aka: NVH] ( in Vietnamese: Nguyễn Vũ Hưng )
vuhung16plus{remo...@gmail.dot.com , YIM: vuhung16 , Skype: vuhung16plus
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: Just make the damn thing work! (was Re: Dictionary Syncing)
Hi Rogerio: Le 2011-01-04 17:50, Rogerio Luz Coelho a écrit : In Brazil the leading dictionary is VERO (BrOffice's - LibreOffice default) the only one that ships with most of our new orthography ... so it IS possible for FOSS to bring a BETTER thing to the table, we in Brasil are no longer running AFTER MSO , we are seing them at our rear mirror ;) Rogerio Thanks for this note about the way you see the distro. This is surely the way that we must adopt. We should let MSO and others follow our distro rather than thinking we are trying to match up to theirs. It's one thing to adopt interoperability of file formats but quite another to adopt a healthy attitude that your distro is the right choice and that it is independent enough to stand on its own merits. A very healthy attitude to hold. Cheers Marc -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Test documents to compare interoperability [was: Do not support writing to OOXML format]
On 2011-01-02 7:26 PM, Bernhard Dippold wrote: > But as this mail is buried under a huge discussion, she/he should start > a new thread, ask for co-workers, define the test documents and help us > all with the results. As I have suggested many times in the past, there needs to be a *dedicated* place in the support area for this. The simpler the better - I'd prefer just a simple web submission form, but whatever it ends up being, it should be easy for people to 'submit' problem documents and descriptions, without forcing them through a lot of hoops - such as registering for yet another web based user account. These submissions should go into some kind of back-end database 'moderated' by volunteers willing to verify the problem documents, and if confirmed, open a bug report for it. In my opinion, document compatibility issues should be given a higher priority than most. -- Best regards, Charles -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Just make the damn thing work! (was Re: Dictionary Syncing)
In Brazil the leading dictionary is VERO (BrOffice's - LibreOffice default) the only one that ships with most of our new orthography ... so it IS possible for FOSS to bring a BETTER thing to the table, we in Brasil are no longer running AFTER MSO , we are seing them at our rear mirror ;) Rogerio 2011/1/2 Charles Marcus > On 2011-01-01 1:50 PM, Michael Wheatland wrote: > > Zaphod, > > I totally agree with your assessment of the situation. The work > > required to implement such an integration would be much larger but the > > payoff would be worth it for coordination and integration of an open > > source language management system. > > And I guess I should have clarified as well - I absolutely agreed with > the idea, I just disagreed with the apparent characterization (which I > see was just a misinterpretation on my part) of 'LibO vs MSO'... > > -- > > Best regards, > > Charles > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: Addons
Le 2011-01-04 04:30, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit : As for Marc's earlier message: the decision was to use Silverstripe. Trying to get around it by pointing out that more volunteers want to work on a different CMS overlooks two things: - the legitimity of the decision : you basically claim that no matter what your representatives will choose you'll do what pleases you first (and what pleases you in this context does not seem to be LibreOffice but Drupal) - the process: there was a call for consultation about a platform with two last remaining options. One was chosen; claiming the other one was more popular is a moot point as it means all the other options and their supporters never matter. My note to this list was certainly not meant to mean to undermine the SC's decision. We were given the Silverstripe to start off and the Drupal solution was left to be re-examined within a 6 month time-frame. This is quite evident in the SC meeting recording and as well echoed on the list by a member of the SC (Florian) at the point of declaration of the Silverstripe first with re-examination of Drupal later. If there is to be a viable example of a Drupal LibreOffice site, I don't know how this would be done without committed people working on it. As you can very well see, the Drupal team organised itself appropriately and started on the task of delivering a viable Drupal example. I do not see how this would in any way undermine the SC's decision when it is abiding by the SC's own declaration. If we are asking for help with the Drupal from the membership, it is then to organise a better example of the Drupal site according to the SC's decision of having it ready within 6 month delay. I do not see anything undermining the SC here either. Some of our members are more comfortable with Drupal and these members may have chosen this as their contribution to the LibreOffice group. If they have any questions regarding the reason for the Drupal's existence, they only need to listen to the recording and re-read the thread relating to the decision on the choice of CMS. The LibreOffice.org site had problems with content and there were finally some offers from some members. I must say that it was difficult to add content for lack of direction on the site ... there was simply no list of tasks or separation of jobs/roles. Some of us tried to add content but, thankfully, David stepped in and completed this task. There is still, to date, no schedule or list of tasks for any of the website membership to work with. I therefore do not see anything in this that would seem to undermine the SC's decision. I'm sorry if you see it this way, but I see it otherwise. Last but not least, I believe one of the reasons we created LibreOffice was precisely to avoid arbitrary decisions in favor of directions and decisions everyone understand and to avoid ineffectiveness. We have rules, we cannot change them because a few out of many are ready to sacrifice the whole to see their own options prime over everything else. I am not sure if this is directed to me, but I hope it is not. I have as yet not seen anyone of the membership behave in this manner, including myself. Some of us may be quite zealous over our participation, which is quite understandable in large groups. Such is life. best, Charles. Cheers Marc -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format
Johannes, all, Le Tue, 04 Jan 2011 14:34:42 +0100, "Johannes A. Bodwing" a écrit : > Hi Ian, > > ... > >> > >> And they are not equal. That's my problem with it at the moment. > >>> I don't really understand how this democratic-meritocratic > >>> principle works. And what you explain below with Microsoft, for > >>> me it is not meritocratic or democratic that's an ethical aspect. > >>> > >> Democracy means that everyone has the potential to contribute, > > > > Democracy simply means representation of the people (community). > > Even established democracies don't have referendums on every issue. > > Party political systems mean that there are real limits to what any > > individual can contribute. I can't go and contribute directly to > > new legislation other than by saying what I think and hope it will > > influence someone. That is not really much different from a FOSS > > project. > > ... > > What you say about democracy, political parties eg is the today > situation. But eventually think about this: > Democratic systems have the power and lot of money for secret > "cyber-tasks", for a hidden worldwide web of information and > spy-systems and so on. They find it important, they give the money to > do it and they have the will to do it. That's possible but not a > better flow of information between citizens and politicians to create > a more real democracy. There is no "democratic-task", no > worldwide-web of democratic informations. There is no will to involve > more people in decisions or for the prefield of decisions. > What will I say with this? > Can we organize the structure of LO with examples in mind which have > not the will for transparancy? > Or must there be a thinking like: > ESC has the final decision, OK. > And for that, what are the best conditions that they have the best > informations to make the best decisions for the best (open) Office > Suite? Eventually this is one other task for the time after the phase > of beginning. > > Greetings, > Johannes > I would like to close down that thread now. We have bylaws that people were involved in and that have been stabilized: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws And we have lots of things that need to be done and require volunteers. Let me give you some pointers: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/Produce http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing Among other things.. Happy hacking! -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Hello Charles, 2011/1/4 Charles-H. Schulz : > Jesper, > We are not interested in OOXML, a standard that became one only after a > campaign of deception and unacceptable pressures driven by Microsoft. We > are interested in ODF, an open standard developed by many players including > Microsoft. > > We are only offering convenience to our users by letting them interact with > the poprietary formats of ms office product range. Therefore the OOXML > standard is not really something we are interested to help. I think I was misunderstood. :o) I was not so much asking you guys to help us in SC34/WG4. With implementers at Microsoft Office, ORACLE OpenOffice, LibreOffice, Kingsoft, DataWatch etc, I think we are pretty well covered as it is. (I'd personally be interested in what you find, but that's a whole other story) I was suggesting that making your findings public (if you indeed find some), you'd be able to help other OSS projects with focus like yours (which is "users" and not promoting OOXML), and in addition you'd be helping people like Leif and companies like ORACLE, IBM etc who are actively fighting OOXML in governments etc. Win-wn? -- Jesper Lund Stocholm www.idippedut.dk SC34/WG4 http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format
Hi Ian, ... And they are not equal. That's my problem with it at the moment. I don't really understand how this democratic-meritocratic principle works. And what you explain below with Microsoft, for me it is not meritocratic or democratic that's an ethical aspect. Democracy means that everyone has the potential to contribute, Democracy simply means representation of the people (community). Even established democracies don't have referendums on every issue. Party political systems mean that there are real limits to what any individual can contribute. I can't go and contribute directly to new legislation other than by saying what I think and hope it will influence someone. That is not really much different from a FOSS project. ... What you say about democracy, political parties eg is the today situation. But eventually think about this: Democratic systems have the power and lot of money for secret "cyber-tasks", for a hidden worldwide web of information and spy-systems and so on. They find it important, they give the money to do it and they have the will to do it. That's possible but not a better flow of information between citizens and politicians to create a more real democracy. There is no "democratic-task", no worldwide-web of democratic informations. There is no will to involve more people in decisions or for the prefield of decisions. What will I say with this? Can we organize the structure of LO with examples in mind which have not the will for transparancy? Or must there be a thinking like: ESC has the final decision, OK. And for that, what are the best conditions that they have the best informations to make the best decisions for the best (open) Office Suite? Eventually this is one other task for the time after the phase of beginning. Greetings, Johannes -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons
On 4 January 2011 07:37, Cor Nouws wrote: > Michael Wheatland wrote (04-01-11 02:59) > >> If everyone was as clear and concise as you there would be no >> confusion about any issues. >> > > No, to me this is an obvious example of someone apparently unable to > understand, > Hm, has anyone taken the trouble to have say a face to face skype with Michael? working on the Silverstripe site is that they don't understand the CMS >> > > using silly arguments, > Hardly a silly argument. I for one have no idea and no time (or inclination) to learn Silverstripe. I can fully understand that issue. I do know Drupal and worked with it every day for the last 5 years. In fact I'd never heard of Silverstripe until very recently. I know of many Drupal installations I don't know of any Silverstripe installations. The very fact that there seems to be a deficit of help on the Silverstripe work and a more active Drupal development is evidence that the argument isn't silly even if you don't like it. Over the coming couple of weeks, I will put together a proposal for >> the Steering Committee to consider an implementation plan. >> > > and only interested in his own plan. That I think is disingenuous. The last thing TDF can afford is to alienate people who are clearly very committed to putting their own resource into development. Even if you think passion and commitment to Drupal is misguided, there are better ways of communicating with people than public personal attacks on mailing lists. This is worryingly reminiscent of some of the OpenOffice.org spats several years ago. It would have been a lot better if the original public post had been a verbal exchange by phone. Mailing lists are notoriously bad for this sort of discussion. Cor > > -- > - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** > -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
> > Silverstripe site is that they don't understand the CMS and are not really > interested in learning it. > It is true, once you use Drupal, you will never install another CMS. > That seems to me an important consideration long term. If there is likely to be more and longer term committed developer resource with Drupal it is the most logical route and the decision should be how to rather than if. Over the coming couple of weeks, I will put together a proposal for > the Steering Committee to consider an implementation plan. > > Again, > Thanks for clarifying this point. > > Michael Wheatland > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** > -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Jesper, We are not interested in OOXML, a standard that became one only after a campaign of deception and unacceptable pressures driven by Microsoft. We are interested in ODF, an open standard developed by many players including Microsoft. We are only offering convenience to our users by letting them interact with the poprietary formats of ms office product range. Therefore the OOXML standard is not really something we are interested to help. Thanks, Charles. Le 4 janv. 2011, 12:38 PM, "Jesper Lund Stocholm" <4a4553504...@gmail.com> a écrit : Hello Charles (et al), 2011/1/3 Charles-H. Schulz : > Barbara, > > Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600, > Barbara Duprey < b...@onr.com> a écrit : > >> On... > Well, the problem is that it's not that documented. Really, > Transitional OOXML was an honourable... As one of those actually trying to maintain OOXML in ISO, your discussions are really interesting to me. As per your discussions around S vs T, there are a couple of points I'd like to make. 1. About conformance to OOXML (S or T): Leif mentioned that implementing OOXML would display Microsoft's dirty laundry. I am looking very much forward to your findings and where Microsoft Office does not comply with the conformance rules in OOXML. I hope you will share these with us - and the world in general, and any test documents generated by Microsoft Office you make during your implementation would be extremely interesting to look at. 2. T vs S: Please bear in mind that S is basically a limited version of T. The only major obstacle/difference is that alle the namespaces of S are different than those of T. Also, Microsoft Office uses these namespaces during import as some sort of white-list, and AFAIK the new namespaces of S have not yet been added to this whitelist (since the addition of them is relatively recent and was after launch of Microsoft Office 2010). Basically, if Microsoft Office doesn't recognize the new namespaces, the docs will all fail on import in Microsoft Office and you'd have zero interop. Finally I ancourage you to make a public place to put your findings while implementing OOXML in LibreOffice. It could serve as a very usefull reference for a lot of people - including people like Leif lobbying our politicians to use/mandate usage ODF. PS: when trying to do interop with e.g. Microsoft Office always consult their implementer notes available at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee908652(v=office.12).aspx If any of you need additional information, I'd be happy to help. PPS: for those of you on this list actually implementing OOXML in LibreOffice - are you considering implementing MCE (OOXML, Part 3) fully in LibreOffice? -- Jesper Lund Stocholm www.idippedut.dk SC34/WG4 http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgArchive: http://listarc... -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Hello Charles (et al), 2011/1/3 Charles-H. Schulz : > Barbara, > > Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600, > Barbara Duprey a écrit : > >> On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote: >> > Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: >> > [...] > Well, the problem is that it's not that documented. Really, > Transitional OOXML was an honourable way out for MS at the ISO's JTC 1. > > Basically the deal was that the strict OOXML was rumoured to be clean > (although I don't think it is and I'm not the only one) while the > transitional was "offering more features" and was more in line with the > existing and used formats used by MS Office 2007 and 2010. At this > stage we have no evidence that the transitional OOXML and the formats > used in MS office suites match, and I'm not even saying this out of bad > will against MS: it's a really important question. As one of those actually trying to maintain OOXML in ISO, your discussions are really interesting to me. As per your discussions around S vs T, there are a couple of points I'd like to make. 1. About conformance to OOXML (S or T): Leif mentioned that implementing OOXML would display Microsoft's dirty laundry. I am looking very much forward to your findings and where Microsoft Office does not comply with the conformance rules in OOXML. I hope you will share these with us - and the world in general, and any test documents generated by Microsoft Office you make during your implementation would be extremely interesting to look at. 2. T vs S: Please bear in mind that S is basically a limited version of T. The only major obstacle/difference is that alle the namespaces of S are different than those of T. Also, Microsoft Office uses these namespaces during import as some sort of white-list, and AFAIK the new namespaces of S have not yet been added to this whitelist (since the addition of them is relatively recent and was after launch of Microsoft Office 2010). Basically, if Microsoft Office doesn't recognize the new namespaces, the docs will all fail on import in Microsoft Office and you'd have zero interop. Finally I ancourage you to make a public place to put your findings while implementing OOXML in LibreOffice. It could serve as a very usefull reference for a lot of people - including people like Leif lobbying our politicians to use/mandate usage ODF. PS: when trying to do interop with e.g. Microsoft Office always consult their implementer notes available at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee908652(v=office.12).aspx If any of you need additional information, I'd be happy to help. PPS: for those of you on this list actually implementing OOXML in LibreOffice - are you considering implementing MCE (OOXML, Part 3) fully in LibreOffice? -- Jesper Lund Stocholm www.idippedut.dk SC34/WG4 http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
Hello Michael, 2011/1/4 Michael Wheatland > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Charles-H. Schulz > wrote: > > Hello Michael, > > > > Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 01:26:09 +0930, > > Michael Wheatland a écrit : > > > >> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Charles-H. Schulz > >> wrote: > >> > "to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org" does not seem to > >> > mean anything to me. "With a view to go with Drupal" was rather: > >> > with the possible option of Drupal in the long term. > >> > >> Sorry, I meant to write libreoffice.org not drupal.org > > > > ah, okay. > > > >> > >> > "a little bit of misinformation", Michael, is perhaps your > >> > enthusiasm leading to understand things the way you would like them > >> > to be :-). At this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans > >> > to move to Drupal; there seems indeed to have been some early > >> > misunderstanding, but if you wish the SC will clarify its position > >> > (again) . But given that I'm a member of the said SC, it might be > >> > useful to you to take my words into account. > >> > >> To make this clear in my mind I have listened and read the decision > >> statement from the Steering Committee decision. > >> > >> The conversation on the conference call: > >> "I would ask the people working on Drupal to do a more detailed > >> planning in the next month regarding additional services..." > > > > right. > > > >> There were some bits that I didn't quite understand (poor quality > >> sound), but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider > >> Drupal as the long term solution. > > > > I might repeat Cor's statements here, but "many people voiced their > > opinion that we should consider Drupal as the long term solution" > > means: many people "think we should decide whether Drupal would be a > > long term solution" . It's hardly a Steering Committee decision > > requesting the use of Drupal. > >> > >> > >> The statement to the website list from the SC is as follows: > >> "the CMS decision was taken: it will be Silverstripe as a starter, > >> with plans to migrate to Drupal later on." > >> > >> > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/592 > > > > "plans... later on". Not "now let's rush towards creating the > > definitive Drupal website"... > > > >> > >> I would have thought that this official statement is very clear in the > >> outcome > > > > Obviously it is conditional, and makes clear that it's an option for > > the long term. > > > >> and the website team has had a large group of people (larger > >> than that working on the current site) working towards this end, whom > >> might I say have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time. > >> Clearly the implementation is still a few months off as we start to > >> involve Native Language teams and other functional teams. > > > > And to our great dismay, calls for help for the current website, which > > has all the top priority, went lost in a sea of mails about the Drupal > > project, and despite several mails of people explaining Drupal was just > > an option. > > > >> > >> I hope this clarifies my point, and makes it quite clear that I am not > >> just hearing what I want to. This was the official decision statement > >> as communicated back to the website mailing list. > >> > > Well you now see that the official decision was not a definitive > > statement about Drupal, and that it was *considered* as an option. > > Thanks for the clarification Charles, > This makes a lot more sense than a couple of other abrupt, emotional > statements made by others regarding the CMS decision that we have seen > on the mailing lists. > If everyone was as clear and concise as you there would be no > confusion about any issues. > > As you can see, there is a lot of enthusiasm around the Drupal > development which has been put to good use and we should not waste. > From my conversations the only reason a lot of people have not been > working on the Silverstripe site is that they don't understand the CMS > and are not really interested in learning it. > It is true, once you use Drupal, you will never install another CMS. > I really -for what's worth I'd be mentioning that- don't care what we choose, but I only want results and a tool that adapts to its community and not the other way around. Definitive statements such as the one above do not make me look forward Drupal. I could perhaps just say: "how about we design several html pages and stick them together with cgi, add some javascript and you have a website?" and that would keep things very, very simple ;) > > Over the coming couple of weeks, I will put together a proposal for > the Steering Committee to consider an implementation plan. > Although you wrote it on a different mailing list, I would like to thank you for willing to help out on the Silverstripe now. Implementation plan for future drupal site will not be considered until several months, so really, there's no rush. Best, Charles. > > A
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons
Michael, 2011/1/4 Michael Wheatland > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Cor Nouws wrote: > > Michael Wheatland wrote (04-01-11 02:59) > >> > >> If everyone was as clear and concise as you there would be no > >> confusion about any issues. > > > > No, to me this is an obvious example of someone apparently unable to > > understand, > > Please do not result to personal insults. > > >> working on the Silverstripe site is that they don't understand the CMS > > > > using silly arguments, > > If you are going to quote my emails, ensure you do not 'snip' parts > which can be taken out of context. > > > >> Over the coming couple of weeks, I will put together a proposal for > >> the Steering Committee to consider an implementation plan. > > > > and only interested in his own plan. > > I am interested in the best outcome for the community. > My skill set is limited, as I am a chemical engineer, not a > programmer, who is putting time and effort into this community part > time. > > I think the whole website team is doing a great job, I am contributing > everything that I can to help the community. > I would appreciate a little more respect. > Certainly. What we -the SC- would like you to understand is that the Drupal option is just this; an option. Right now, we have one website to work on: it turns out it uses Silverstripe. I can understand that some people like Marc feel surprised or frustrated about it, but frankly it's not like several people haven't tried to remind everyone what was the actual choice, but to at least my great surprise I also felt that informal messages about the actual validity of Drupal as a firm choice were simply disregarded. I hope it will be very clear from now on that the website we are working on is the actual website, developed under Silverstripe. As for Marc's earlier message: the decision was to use Silverstripe. Trying to get around it by pointing out that more volunteers want to work on a different CMS overlooks two things: - the legitimity of the decision : you basically claim that no matter what your representatives will choose you'll do what pleases you first (and what pleases you in this context does not seem to be LibreOffice but Drupal) - the process: there was a call for consultation about a platform with two last remaining options. One was chosen; claiming the other one was more popular is a moot point as it means all the other options and their supporters never matter. Last but not least, I believe one of the reasons we created LibreOffice was precisely to avoid arbitrary decisions in favor of directions and decisions everyone understand and to avoid ineffectiveness. We have rules, we cannot change them because a few out of many are ready to sacrifice the whole to see their own options prime over everything else. best, Charles. > Thanks, > Michael Wheatland > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Cor Nouws wrote: > Michael Wheatland wrote (04-01-11 02:59) >> >> If everyone was as clear and concise as you there would be no >> confusion about any issues. > > No, to me this is an obvious example of someone apparently unable to > understand, Please do not result to personal insults. >> working on the Silverstripe site is that they don't understand the CMS > > using silly arguments, If you are going to quote my emails, ensure you do not 'snip' parts which can be taken out of context. >> Over the coming couple of weeks, I will put together a proposal for >> the Steering Committee to consider an implementation plan. > > and only interested in his own plan. I am interested in the best outcome for the community. My skill set is limited, as I am a chemical engineer, not a programmer, who is putting time and effort into this community part time. I think the whole website team is doing a great job, I am contributing everything that I can to help the community. I would appreciate a little more respect. Thanks, Michael Wheatland -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
