Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Hi Dennis and all, On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > My interpretation is that we could have Apache ooo as the identifier of the > core Apache project > built on what we factor out of the Oracle grant, leaving OpenOffice.org as a > web site and > a family of distributions and support for end-user and adopter/integrator > activities that reach out > beyond the development of a buildable open-source code base. This is what I would like to tell OpenOffice.org Japanese community members, Japanese users and contributors, and Japanese public. :) And I am still collecting information about the future of OpenOffice.org the community and the product to prepare an announcement to annou...@ja.openoffice.org. After our graduation from the incubation, "Apache OpenOffice" project will develop and release a new "OpenOffice.org" right? Let's say it's "OpenOffice.org 4" :) Japanese users and contributors and public have 2 questions. 1) Will we see and use OpenOffice.org Japanese site[1], wiki[2], forum[3] and mailing lists[4]?, will we download Japanese OpenOffice.org 4 from Japanese download page[5], and will OpenOffice.org 4 be supported on the site, the wiki, the forum and mailing lists? 2) Who will support Japanese OpenOffice.org 3.3.0? [1] http://ja.openoffice.org/ [2] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/JA/ [3] http://user.services.openoffice.org/ja/forum/ [4] http://openoffice.org/projects/ja/lists [5] http://ja.openoffice.org/download/ I will create independent threads for these questions on this ooo-dev list. :) Thanks, khirano
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Aug 3, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Here's an item cribbed from another list that is relevant to concerns about > downloads and perhaps user-created content on OpenOffice.org: > > -Original Message- > From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:field...@gbiv.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 12:31 > To: legal-disc...@apache.org > Subject: Re: CDDL Source Availability > > On Aug 3, 2011, at 5:33 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > >> CDDL 1.0[1] contains a source availability clause[2]. The CDDL is >> Category B (Reciprocal License)[3] and so a reference to the source is >> required in the NOTICE[4]. >> >> AIUI policy does not allow distribution of Category B source from Apache >> (please jump in if I missed any changes). > > No. Policy is that it can't be distributed as part of our product. > There is nothing stopping us from having a third-party dist on our > website for other licensed code, provided it is clear that they are > not our products. > > Roy Roy is the one who suggested that we have a separate openoffice.org for the legacy. It is good to see a reasoned defense. Perhaps it should be called a "Legacy" exception in order to bring in the significant community that is OpenOffice.org Thanks Dennis! Regards, Dave > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscr...@apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-h...@apache.org >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Here's an item cribbed from another list that is relevant to concerns about downloads and perhaps user-created content on OpenOffice.org: -Original Message- From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:field...@gbiv.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 12:31 To: legal-disc...@apache.org Subject: Re: CDDL Source Availability On Aug 3, 2011, at 5:33 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > CDDL 1.0[1] contains a source availability clause[2]. The CDDL is > Category B (Reciprocal License)[3] and so a reference to the source is > required in the NOTICE[4]. > > AIUI policy does not allow distribution of Category B source from Apache > (please jump in if I missed any changes). No. Policy is that it can't be distributed as part of our product. There is nothing stopping us from having a third-party dist on our website for other licensed code, provided it is clear that they are not our products. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-h...@apache.org
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Am 03.08.2011 17:04, schrieb Rob Weir: Some good points. Maybe we want to start (or steal) an FAQ on similar "netiquette" points? It might fit in the "Community FAQ's" section. There is a good one already at Apache: http://www.apache.org/dev/contrib-email-tips.html Maybe we can link it prominently from one of our main pages. Kind regards, Ingrid
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
My reply is to Andy Brown's post, not one of yours. It appears that I failed to CC: him. I have no quarrel about figuring out where PPMC oversight goes and how it is exercised. I allowed for that in my response to Andy with regard to special-privileged cases. I chose not to drag that detail into the recognition of case (1) versus (2). - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:04 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding) On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > 1. Well, if we *have* to require an iCLA because we choose (or are limited > to) an approach that makes iCLA mandatory, there is nothing to be gained by > conducting a survey on the matter. > > 2. If we come up with an approach where nothing is changed with regard to > what is currently user-editable, we don't have to stir anything up by even > raising the iCLA question. > > So maybe we need to resolve whether we can offer (2). I believe there is > strong interest in being able to do that, especially in the short run. > I'm not discussing the iCLA. I'm talking about community development. I'm suggesting that we make the wiki contributors aware of the move to Apache and invite them to join. I'd like to do the same, via appropriate means, more broadly, to all of the OOo mailing lists, as well as on the website. > We have heard from infrastructure and security (via infrastructure) that > there are some technical arrangements to deal with, but I have seen nothing > that compels our disrupting current registrations and user-editing > permissions. (There are a modest number of special-privileged cases and they > should be dealt with as individually, seems to me.) > The PPMC needs to have a plan for how it exercises oversight over the project's websites, including the wiki. Having unknown, anonymous users, unknown to the PPMC, with the ability to ban users and delete pages is not a good start in exercising oversight. As was discussed previously on this thread, one approach was to ensure that anyone who had more-than-user rights would need to be approved in that role by the PPMC. > - Dennis > > -Original Message- > From: Andy Brown [mailto:a...@the-martin-byrd.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:35 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was > re:OpenOffice.org branding) > > Dennis, > > We are working on some ideas only. There are questions on how to deal > with the current OOo wiki and move it to Apache servers. The concern is > that there will be a lose of "active" users if there is a big change in > the way edits are made, i.e. requiring an iCLA. At this point we do not > have any hard numbers on way maybe lost and trying to see if we can get > those users involved to see what path we need to take. > > HTH > Andy > > Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >> Let's slow down here. I don't recognize any alignment on what it is we >> think we are asking for (or attempting to do). This is going way over the >> edge past JFDI and/or lazy consensus. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andy Brown [mailto:a...@the-martin-byrd.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:00 >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was >> re:OpenOffice.org branding) >> >>> >> >> Terry, >> >> Where would be the best place on the wiki to place a notice directing >> users to connect here or at least see if they would be willing/able to >> send in an iCLA? >> >> Andy >> >> > >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Aug 3, 2011, at 7:25 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: > To be fair, an overly aggressive tone can do just as much poisoning as a > defensive one. I think it is also worth bearing in mind that a lot of people > here are not native English speakers and so it is easy to read things into > posts that were either not intended or were a subset of the entire situation > simply because it just takes too long to type reams in a foreign language > explaining every aspect of everything. Apart from the language issue, what > is considered bad form varies with culture so we should be wary of brute > logic from our own perspective as a tool for progress. We have to work > together and respect other people's position especially when most are doing > this for love rather than for money. It's not like in a company where you > can sack and replace people. We have lost good people in the past because > that wasn't understood and it's easier to keep people and their knowledge > resource than replace and retrain them. +1 - In my 10 years of managing a small group of Russian developers I discovered that the more I wrote the less was comprehended. We do best when I point and wait for the answer including the likelihood that my direction was not the best or only answer. I think we all need to use our listening skills and tone down the compulsion to have all the answers immediately available. Regards, Dave
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > 1. Well, if we *have* to require an iCLA because we choose (or are limited > to) an approach that makes iCLA mandatory, there is nothing to be gained by > conducting a survey on the matter. > > 2. If we come up with an approach where nothing is changed with regard to > what is currently user-editable, we don't have to stir anything up by even > raising the iCLA question. > > So maybe we need to resolve whether we can offer (2). I believe there is > strong interest in being able to do that, especially in the short run. > I'm not discussing the iCLA. I'm talking about community development. I'm suggesting that we make the wiki contributors aware of the move to Apache and invite them to join. I'd like to do the same, via appropriate means, more broadly, to all of the OOo mailing lists, as well as on the website. > We have heard from infrastructure and security (via infrastructure) that > there are some technical arrangements to deal with, but I have seen nothing > that compels our disrupting current registrations and user-editing > permissions. (There are a modest number of special-privileged cases and they > should be dealt with as individually, seems to me.) > The PPMC needs to have a plan for how it exercises oversight over the project's websites, including the wiki. Having unknown, anonymous users, unknown to the PPMC, with the ability to ban users and delete pages is not a good start in exercising oversight. As was discussed previously on this thread, one approach was to ensure that anyone who had more-than-user rights would need to be approved in that role by the PPMC. > - Dennis > > -Original Message- > From: Andy Brown [mailto:a...@the-martin-byrd.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:35 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was > re:OpenOffice.org branding) > > Dennis, > > We are working on some ideas only. There are questions on how to deal > with the current OOo wiki and move it to Apache servers. The concern is > that there will be a lose of "active" users if there is a big change in > the way edits are made, i.e. requiring an iCLA. At this point we do not > have any hard numbers on way maybe lost and trying to see if we can get > those users involved to see what path we need to take. > > HTH > Andy > > Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >> Let's slow down here. I don't recognize any alignment on what it is we >> think we are asking for (or attempting to do). This is going way over the >> edge past JFDI and/or lazy consensus. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Andy Brown [mailto:a...@the-martin-byrd.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:00 >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was >> re:OpenOffice.org branding) >> >>> >> >> Terry, >> >> Where would be the best place on the wiki to place a notice directing >> users to connect here or at least see if they would be willing/able to >> send in an iCLA? >> >> Andy >> >> > >
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
1. Well, if we *have* to require an iCLA because we choose (or are limited to) an approach that makes iCLA mandatory, there is nothing to be gained by conducting a survey on the matter. 2. If we come up with an approach where nothing is changed with regard to what is currently user-editable, we don't have to stir anything up by even raising the iCLA question. So maybe we need to resolve whether we can offer (2). I believe there is strong interest in being able to do that, especially in the short run. We have heard from infrastructure and security (via infrastructure) that there are some technical arrangements to deal with, but I have seen nothing that compels our disrupting current registrations and user-editing permissions. (There are a modest number of special-privileged cases and they should be dealt with as individually, seems to me.) - Dennis -Original Message- From: Andy Brown [mailto:a...@the-martin-byrd.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:35 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding) Dennis, We are working on some ideas only. There are questions on how to deal with the current OOo wiki and move it to Apache servers. The concern is that there will be a lose of "active" users if there is a big change in the way edits are made, i.e. requiring an iCLA. At this point we do not have any hard numbers on way maybe lost and trying to see if we can get those users involved to see what path we need to take. HTH Andy Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Let's slow down here. I don't recognize any alignment on what it is we think > we are asking for (or attempting to do). This is going way over the edge > past JFDI and/or lazy consensus. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy Brown [mailto:a...@the-martin-byrd.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:00 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was > re:OpenOffice.org branding) > >> > > Terry, > > Where would be the best place on the wiki to place a notice directing > users to connect here or at least see if they would be willing/able to > send in an iCLA? > > Andy > >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
I'll give you the context, from earlier in the thread. > A specific question then that should not require diverting your > current efforts. Is there a announcement list or some other mechanism > to send an email to every registered wiki user? > > I don't want to take time away from your higher priority migration > work, but if some such facility were available, we could work (on this > list) on a note that we could send later, to notify all users of the > migration, explain some relevant aspects of the new Apache project, > and invite them to join us. I believe that answers your questions. We're talking technical possibilities. Any message would discussed on the list before being sent or posted. -Rob On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Let's slow down here. I don't recognize any alignment on what it is we think > we are asking for (or attempting to do). This is going way over the edge > past JFDI and/or lazy consensus. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy Brown [mailto:a...@the-martin-byrd.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:00 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was > re:OpenOffice.org branding) > >> > > Terry, > > Where would be the best place on the wiki to place a notice directing > users to connect here or at least see if they would be willing/able to > send in an iCLA? > > Andy > >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Dennis, We are working on some ideas only. There are questions on how to deal with the current OOo wiki and move it to Apache servers. The concern is that there will be a lose of "active" users if there is a big change in the way edits are made, i.e. requiring an iCLA. At this point we do not have any hard numbers on way maybe lost and trying to see if we can get those users involved to see what path we need to take. HTH Andy Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Let's slow down here. I don't recognize any alignment on what it is we think we are asking for (or attempting to do). This is going way over the edge past JFDI and/or lazy consensus. -Original Message- From: Andy Brown [mailto:a...@the-martin-byrd.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:00 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding) Terry, Where would be the best place on the wiki to place a notice directing users to connect here or at least see if they would be willing/able to send in an iCLA? Andy
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Oracle Email Signature Logo Andrew Rist | Interoperability Architect Oracle Corporate Architecture Group Redwood Shores, CA | 650.506.9847 On 8/3/2011 8:15 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Terry Ellison wrote: On 03/08/11 15:14, Rob Weir wrote: A specific question then that should not require diverting your current efforts. Is there a announcement list or some other mechanism to send an email to every registered wiki user? At a technical level, it's simple to run a query dumping all of the mail addresses of contributors to the wiki. I've just done a few on my local VM which has a snapshot of the prod wiki as at Thursday/Fri night IIRC. * There are 34,969 registered users. Of which * 3,675 have made contributions. There is no need to contact those who haven't * 3,623 have registered email addresses and have made 182,677 contributions * 52 have no registered email addresses and have made 153 contributions (prob dating back to the early days when email registration and confirmation wasn't mandatory It is trivial to dump this list of user / email addr / post count. However giving this to Apache and the project making use of it is a more complex issue. The server is current located in Oracle's Hamburg facility under German / EU legislation. We have data protection legislation and Anti-Spam guidelines / legislation to bear in mind here. Moving email addresses across national and organisational boundary might trigger these. Also one can't send out mailshot emails in the EU unless the recipients have first agreed in principle to accept these. What I can do is to provide this data to Andrew via the internal Oracle email, and let him figure out the legal / compliance issues and terms of use before him making it available to the project. Not my call. Good enough. Thanks. I was hoping that there would be some community email list that everyone was already signed up on. Maybe if not at the wiki system level, then at the OpenOffice.org level? If there is a master announce list that everyone is already on, then we'd be golden. It is extremely unlikely that any such list will be officially donated. We are working on the transfer of the hosting of the Forum and Wiki. Once they have been transferred, this may be something that can be done as a part of managing these properties. Terry
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
What message is that? Can we get more concrete here, please. -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 08:59 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding) [ ... ] Good point. I've seen Wikipedia handle this type of broadcast communication by injecting content into every page, via a header template or whatever. You see that for their fund raising campaigns or surveys, for example. We might be able to do something like that and get the message out.
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Let's slow down here. I don't recognize any alignment on what it is we think we are asking for (or attempting to do). This is going way over the edge past JFDI and/or lazy consensus. -Original Message- From: Andy Brown [mailto:a...@the-martin-byrd.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:00 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding) > Terry, Where would be the best place on the wiki to place a notice directing users to connect here or at least see if they would be willing/able to send in an iCLA? Andy
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
I suppose it is rather obvious that we have moved far afield from the subject line here. At this point, I have no idea what problem there being a master announce list solves: 1. What is it proposed to be used for? 2. Who will be doing that and speaking for whom? - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 08:15 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding) [ ... ] Good enough. Thanks. I was hoping that there would be some community email list that everyone was already signed up on. Maybe if not at the wiki system level, then at the OpenOffice.org level? If there is a master announce list that everyone is already on, then we'd be golden.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
TerryE wrote: (Some) developers for some arcane reason seem to like DLs. AFAIK, others and the majority of users hate them and regard them as spam, preferring less invasive pull technologies such as forums and subscription services such as gmane. For example, I routinely work 6 forums and 4 wikis, plus a dozen gname lists. This is the only SMTP DL that I am on. Announce Lists just don't work in this end-user world. Terry, Where would be the best place on the wiki to place a notice directing users to connect here or at least see if they would be willing/able to send in an iCLA? Andy
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:44 AM, TerryE wrote: > On 03/08/11 16:15, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Terry Ellison >> wrote: >>> >>> On 03/08/11 15:14, Rob Weir wrote: A specific question then that should not require diverting your current efforts. Is there a announcement list or some other mechanism to send an email to every registered wiki user? >>> >>> At a technical level, it's simple to run a query dumping all of the mail >>> addresses of contributors to the wiki. I've just done a few on my local >>> VM >>> which has a snapshot of the prod wiki as at Thursday/Fri night IIRC. >>> >>> * There are 34,969 registered users. Of which >>> * 3,675 have made contributions. There is no need to contact those >>> who haven't >>> * 3,623 have registered email addresses and have made 182,677 >>> contributions >>> * 52 have no registered email addresses and have made 153 >>> contributions (prob dating back to the early days when email >>> registration and confirmation wasn't mandatory >>> >>> It is trivial to dump this list of user / email addr / post count. >>> >>> However giving this to Apache and the project making use of it is a more >>> complex issue. The server is current located in Oracle's Hamburg >>> facility >>> under German / EU legislation. We have data protection legislation and >>> Anti-Spam guidelines / legislation to bear in mind here. Moving email >>> addresses across national and organisational boundary might trigger >>> these. >>> Also one can't send out mailshot emails in the EU unless the recipients >>> have first agreed in principle to accept these. >>> >>> What I can do is to provide this data to Andrew via the internal Oracle >>> email, and let him figure out the legal / compliance issues and terms of >>> use >>> before him making it available to the project. Not my call. >>> >> Good enough. Thanks. I was hoping that there would be some community >> email list that everyone was already signed up on. Maybe if not at >> the wiki system level, then at the OpenOffice.org level? If there is >> a master announce list that everyone is already on, then we'd be >> golden. >> > (Some) developers for some arcane reason seem to like DLs. AFAIK, others > and the majority of users hate them and regard them as spam, preferring less > invasive pull technologies such as forums and subscription services such as > gmane. For example, I routinely work 6 forums and 4 wikis, plus a dozen > gname lists. This is the only SMTP DL that I am on. Announce Lists just > don't work in this end-user world. > Good point. I've seen Wikipedia handle this type of broadcast communication by injecting content into every page, via a header template or whatever. You see that for their fund raising campaigns or surveys, for example. We might be able to do something like that and get the message out.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On 03/08/11 16:15, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Terry Ellison wrote: On 03/08/11 15:14, Rob Weir wrote: A specific question then that should not require diverting your current efforts. Is there a announcement list or some other mechanism to send an email to every registered wiki user? At a technical level, it's simple to run a query dumping all of the mail addresses of contributors to the wiki. I've just done a few on my local VM which has a snapshot of the prod wiki as at Thursday/Fri night IIRC. * There are 34,969 registered users. Of which * 3,675 have made contributions. There is no need to contact those who haven't * 3,623 have registered email addresses and have made 182,677 contributions * 52 have no registered email addresses and have made 153 contributions (prob dating back to the early days when email registration and confirmation wasn't mandatory It is trivial to dump this list of user / email addr / post count. However giving this to Apache and the project making use of it is a more complex issue. The server is current located in Oracle's Hamburg facility under German / EU legislation. We have data protection legislation and Anti-Spam guidelines / legislation to bear in mind here. Moving email addresses across national and organisational boundary might trigger these. Also one can't send out mailshot emails in the EU unless the recipients have first agreed in principle to accept these. What I can do is to provide this data to Andrew via the internal Oracle email, and let him figure out the legal / compliance issues and terms of use before him making it available to the project. Not my call. Good enough. Thanks. I was hoping that there would be some community email list that everyone was already signed up on. Maybe if not at the wiki system level, then at the OpenOffice.org level? If there is a master announce list that everyone is already on, then we'd be golden. (Some) developers for some arcane reason seem to like DLs. AFAIK, others and the majority of users hate them and regard them as spam, preferring less invasive pull technologies such as forums and subscription services such as gmane. For example, I routinely work 6 forums and 4 wikis, plus a dozen gname lists. This is the only SMTP DL that I am on. Announce Lists just don't work in this end-user world.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Terry Ellison wrote: > On 03/08/11 15:14, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> A specific question then that should not require diverting your >> current efforts. Is there a announcement list or some other mechanism >> to send an email to every registered wiki user? > > At a technical level, it's simple to run a query dumping all of the mail > addresses of contributors to the wiki. I've just done a few on my local VM > which has a snapshot of the prod wiki as at Thursday/Fri night IIRC. > > * There are 34,969 registered users. Of which > * 3,675 have made contributions. There is no need to contact those > who haven't > * 3,623 have registered email addresses and have made 182,677 > contributions > * 52 have no registered email addresses and have made 153 > contributions (prob dating back to the early days when email > registration and confirmation wasn't mandatory > > It is trivial to dump this list of user / email addr / post count. > > However giving this to Apache and the project making use of it is a more > complex issue. The server is current located in Oracle's Hamburg facility > under German / EU legislation. We have data protection legislation and > Anti-Spam guidelines / legislation to bear in mind here. Moving email > addresses across national and organisational boundary might trigger these. > Also one can't send out mailshot emails in the EU unless the recipients > have first agreed in principle to accept these. > > What I can do is to provide this data to Andrew via the internal Oracle > email, and let him figure out the legal / compliance issues and terms of use > before him making it available to the project. Not my call. > Good enough. Thanks. I was hoping that there would be some community email list that everyone was already signed up on. Maybe if not at the wiki system level, then at the OpenOffice.org level? If there is a master announce list that everyone is already on, then we'd be golden. > Terry > >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On 03/08/11 15:14, Rob Weir wrote: A specific question then that should not require diverting your current efforts. Is there a announcement list or some other mechanism to send an email to every registered wiki user? At a technical level, it's simple to run a query dumping all of the mail addresses of contributors to the wiki. I've just done a few on my local VM which has a snapshot of the prod wiki as at Thursday/Fri night IIRC. * There are 34,969 registered users. Of which * 3,675 have made contributions. There is no need to contact those who haven't * 3,623 have registered email addresses and have made 182,677 contributions * 52 have no registered email addresses and have made 153 contributions (prob dating back to the early days when email registration and confirmation wasn't mandatory It is trivial to dump this list of user / email addr / post count. However giving this to Apache and the project making use of it is a more complex issue. The server is current located in Oracle's Hamburg facility under German / EU legislation. We have data protection legislation and Anti-Spam guidelines / legislation to bear in mind here. Moving email addresses across national and organisational boundary might trigger these. Also one can't send out mailshot emails in the EU unless the recipients have first agreed in principle to accept these. What I can do is to provide this data to Andrew via the internal Oracle email, and let him figure out the legal / compliance issues and terms of use before him making it available to the project. Not my call. Terry
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: > On 3 August 2011 15:10, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Andre Schnabel >> wrote: >> > Hi Rob, >> > >> >> Von: Rob Weir >> > >> >> > >> >> > I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and >> >> speculation >> >> > :-) >> >> >> >> And neither is the same as facts. I'm concerned when I hear >> >> paternalistic statements of "our contributors will never post patches" >> >> or "They would never ever sign the iCLA", or "If we don't let them >> >> contribute anonymously with 1-character passwords and fake names under >> >> an eclectic license of their choice then they will kill themselves". >> > >> > Well maybe - just maybe - you may consider that the people who try to >> give >> > you some advice have been dealing with exactly those type of contributors >> > for the last couple of years, while IBM (according to your own words >> > was not the best citizen in the Ooo community ecosystem). >> > >> >> I do consider that. I'm sure their views are honestly held. I'm not >> ignoring them. But there is a huge difference between an opinion on >> what you personally would prefer or do versus an opinion on what you >> think thousands of others would prefer or do. I can accept the former >> while giving much less weight to the latter. I see no reason to accept >> as the gospel truth the views of 3 people claiming to speak for >> thousands when we have the easy ability to reach out to the thousands >> directly. >> >> > Btw. I have mot seen anybody stating such statements as you quote. The >> only >> > thing i saw was people pointing to risks. You may ignore a certain amount >> > of risks, but finally these sum up. >> > >> >> There are risk either way. For example, the risk of having a wiki >> containing product documentation that no one can copy or modify >> because it is not under a proper license. >> >> > You need not care about me (I'm not an apache committer) but it's sad >> that >> > you even try to ignore those people who are strongly committed to OOo at >> > apache. >> > >> >> Generally, it is in bad form to start every conversation with a >> statement along the lines of, "You probably will ignore me" or "You >> may not care what I say" or "You'll probably will think this is a bad >> idea", etc. Have enough respect for your own ideas that you think >> they are worthy of serious consideration. And have enough respect for >> others on the list that you assume that they will consider your >> thoughts serious. It poisons the conversation from the start when you >> start in a defensive tone. >> > > To be fair, an overly aggressive tone can do just as much poisoning as a > defensive one. I think it is also worth bearing in mind that a lot of people > here are not native English speakers and so it is easy to read things into > posts that were either not intended or were a subset of the entire situation > simply because it just takes too long to type reams in a foreign language > explaining every aspect of everything. Apart from the language issue, what > is considered bad form varies with culture so we should be wary of brute > logic from our own perspective as a tool for progress. We have to work > together and respect other people's position especially when most are doing > this for love rather than for money. It's not like in a company where you > can sack and replace people. We have lost good people in the past because > that wasn't understood and it's easier to keep people and their knowledge > resource than replace and retrain them. > Some good points. Maybe we want to start (or steal) an FAQ on similar "netiquette" points? It might fit in the "Community FAQ's" section. > Regards, >> >> -Rob >> >> > >> > regards, >> > >> > André >> > >> > PS: again a scnr: >> > http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d3df553ef01538f1979c0970b-pi >> > >> > >> > -- > Ian > > Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) > > www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 > > The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, > Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and > Wales. >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Andre Schnabel wrote: > Hi, > >> Von: Rob Weir > >> > >> > There is no need to try to find something in my mails what I didn't >> actually write. >> > >> >> Andre, perhaps you forgot, but you did speculate on this earlier in >> the thread, when you wrote: > > Oh, sorry, but I did not see this as speculation ... > >> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Andre Schnabel >> wrote: >> >> Von: Rob Weir >> >> >> >> And I'm not seeing a lot of activity at the OpenOffice.org wiki either: >> >> >> >> >> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500 >> >> >> >> What does that prove? >> > >> > >> > that OpenOffice.org is a project with (still) a strong name but without >> > community contributions? > > If there are no contributions, then there are no contributions. Plain simple > logic to me. > > But ok, your's might be different. > > Still speculation. The alternative speculation (or theory, or hypothesis, or informed speculation or hypothesis with a cherry on top) is that there are thousands of contributors, out there, but they have nothing to work on right now, since they typically are more engaged at certain points of the product release cycle. Personally, I think extrapolations from the past are almost worthless at this point. We have ODFAuthors,org now. We have LibreOffice. We have less investment from Oracle. We have more investment from IBM. OpenOffice has moved to Apache. And we have interest from new contributors who were not involved in OOo previously. We can't just assume that the sun rises the next day, the rooster crows (or is it the other way around?) and everything is exactly the same it was before. There will be changes and not all of the changes will be ones that we control. But we will not succeed if we just go on auto-pilot and pretend that it is 2008. I don't have all the answers. Far from it. But I hope I have some of the questions. > André >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On 3 August 2011 15:10, Rob Weir wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Andre Schnabel > wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > >> Von: Rob Weir > > > >> > > >> > I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and > >> speculation > >> > :-) > >> > >> And neither is the same as facts. I'm concerned when I hear > >> paternalistic statements of "our contributors will never post patches" > >> or "They would never ever sign the iCLA", or "If we don't let them > >> contribute anonymously with 1-character passwords and fake names under > >> an eclectic license of their choice then they will kill themselves". > > > > Well maybe - just maybe - you may consider that the people who try to > give > > you some advice have been dealing with exactly those type of contributors > > for the last couple of years, while IBM (according to your own words > > was not the best citizen in the Ooo community ecosystem). > > > > I do consider that. I'm sure their views are honestly held. I'm not > ignoring them. But there is a huge difference between an opinion on > what you personally would prefer or do versus an opinion on what you > think thousands of others would prefer or do. I can accept the former > while giving much less weight to the latter. I see no reason to accept > as the gospel truth the views of 3 people claiming to speak for > thousands when we have the easy ability to reach out to the thousands > directly. > > > Btw. I have mot seen anybody stating such statements as you quote. The > only > > thing i saw was people pointing to risks. You may ignore a certain amount > > of risks, but finally these sum up. > > > > There are risk either way. For example, the risk of having a wiki > containing product documentation that no one can copy or modify > because it is not under a proper license. > > > You need not care about me (I'm not an apache committer) but it's sad > that > > you even try to ignore those people who are strongly committed to OOo at > > apache. > > > > Generally, it is in bad form to start every conversation with a > statement along the lines of, "You probably will ignore me" or "You > may not care what I say" or "You'll probably will think this is a bad > idea", etc. Have enough respect for your own ideas that you think > they are worthy of serious consideration. And have enough respect for > others on the list that you assume that they will consider your > thoughts serious. It poisons the conversation from the start when you > start in a defensive tone. > To be fair, an overly aggressive tone can do just as much poisoning as a defensive one. I think it is also worth bearing in mind that a lot of people here are not native English speakers and so it is easy to read things into posts that were either not intended or were a subset of the entire situation simply because it just takes too long to type reams in a foreign language explaining every aspect of everything. Apart from the language issue, what is considered bad form varies with culture so we should be wary of brute logic from our own perspective as a tool for progress. We have to work together and respect other people's position especially when most are doing this for love rather than for money. It's not like in a company where you can sack and replace people. We have lost good people in the past because that wasn't understood and it's easier to keep people and their knowledge resource than replace and retrain them. Regards, > > -Rob > > > > > regards, > > > > André > > > > PS: again a scnr: > > http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d3df553ef01538f1979c0970b-pi > > > > > -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Terry Ellison wrote: > > Rob, a nice polemic but why is it relevant to a point about /usage patterns/ > on the wiki. I am already working 12+ hours a day on migration this /pro > bono/, not salaried by some company to do my job. If you want hard data to > inform the decision making process, then ranting at people working to their > limit really doesn't help. Perhaps you can get an account on the prod wiki > and do the analysis yourself. Regards Terry > A specific question then that should not require diverting your current efforts. Is there a announcement list or some other mechanism to send an email to every registered wiki user? I don't want to take time away from your higher priority migration work, but if some such facility were available, we could work (on this list) on a note that we could send later, to notify all users of the migration, explain some relevant aspects of the new Apache project, and invite them to join us. Regards, -Rob
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Andre Schnabel wrote: > Hi Rob, > >> Von: Rob Weir > >> > >> > I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and >> speculation >> > :-) >> >> And neither is the same as facts. I'm concerned when I hear >> paternalistic statements of "our contributors will never post patches" >> or "They would never ever sign the iCLA", or "If we don't let them >> contribute anonymously with 1-character passwords and fake names under >> an eclectic license of their choice then they will kill themselves". > > Well maybe - just maybe - you may consider that the people who try to give > you some advice have been dealing with exactly those type of contributors > for the last couple of years, while IBM (according to your own words > was not the best citizen in the Ooo community ecosystem). > I do consider that. I'm sure their views are honestly held. I'm not ignoring them. But there is a huge difference between an opinion on what you personally would prefer or do versus an opinion on what you think thousands of others would prefer or do. I can accept the former while giving much less weight to the latter. I see no reason to accept as the gospel truth the views of 3 people claiming to speak for thousands when we have the easy ability to reach out to the thousands directly. > Btw. I have mot seen anybody stating such statements as you quote. The only > thing i saw was people pointing to risks. You may ignore a certain amount > of risks, but finally these sum up. > There are risk either way. For example, the risk of having a wiki containing product documentation that no one can copy or modify because it is not under a proper license. > You need not care about me (I'm not an apache committer) but it's sad that > you even try to ignore those people who are strongly committed to OOo at > apache. > Generally, it is in bad form to start every conversation with a statement along the lines of, "You probably will ignore me" or "You may not care what I say" or "You'll probably will think this is a bad idea", etc. Have enough respect for your own ideas that you think they are worthy of serious consideration. And have enough respect for others on the list that you assume that they will consider your thoughts serious. It poisons the conversation from the start when you start in a defensive tone. Regards, -Rob > > regards, > > André > > PS: again a scnr: > http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d3df553ef01538f1979c0970b-pi > >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Hi, > Von: Rob Weir > > > > There is no need to try to find something in my mails what I didn't > actually write. > > > > Andre, perhaps you forgot, but you did speculate on this earlier in > the thread, when you wrote: Oh, sorry, but I did not see this as speculation ... > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Andre Schnabel > wrote: > >> Von: Rob Weir > >> > >> And I'm not seeing a lot of activity at the OpenOffice.org wiki either: > >> > >> > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500 > >> > >> What does that prove? > > > > > > that OpenOffice.org is a project with (still) a strong name but without > > community contributions? If there are no contributions, then there are no contributions. Plain simple logic to me. But ok, your's might be different. André
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On 3 August 2011 14:45, Andre Schnabel wrote: > Hi Rob, > > > Von: Rob Weir > > > > > Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the > > same as introducing facts. > > I did not do any speculation in my mail, the only thing I did was > to quote (again) Manfred's questions (that you did not see before). > > A simple: > - no I did not poke the data from a year ago > and > - no I will not speculations why access to OOo wiki is increasing or > decreasing > > would have been sufficient answers. > > > There is no need to try to find something in my mails what I didn't > actually write. > > regards, > > André > By informed hypothesis I meant TerryE's "Once you've got to grips with OOo and have been through a release cycle then you will come to understand the basic rhythm of update activity. Whilst scoping the content of a new version and the dev releases there is an upturn in R/W activity as members reflect this in the wiki and use the wiki to collaborate on ideas. Following the release, there is a hump in end-user demand both to learn about new features or because this has triggered rework of macros, etc. A good way to kill the update rates and drop the read rates is to stall the upgrade cycle as happened back in April. This is the main cause of the read and update trends that we are discussing. " Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick, if so, sorry. I'll go back to what I think I can do to have the biggest effect on OOo take up. (My own informed opinion, or perhaps speculation ;-) ) -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On 03/08/11 14:38, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: On 3 August 2011 14:14, Rob Weir wrote: Ah. OK. He was asking for speculation on why the traffic is less now than a year ago. Impossible to say, since I can't find any data on what the traffic actually was a year ago. One way to back speculation with facts would be to get a log of edits from last year, gather the editors who were most active then, and contact them with a set of survey questions. Rob, I think that I covered this point to some degree in an earlier post today :-) //Terry Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the same as introducing facts. -Rob I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and speculation :-) Thanks, I have been monitoring the wiki from the system side since early 2010, and the forums for over 5 years. So I do have relevant /experience/ of usage patterns. Unfortunately, I just don't have the time to do the quantitative analysis because of my other workload. And neither is the same as facts. I'm concerned when I hear paternalistic statements of "our contributors will never post patches" or "They would never ever sign the iCLA", or "If we don't let them contribute anonymously with 1-character passwords and fake names under an eclectic license of their choice then they will kill themselves". Have we asked them? Are we really certain that all 35,000 registered wiki users are incapable or unwilling to sign a piece of paper and mail it to Apache? Have we had this conversation with them? Have we even brought it up? Have we explained the workings of Apache projects to them and how the meritocracy works? Have we even sent all registered wiki users a note, telling them that we're moving to Apache and inviting them to join us? Have we proposed the idea of the iCLA to them and explained the benefits to them, how it would ensure the license to their contributions was clear and ensures that their contributions could then be reused by others? I really expect more, much more, from our PPMC members, in terms of community outreach and community development. These are important goals for the project. This is not achieved by having 2 or 3 people claiming to speak for the opinions of thousands. It is done by reaching out to those thousands and showing them the benefits of working at Apache, and inviting them to join us here. Rob, a nice polemic but why is it relevant to a point about /usage patterns/ on the wiki. I am already working 12+ hours a day on migration this /pro bono/, not salaried by some company to do my job. If you want hard data to inform the decision making process, then ranting at people working to their limit really doesn't help. Perhaps you can get an account on the prod wiki and do the analysis yourself. Regards Terry
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Hi Rob, > Von: Rob Weir > > > > I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and > speculation > > :-) > > And neither is the same as facts. I'm concerned when I hear > paternalistic statements of "our contributors will never post patches" > or "They would never ever sign the iCLA", or "If we don't let them > contribute anonymously with 1-character passwords and fake names under > an eclectic license of their choice then they will kill themselves". Well maybe - just maybe - you may consider that the people who try to give you some advice have been dealing with exactly those type of contributors for the last couple of years, while IBM (according to your own words was not the best citizen in the Ooo community ecosystem). Btw. I have mot seen anybody stating such statements as you quote. The only thing i saw was people pointing to risks. You may ignore a certain amount of risks, but finally these sum up. You need not care about me (I'm not an apache committer) but it's sad that you even try to ignore those people who are strongly committed to OOo at apache. regards, André PS: again a scnr: http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d3df553ef01538f1979c0970b-pi
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Andre Schnabel wrote: > Hi Rob, > >> Von: Rob Weir > >> >> Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the >> same as introducing facts. > > I did not do any speculation in my mail, the only thing I did was > to quote (again) Manfred's questions (that you did not see before). > > A simple: > - no I did not poke the data from a year ago > and > - no I will not speculations why access to OOo wiki is increasing or > decreasing > > would have been sufficient answers. > > > There is no need to try to find something in my mails what I didn't actually > write. > Andre, perhaps you forgot, but you did speculate on this earlier in the thread, when you wrote: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Andre Schnabel wrote: > Hi, > > Original-Nachricht >> Von: Rob Weir > >> > We already have two separate wikis, one that the community uses and one >> that requires committers to make the changes. I notice the second one is >> not getting much activity. >> > >> >> And I'm not seeing a lot of activity at the OpenOffice.org wiki either: >> >> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500 >> >> What does that prove? > > > that OpenOffice.org is a project with (still) a strong name but without > community contributions? > > scnr > > André > > regards, > > André > > >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Hi Rob, > Von: Rob Weir > > Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the > same as introducing facts. I did not do any speculation in my mail, the only thing I did was to quote (again) Manfred's questions (that you did not see before). A simple: - no I did not poke the data from a year ago and - no I will not speculations why access to OOo wiki is increasing or decreasing would have been sufficient answers. There is no need to try to find something in my mails what I didn't actually write. regards, André
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: > On 3 August 2011 14:14, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:02 AM, TerryE wrote: >> > On 03/08/11 13:57, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Andre Schnabel >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Rob, >> >>> >> >>> Original-Nachricht >> >> Von: Rob Weir >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter> > >> wrote: >> > >> > 2011/8/3 Rob Weir >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter< >> ma.rei...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> 2011/8/2 Rob Weir >> >>> >> >>> >> >> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been >> >> active >> >> in the past 7 days. >> >> >>> did you poked around 1 year ago as well? >> >>> do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down? >> >>> >> >>> ... >> > >> > 2. May be, my english is not good enough to understand, wheather your >> > your response answers my questions. >> > >> If you have an unanswered question, please restate it, >> >>> >> >>> It's still in the quoted mail. >> >>> >> perhaps >> rephrase if you think it was originally misunderstood. >> >>> >> >>> Afaics there is nothing to be misunderstood in the (two) question(s). >> >>> >> >> Ah. OK. He was asking for speculation on why the traffic is less now >> >> than a year ago. Impossible to say, since I can't find any data on >> >> what the traffic actually was a year ago. One way to back speculation >> >> with facts would be to get a log of edits from last year, gather the >> >> editors who were most active then, and contact them with a set of >> >> survey questions. >> >> >> > Rob, I think that I covered this point to some degree in an earlier post >> > today :-) //Terry >> > >> >> Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the >> same as introducing facts. >> >> -Rob >> >> > >> > > I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and speculation > :-) And neither is the same as facts. I'm concerned when I hear paternalistic statements of "our contributors will never post patches" or "They would never ever sign the iCLA", or "If we don't let them contribute anonymously with 1-character passwords and fake names under an eclectic license of their choice then they will kill themselves". Have we asked them? Are we really certain that all 35,000 registered wiki users are incapable or unwilling to sign a piece of paper and mail it to Apache? Have we had this conversation with them? Have we even brought it up? Have we explained the workings of Apache projects to them and how the meritocracy works? Have we even sent all registered wiki users a note, telling them that we're moving to Apache and inviting them to join us? Have we proposed the idea of the iCLA to them and explained the benefits to them, how it would ensure the license to their contributions was clear and ensures that their contributions could then be reused by others? I really expect more, much more, from our PPMC members, in terms of community outreach and community development. These are important goals for the project. This is not achieved by having 2 or 3 people claiming to speak for the opinions of thousands. It is done by reaching out to those thousands and showing them the benefits of working at Apache, and inviting them to join us here. -Rob > > -- > Ian > > Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) > > www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 > > The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, > Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and > Wales. >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On 3 August 2011 14:14, Rob Weir wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:02 AM, TerryE wrote: > > On 03/08/11 13:57, Rob Weir wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Andre Schnabel > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Rob, > >>> > >>> Original-Nachricht > > Von: Rob Weir > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter > > wrote: > > > > 2011/8/3 Rob Weir > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter< > ma.rei...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >>> > >>> 2011/8/2 Rob Weir > >>> > >>> > > Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been > > active > > in the past 7 days. > > >>> did you poked around 1 year ago as well? > >>> do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down? > >>> > >>> ... > > > > 2. May be, my english is not good enough to understand, wheather your > > your response answers my questions. > > > If you have an unanswered question, please restate it, > >>> > >>> It's still in the quoted mail. > >>> > perhaps > rephrase if you think it was originally misunderstood. > >>> > >>> Afaics there is nothing to be misunderstood in the (two) question(s). > >>> > >> Ah. OK. He was asking for speculation on why the traffic is less now > >> than a year ago. Impossible to say, since I can't find any data on > >> what the traffic actually was a year ago. One way to back speculation > >> with facts would be to get a log of edits from last year, gather the > >> editors who were most active then, and contact them with a set of > >> survey questions. > >> > > Rob, I think that I covered this point to some degree in an earlier post > > today :-) //Terry > > > > Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the > same as introducing facts. > > -Rob > > > > I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and speculation :-) -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:02 AM, TerryE wrote: > On 03/08/11 13:57, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Andre Schnabel >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Rob, >>> >>> Original-Nachricht Von: Rob Weir On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote: > > 2011/8/3 Rob Weir >> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote: >>> >>> 2011/8/2 Rob Weir >>> >>> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active in the past 7 days. >>> did you poked around 1 year ago as well? >>> do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down? >>> >>> ... > > 2. May be, my english is not good enough to understand, wheather your > your response answers my questions. > If you have an unanswered question, please restate it, >>> >>> It's still in the quoted mail. >>> perhaps rephrase if you think it was originally misunderstood. >>> >>> Afaics there is nothing to be misunderstood in the (two) question(s). >>> >> Ah. OK. He was asking for speculation on why the traffic is less now >> than a year ago. Impossible to say, since I can't find any data on >> what the traffic actually was a year ago. One way to back speculation >> with facts would be to get a log of edits from last year, gather the >> editors who were most active then, and contact them with a set of >> survey questions. >> > Rob, I think that I covered this point to some degree in an earlier post > today :-) //Terry > Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the same as introducing facts. -Rob >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On 03/08/11 13:57, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Andre Schnabel wrote: Hi Rob, Original-Nachricht Von: Rob Weir On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote: 2011/8/3 Rob Weir On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote: 2011/8/2 Rob Weir Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active in the past 7 days. did you poked around 1 year ago as well? do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down? ... 2. May be, my english is not good enough to understand, wheather your your response answers my questions. If you have an unanswered question, please restate it, It's still in the quoted mail. perhaps rephrase if you think it was originally misunderstood. Afaics there is nothing to be misunderstood in the (two) question(s). Ah. OK. He was asking for speculation on why the traffic is less now than a year ago. Impossible to say, since I can't find any data on what the traffic actually was a year ago. One way to back speculation with facts would be to get a log of edits from last year, gather the editors who were most active then, and contact them with a set of survey questions. Rob, I think that I covered this point to some degree in an earlier post today :-) //Terry
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Am 03.08.11 13:58, schrieb Andre Schnabel: Hi Rob, Original-Nachricht Von: Rob Weir On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote: 2011/8/3 Rob Weir On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote: 2011/8/2 Rob Weir Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active in the past 7 days. did you poked around 1 year ago as well? Yes I think it's not a good choice to map only the last five days. So this will realy not tell the true. do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down? Because atm is not a load to do at documentation and because we are in a new start situation? -- My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Andre Schnabel wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Original-Nachricht >> Von: Rob Weir >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter >> wrote: >> > 2011/8/3 Rob Weir >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter >> wrote: >> >> > 2011/8/2 Rob Weir > >> >> >> >> >> >> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been >> active >> >> >> in the past 7 days. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > did you poked around 1 year ago as well? >> >> > do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down? >> >> > > ... >> > >> > 2. May be, my english is not good enough to understand, wheather your >> > your response answers my questions. >> > >> >> If you have an unanswered question, please restate it, > > > It's still in the quoted mail. > >> perhaps >> rephrase if you think it was originally misunderstood. > > Afaics there is nothing to be misunderstood in the (two) question(s). > Ah. OK. He was asking for speculation on why the traffic is less now than a year ago. Impossible to say, since I can't find any data on what the traffic actually was a year ago. One way to back speculation with facts would be to get a log of edits from last year, gather the editors who were most active then, and contact them with a set of survey questions. > André >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Hi Rob, Original-Nachricht > Von: Rob Weir > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter > wrote: > > 2011/8/3 Rob Weir > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter > wrote: > >> > 2011/8/2 Rob Weir > >> >> > >> >> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been > active > >> >> in the past 7 days. > >> >> > >> > > >> > did you poked around 1 year ago as well? > >> > do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down? > >> > ... > > > > 2. May be, my english is not good enough to understand, wheather your > > your response answers my questions. > > > > If you have an unanswered question, please restate it, It's still in the quoted mail. > perhaps > rephrase if you think it was originally misunderstood. Afaics there is nothing to be misunderstood in the (two) question(s). André
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote: > 2011/8/3 Rob Weir >> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter >> wrote: >> > 2011/8/2 Rob Weir >> > >> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andy Brown >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> >> I poked around and found this page: >> >> >> >> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics >> >> >> >> This lists some additional roles (with counts) >> >> >> >> Administrators (26) >> >> Bureaucrats (4) >> >> Editors (20) >> >> Reviewers (5) >> >> >> >> Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts. >> >> >> >> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active >> >> in the past 7 days. >> >> >> > >> > did you poked around 1 year ago as well? >> > do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down? >> > >> > with the statistic above you don't increase the credibility ... >> > >> > or >> > >> > http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/Veroeffentl/Monatshefte/essay.asp?xYear=2004&xMonth=11&eNr=11 >> > > > 1. did you read the first sentence in the link above? > more or less - Churchill: "I only belive in statistics, which I have > mainpulated myself." > or "the only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself" > But as Mark Twain once wrote, "Responding to data with clever quotes is not so valuable as responding to data with better data". > >> One of the biggest mistakes I made when I moved into my house was to ... > ... [fairy-tail deleted] > >> >> With the wiki, if we really want to allow anyone to have write access >> to it, then we really need to be committed to fight the weeds, which >> in the case of wikis would be spam, low quality content, edit wars, >> etc. If we can re-establish the community participation level the way >> it was a year ago, then great. It would have a chance of success. >> But right now I see almost no activity on the wiki. 35,000 user >> accounts, but no users. If this doesn't change, the weeds will surely >> win. >> > > 2. May be, my english is not good enough to understand, wheather your > your response answers my questions. > If you have an unanswered question, please restate it, perhaps rephrase if you think it was originally misunderstood. Regards, -Rob > M. >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On 03/08/11 03:05, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, TerryE wrote: On 02/08/11 23:28, Rob Weir wrote: ... But right now I see almost no activity on the wiki ... ... We've discussed the update access reasons and issues previously. As you can see from the Apache logs, the read volumes are still pretty high though they have fallen off by almost a factor of two since the Apache announcement ... ... Read volumes are pretty much irrelevant when discussing a policy for editing. Or are you suggesting that this is related to caching policy? If so, that is a reasonable point. With only 5 people editing, with a very low rate of changes, and many people reading, caching should be very effective, at least on the most frequently-read pages. Rob, my point was that updates are only one measure of "activity on the wiki". It's there to used and so read rates can't be ignored. Once you've got to grips with OOo and have been through a release cycle then you will come to understand the basic rhythm of update activity. Whilst scoping the content of a new version and the dev releases there is an upturn in R/W activity as members reflect this in the wiki and use the wiki to collaborate on ideas.. Following the release, there is a hump in end-user demand both to learn about new features or because this has triggered rework of macros, etc. A good way to kill the update rates and drop the read rates is to stall the upgrade cycle as happened back in April. This is the main cause of the read and update trends that we are discussing. //Terry
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On 8/2/2011 16:38, Rob Weir wrote: [snip] I poked around and found this page: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics This lists some additional roles (with counts) Administrators (26) Bureaucrats (4) Editors (20) Reviewers (5) Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts. Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active in the past 7 days. How we authorize people for these roles and what qualifications are required for these roles is an important question. There are a similar set of questions we should ask about the support forums, what the roles are and how PPMC oversight maps to them. -Rob Just a sidebar: one of those five active users is pure wiki gold. A previously inactive user, the kind who doesn't bother to create a User page, has added some valuable details to the Writer manual, in the section on footnotes and end-notes. The contribution needs a little light copy-editing, and is incomplete; but for the moment, the wiki version of the manual is more helpful and up-to-date than the production versions (ODT or PDF), though admittedly neither as elegant nor as controlled. -- /tj/
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
2011/8/3 Rob Weir > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote: > > 2011/8/2 Rob Weir > > > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andy Brown > >> wrote: > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> I poked around and found this page: > >> > >> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics > >> > >> This lists some additional roles (with counts) > >> > >> Administrators (26) > >> Bureaucrats (4) > >> Editors (20) > >> Reviewers (5) > >> > >> Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts. > >> > >> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active > >> in the past 7 days. > >> > > > > did you poked around 1 year ago as well? > > do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down? > > > > with the statistic above you don't increase the credibility ... > > > > or > > > > http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/Veroeffentl/Monatshefte/essay.asp?xYear=2004&xMonth=11&eNr=11 > > 1. did you read the first sentence in the link above? more or less - Churchill: "I only belive in statistics, which I have mainpulated myself." or "the only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself" > One of the biggest mistakes I made when I moved into my house was to ... ... [fairy-tail deleted] > > With the wiki, if we really want to allow anyone to have write access > to it, then we really need to be committed to fight the weeds, which > in the case of wikis would be spam, low quality content, edit wars, > etc. If we can re-establish the community participation level the way > it was a year ago, then great. It would have a chance of success. > But right now I see almost no activity on the wiki. 35,000 user > accounts, but no users. If this doesn't change, the weeds will surely > win. > 2. May be, my english is not good enough to understand, wheather your your response answers my questions. M.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, TerryE wrote: > On 02/08/11 23:28, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> With the wiki, if we really want to allow anyone to have write access >> to it, then we really need to be committed to fight the weeds, which >> in the case of wikis would be spam, low quality content, edit wars, >> etc. If we can re-establish the community participation level the way >> it was a year ago, then great. It would have a chance of success. >> But right now I see almost no activity on the wiki. 35,000 user >> accounts, but no users. If this doesn't change, the weeds will surely >> win. > > [terrye@doc logs]$ ls -hl > > total 112635922 > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Jan 12 2011 access.20110106.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.2G Jan 19 2011 access.20110113.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.2G Jan 26 2011 access.20110120.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.2G Feb 2 2011 access.20110127.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.2G Feb 9 23:59 access.20110203.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Feb 16 23:59 access.20110210.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Feb 23 23:59 access.20110217.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Mar 2 23:59 access.20110224.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Mar 9 23:59 access.20110303.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.0G Mar 16 23:59 access.20110310.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.0G Mar 23 23:59 access.20110317.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.0G Mar 30 23:59 access.20110324.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.9G Apr 6 23:59 access.20110331.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.9G Apr 13 23:59 access.20110407.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.8G Apr 20 23:59 access.20110414.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.6G Apr 27 23:59 access.20110421.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.8G May 4 23:59 access.20110428.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.8G May 11 23:59 access.20110505.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.7G May 18 23:59 access.20110512.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.6G May 25 23:59 access.20110519.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.6G Jun 1 23:59 access.20110526.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.5G Jun 8 23:59 access.20110602.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.5G Jun 15 23:59 access.20110609.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.6G Jun 22 23:59 access.20110616.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.4G Jun 29 23:59 access.20110623.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.3G Jul 6 23:59 access.20110630.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.4G Jul 13 23:59 access.20110707.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.3G Jul 20 23:59 access.20110714.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.4G Jul 27 23:59 access.20110721.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.1G Aug 3 03:14 access.20110728.log > > We've discussed the update access reasons and issues previously. As you > can see from the Apache logs, the read volumes are still pretty high though > they have fallen off by almost a factor of two since the Apache > announcement. Sorry, but I can't give you proper transaction volumes. > Clayton had o:rw access, not me. > No need to apologize. Read volumes are pretty much irrelevant when discussing a policy for editing. Or are you suggesting that this is related to caching policy? If so, that is a reasonable point. With only 5 people editing, with a very low rate of changes, and many people reading, caching should be very effective, at least on the most frequently-read pages. > Terry >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 15:39 +0100, Terry Ellison wrote: > Rob, > > I think that you've missed my point. The guy didn't THREATEN to leave. > He HAS left. I doubt we will get him back. My strong reaction was > because of that entirely avoidable loss of 5+ man-years of project > expertise that we will be pressed to recover for the sake on an > ill-considered shout-down. Terry, you may have private info from Clayton that I don't have, but my understanding from conversations with him is that he never had any intention of remaining with the Apache OOo project beyond helping a bit with the handover process. In fact, I'm fairly sure he said this in a note to this list some weeks ago, but I haven't the energy to try to track it down in the archives. --Jean
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Rob, Is there any easy way to get a list of active users for the wiki, year-to-date for 2011, maybe sorted by number of edits? That would be great to know, a list of people we can reach out to and invite to participate again in the new project and new wiki, if they are not already here. Possible? -- Yes. Can we resource it now? -- No not now, AFAIK. Sorry. //Terry
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On 02/08/11 23:28, Rob Weir wrote: With the wiki, if we really want to allow anyone to have write access to it, then we really need to be committed to fight the weeds, which in the case of wikis would be spam, low quality content, edit wars, etc. If we can re-establish the community participation level the way it was a year ago, then great. It would have a chance of success. But right now I see almost no activity on the wiki. 35,000 user accounts, but no users. If this doesn't change, the weeds will surely win. [terrye@doc logs]$ ls -hl total 112635922 -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd2.1G Jan 12 2011 access.20110106.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd2.2G Jan 19 2011 access.20110113.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd2.2G Jan 26 2011 access.20110120.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd2.2G Feb 2 2011 access.20110127.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd2.2G Feb 9 23:59 access.20110203.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd2.1G Feb 16 23:59 access.20110210.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd2.1G Feb 23 23:59 access.20110217.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd2.1G Mar 2 23:59 access.20110224.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd2.1G Mar 9 23:59 access.20110303.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd2.0G Mar 16 23:59 access.20110310.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd2.0G Mar 23 23:59 access.20110317.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd2.0G Mar 30 23:59 access.20110324.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.9G Apr 6 23:59 access.20110331.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.9G Apr 13 23:59 access.20110407.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.8G Apr 20 23:59 access.20110414.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.6G Apr 27 23:59 access.20110421.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.8G May 4 23:59 access.20110428.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.8G May 11 23:59 access.20110505.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.7G May 18 23:59 access.20110512.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.6G May 25 23:59 access.20110519.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.6G Jun 1 23:59 access.20110526.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.5G Jun 8 23:59 access.20110602.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.5G Jun 15 23:59 access.20110609.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.6G Jun 22 23:59 access.20110616.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.4G Jun 29 23:59 access.20110623.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.3G Jul 6 23:59 access.20110630.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.4G Jul 13 23:59 access.20110707.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.3G Jul 20 23:59 access.20110714.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.4G Jul 27 23:59 access.20110721.log -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd1.1G Aug 3 03:14 access.20110728.log We've discussed the update access reasons and issues previously. As you can see from the Apache logs, the read volumes are still pretty high though they have fallen off by almost a factor of two since the Apache announcement. Sorry, but I can't give you proper transaction volumes. Clayton had o:rw access, not me. Terry
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote: > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 19:12 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > >> The essential question to ask is, what rights do users of the doc >> have? If we want downstream consumers to be able to copy, modify and >> redistribute the documentation then we need it under Apache 2.0, which >> is what would happen if the author signed the iCLA. > > The user guides are under CC-BY license. Your hypothetical case could > reuse them just as they could reuse material under the Apache license. > All content contributed directly to the project is done in Apache 2.0. But there is some allowance for using 3rd party components that have a compatible license. A list of compatible licenses currently recognized are listed here: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a As you can see, CC-BY 2.5 is included in that list. So I think we're good. -Rob > Yes, I realise you're talking about wiki material in the rest of this > note. > > --Jean > >> >> Project releases, naturally, are all under Apache 2.0 and must >> guarantee these rights. This is true for any doc that is bundled with >> them. >> >> As you know, we don't currently bundle the wiki doc with the releases. >> But should we reserve the right to do this? Let me give you a very >> plausible use case for that: >> >> Imagine a school or government department, or a company, that wants to >> deploy OpenOffice in their organization, but also wants to host their >> own copy of the wiki documentation, inside their firewall, perhaps >> with some customized material. This could range from adding >> additional links to internal template servers, to removing irrelevant >> information, to adding documentation regarding internal-only plugins. >> It could be complete, or only for some small number of pages. >> >> Is something like that a reasonable use? Something that we should >> "reserve the right" to support? I think so. If we ever wanted to >> support something like this, then we would need the wiki (or at least >> the core doc parts of the wiki) be under a common permissive license. > > > >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 19:12 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > The essential question to ask is, what rights do users of the doc > have? If we want downstream consumers to be able to copy, modify and > redistribute the documentation then we need it under Apache 2.0, which > is what would happen if the author signed the iCLA. The user guides are under CC-BY license. Your hypothetical case could reuse them just as they could reuse material under the Apache license. Yes, I realise you're talking about wiki material in the rest of this note. --Jean > > Project releases, naturally, are all under Apache 2.0 and must > guarantee these rights. This is true for any doc that is bundled with > them. > > As you know, we don't currently bundle the wiki doc with the releases. > But should we reserve the right to do this? Let me give you a very > plausible use case for that: > > Imagine a school or government department, or a company, that wants to > deploy OpenOffice in their organization, but also wants to host their > own copy of the wiki documentation, inside their firewall, perhaps > with some customized material. This could range from adding > additional links to internal template servers, to removing irrelevant > information, to adding documentation regarding internal-only plugins. > It could be complete, or only for some small number of pages. > > Is something like that a reasonable use? Something that we should > "reserve the right" to support? I think so. If we ever wanted to > support something like this, then we would need the wiki (or at least > the core doc parts of the wiki) be under a common permissive license.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 18:36 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > Also, Jean, I'm glad you are following this thread. I'd love to hear > what you think the relationship between the kind of doc on the wiki > versus what you are doing on ODFAuthors. How do they relate in terms > of topics, content types, etc.? Is there significant overlap? Is > there any way to rationalize this? In the past we put a "wikified" version of the user guides on the wiki, along with the .ODT and .PDF versions, but after 3.2 we stopped doing that as it was too much work for the small number of people involved. The reasons for the wiki version were (a) to offer the user guides in another format, for those who prefer reading online; and (b) to encourage updates from people who might find that faster and easier to do than submitting changes through the ODFAuthors group. As far as I know, very few pages were edited on the wiki, although some valuable comments were left on a few discussion pages, primarily in the more advanced or technical parts of the Calc Guide. In several instances, again mainly with the Calc Guide, there were useful links to other wiki pages with content that we did not attempt to add to the .odt/.pdf versions: mainly the lists of functions that were searchable in various ways on the wiki. Other than that, there is almost no overlap except for some how-tos that I or others extracted from the user guides or wrote as stand-alones and then incorporated into a user guide (perhaps 10 wiki pages at most). BTW, I do not recommend wikifying future releases of the user guides because of the work involved. Making the .odt/.pdf versions downloadable from the wiki is easy and AFAIK works well for all concerned. --Jean
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote: > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 10:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton >> wrote: >> > -1 >> > >> > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a >> > release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the >> > content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the >> > user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list. >> > >> >> That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is >> external to Apache. We're not discussing that right now. What we're >> discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which we >> are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two >> different things. > > *I* was talking about the docs produced by ODFAuthors, in my note quoted > below, and I asked a question that was not answered; the answer was > about the material directly edited on the wiki, not about the material I > asked about. > >From licensing perspective it is the same, whether it is content in wikitext or content in attachments to a wiki page. The thing that would be different would be links to content on external sites. If that is not answering your question, maybe you should restate, with a link to a specific example. -Rob > --Jean > >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com] >> > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04 >> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >> > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was >> > re:OpenOffice.org branding) >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber >> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our >> >>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to >> >>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation. >> >>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause >> >>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right >> >>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to >> >>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a >> >>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it >> >>> is product documentation. >> >> >> >> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the >> >> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user >> >> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download >> >> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this. >> >> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be >> >> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the >> >> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future >> >> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future >> >> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA? >> >> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can >> >> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else? >> >> >> > >> > I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily >> > the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and >> > quality, namely: >> > >> > 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these >> > must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they >> > become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be >> > made under Apache 2.0 license. >> > >> > 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the >> > documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA. >> > >> > 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and >> > tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given >> > change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we >> > can trace to a real email address is fine. >> > >> > With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches >> > (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by >> > a committer, and then checked into the repository. With >> > documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for >> > achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable >> > this. >> > >> > I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki. >> > That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under >> > project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much >> > annoyance to contributors. >> > >> >> --Jean >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 10:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton > wrote: > > -1 > > > > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a > > release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the > > content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the > > user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list. > > > > That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is > external to Apache. We're not discussing that right now. What we're > discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which we > are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two > different things. *I* was talking about the docs produced by ODFAuthors, in my note quoted below, and I asked a question that was not answered; the answer was about the material directly edited on the wiki, not about the material I asked about. --Jean > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04 > > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was > > re:OpenOffice.org branding) > > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber > > wrote: > >> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > >>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our > >>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to > >>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation. > >>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause > >>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right > >>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to > >>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a > >>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it > >>> is product documentation. > >> > >> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the > >> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user > >> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download > >> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this. > >> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be > >> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the > >> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future > >> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future > >> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA? > >> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can > >> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else? > >> > > > > I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily > > the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and > > quality, namely: > > > > 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these > > must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they > > become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be > > made under Apache 2.0 license. > > > > 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the > > documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA. > > > > 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and > > tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given > > change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we > > can trace to a real email address is fine. > > > > With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches > > (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by > > a committer, and then checked into the repository. With > > documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for > > achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable > > this. > > > > I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki. > > That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under > > project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much > > annoyance to contributors. > > > >> --Jean > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 08:03 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber > wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > >> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our > >> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to > >> application developers, that documentation is product documentation. > >> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause > >> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right > >> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to > >> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a > >> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it > >> is product documentation. > > > > Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the > > wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user > > guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download > > from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this. > > They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be > > able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the > > license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future > > updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future > > contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA? > > Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can > > put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else? > > > > I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily > the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and > quality, namely: > > 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these > must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they > become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be > made under Apache 2.0 license. > > 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the > documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA. > > 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and > tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given > change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we > can trace to a real email address is fine. > > With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches > (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by > a committer, and then checked into the repository. With > documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for > achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable > this. > > I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki. > That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under > project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much > annoyance to contributors. As far as I can tell, you are talking about direct edits to the wiki. That is not what I asked about. --Jean
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Andy Brown wrote: Rob Weir wrote: I poked around and found this page: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Good find. This lists some additional roles (with counts) Administrators (26) Bureaucrats (4) Editors (20) Reviewers (5) Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts. Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active in the past 7 days. Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the announcement of transferring to Apache, let a lone in the last week. Shows that someone is still interested. I would like to find out what as edited. How we authorize people for these roles and what qualifications are required for these roles is an important question. There are a similar set of questions we should ask about the support forums, what the roles are and how PPMC oversight maps to them. I would think that the PPMC and Committers would be the logical choice. The administration is still our responsibility. Currently we have members that are listed in admin roles for the wiki and for the forums. A reasonable set of guidelines might be: 0) The permission to set user permissions should be reserved for PPMC-delegates 1) Any permission that allows actions that cannot be logged or cannot easily be undone should be reserved for PPMC-delegates 2) Any permission that allows one user rights over another user (banning, suspending, locking pages, etc.) should be reserved for PPMC-delegates 3) Other permissions can be shared more broadly. The normal case would be to have PPMC delegates be committers. If not now, then they would be obvious candidates for to become committers. Seems good to me. I might suggest #2 that at least two members be required to ban a user, prevents personal issues. Andy
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
This certainly states the Apache position clearly, Eike. Since I already have a CLA in file (it only hurt for a moment) it would be silly for me to argue the case for undocumented contribution any more. The most sensible route, IMO, is to offer a wiki with 3 contributor levels. 1. Registered users who checkbox a creative-commons eula, or Apache license agreement. This gives us the ability to run the wiki, and to edit or delete user content as required. I imagine these users will only be able to comment on articles, and I expect most of them to abstain. 2. People with CLAs on file, who ike to write how-tos and pages. These people will be allowed to edit eachother's contributions. 3. Committers who vet and edit the writings of the #2 committers (and eachother) for possible inclusion in the official documentation. Persons who perceive this as an honour will write in the wiki. Persons what consider this structure to be an enormous pita will probably still write in wikipedia, where the contributors are mostly of type #2. Wolf On Aug 2, 2011 6:47 PM, "Eike Rathke" wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 13:18:37 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > >> > And we should look around at some of the TLP project wikis that allow public contributions. >> >> Pass along some links if you find some good examples. > > I think these explain well what needs to be considered for project > documentation wikis and that it is allowed to use conventional wikis: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CWIKI/Index#Index-Ifweusethewikitomaintainprojectdocumentation%2Carethereanyspecialconsiderations%3F > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CWIKI/Index#Index-Butwhatifwewouldlikethecommunityatlargetohelpmaintainthespace%3F > > | the touch point is whether you want to reserve the right to bundle the > | documentation with a release and/or check a copy into an ASF repository > > > Eike > > -- > PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication. > Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Eike Rathke wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 13:18:37 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > >> > And we should look around at some of the TLP project wikis that allow >> > public contributions. >> >> Pass along some links if you find some good examples. > > I think these explain well what needs to be considered for project > documentation wikis and that it is allowed to use conventional wikis: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CWIKI/Index#Index-Ifweusethewikitomaintainprojectdocumentation%2Carethereanyspecialconsiderations%3F > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CWIKI/Index#Index-Butwhatifwewouldlikethecommunityatlargetohelpmaintainthespace%3F > > | the touch point is whether you want to reserve the right to bundle the > | documentation with a release and/or check a copy into an ASF repository > The essential question to ask is, what rights do users of the doc have? If we want downstream consumers to be able to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation then we need it under Apache 2.0, which is what would happen if the author signed the iCLA. Project releases, naturally, are all under Apache 2.0 and must guarantee these rights. This is true for any doc that is bundled with them. As you know, we don't currently bundle the wiki doc with the releases. But should we reserve the right to do this? Let me give you a very plausible use case for that: Imagine a school or government department, or a company, that wants to deploy OpenOffice in their organization, but also wants to host their own copy of the wiki documentation, inside their firewall, perhaps with some customized material. This could range from adding additional links to internal template servers, to removing irrelevant information, to adding documentation regarding internal-only plugins. It could be complete, or only for some small number of pages. Is something like that a reasonable use? Something that we should "reserve the right" to support? I think so. If we ever wanted to support something like this, then we would need the wiki (or at least the core doc parts of the wiki) be under a common permissive license. -Rob > > Eike > > -- > PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication. > Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Hi Rob, On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 10:52:33 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a > > release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the > > content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the > > user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list. > > > > That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is > external to Apache. We're not discussing that right now. What we're > discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which we > are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two > different things. Actually the OOo 3.2 user guide by the ODFAuthors group was contributed to the wiki as well under a CC-BY license, see for example http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/Getting_Started Later guides for OOo 3.3 and 3.x are available as .odt and .pdf checked in to the wiki, not as wiki pages, see http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation Eike -- PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication. Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD pgpxZCoDeR9dv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
If you go back to the founding of the support forums, you will find there is what amounts to a charter for the support organization. The bureaucrats and a few other roles stemmed from that. We were attempting to create an organization that was more than simply a support website. Being one of the people whose involvement tapered off, I have some empathy for others who got busy with other things. All sites I know of have a certain amount of ebb and flow among the registered members, but even among the registered members, I suspect there was a large number who visited to research a question without stopping to log in. I known I do that. Wolf Tirelessly evading conventionality for 49 years, so you don’t have to. :-) On Aug 2, 2011 6:11 PM, "Manfred A. Reiter" wrote: > 2011/8/2 Rob Weir > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andy Brown >> wrote: >> >> [...] > >> >> I poked around and found this page: >> >> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics >> >> This lists some additional roles (with counts) >> >> Administrators (26) >> Bureaucrats (4) >> Editors (20) >> Reviewers (5) >> >> Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts. >> >> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active >> in the past 7 days. >> > > > did you poked around 1 year ago as well? > do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down? > > with the statistic above you don't increase the credibility ... > > or > > http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/Veroeffentl/Monatshefte/essay.asp?xYear=2004&xMonth=11&eNr=11 > > cheers > > M. > > > M.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Hi Rob, On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 13:18:37 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > > And we should look around at some of the TLP project wikis that allow > > public contributions. > > Pass along some links if you find some good examples. I think these explain well what needs to be considered for project documentation wikis and that it is allowed to use conventional wikis: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CWIKI/Index#Index-Ifweusethewikitomaintainprojectdocumentation%2Carethereanyspecialconsiderations%3F https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CWIKI/Index#Index-Butwhatifwewouldlikethecommunityatlargetohelpmaintainthespace%3F | the touch point is whether you want to reserve the right to bundle the | documentation with a release and/or check a copy into an ASF repository Eike -- PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication. Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD pgpzjWkbNkWEw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Jean Weber wrote: > > > On 03/08/2011, at 7:16, Andy Brown wrote: > >> Rob Weir wrote: >>> >>> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active >>> in the past 7 days. >> >> Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the announcement >> of transferring to Apache, let a lone in the last week. Shows that someone >> is still interested. I would like to find out what as edited. > > I may have updated some pages related to the workings of the Docs group and > ODFAuthors, but not any docs themselves. > Is there any easy way to get a list of active users for the wiki, year-to-date for 2011, maybe sorted by number of edits? That would be great to know, a list of people we can reach out to and invite to participate again in the new project and new wiki, if they are not already here. Also, Jean, I'm glad you are following this thread. I'd love to hear what you think the relationship between the kind of doc on the wiki versus what you are doing on ODFAuthors. How do they relate in terms of topics, content types, etc.? Is there significant overlap? Is there any way to rationalize this? > Jean > >> >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote: > 2011/8/2 Rob Weir > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andy Brown >> wrote: >> >> [...] > >> >> I poked around and found this page: >> >> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics >> >> This lists some additional roles (with counts) >> >> Administrators (26) >> Bureaucrats (4) >> Editors (20) >> Reviewers (5) >> >> Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts. >> >> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active >> in the past 7 days. >> > > > did you poked around 1 year ago as well? > do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down? > > with the statistic above you don't increase the credibility ... > > or > > http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/Veroeffentl/Monatshefte/essay.asp?xYear=2004&xMonth=11&eNr=11 > One of the biggest mistakes I made when I moved into my house was to design in my back yard a huge garden. It took a weeks of labor to get it started. But I never had time to maintain it. I created a garden far too large for my small "community" (my wife and I) to handle. We fought back the weeds, but the weeds won in the end. I would have been better off with house plants, in pots. More sheltered. But also easier to take care of. With the wiki, if we really want to allow anyone to have write access to it, then we really need to be committed to fight the weeds, which in the case of wikis would be spam, low quality content, edit wars, etc. If we can re-establish the community participation level the way it was a year ago, then great. It would have a chance of success. But right now I see almost no activity on the wiki. 35,000 user accounts, but no users. If this doesn't change, the weeds will surely win. > cheers > > M. > > > M. >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On 03/08/2011, at 7:16, Andy Brown wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: >> >> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active >> in the past 7 days. > > Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the announcement of > transferring to Apache, let a lone in the last week. Shows that someone is > still interested. I would like to find out what as edited. I may have updated some pages related to the workings of the Docs group and ODFAuthors, but not any docs themselves. Jean >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Eike Rathke wrote: Hi Andy, On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 14:16:23 -0700, Andy Brown wrote: Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the announcement of transferring to Apache, let a lone in the last week. Shows that someone is still interested. I would like to find out what as edited. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges One of the 5 was me editing my user page.. Eike Thanks that is what I was looking for. That is something I never got a round to. :( Andy
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Hi Rob, I poked around and found this page: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics This lists some additional roles (with counts) Administrators (26) Bureaucrats (4) Editors (20) Reviewers (5) Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts. Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active in the past 7 days. I'd say People observe what happens, since the announce, but probably before ... To tell you more, I myself was - between 2006 and 2009 - very active on the OpenOffice.org wiki, initialy thought for developers purpose. It was a very alive and uggly big bazaar, with a lot of ideas, tries and experiences. The Mac OS X native port was the best moment of the OpenOffice.org Community life (before people use the word, thinking to ''usefull idiots'' instead, to be honest ... ). There was nothing forced : we tried to organize, as well as possible, but concentrating on the content, not on the look. As an example, have a look at my users page, per see the activity it was : http:// wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User:Ericb But a day, some people decided to control the OpenOffice.org wiki (not only the wiki in fact). After that, people like me were upset, and simply definitily stopped to use it. It would be great to not redo the same mistakes ... Regards, Eric Bachard -- qɔᴉɹə Education Project: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Education_Project Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Andy Brown wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: >> >> I poked around and found this page: >> >> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics > > Good find. > >> This lists some additional roles (with counts) >> >> Administrators (26) >> Bureaucrats (4) >> Editors (20) >> Reviewers (5) >> >> Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts. >> >> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active >> in the past 7 days. > > Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the announcement > of transferring to Apache, let a lone in the last week. Shows that someone > is still interested. I would like to find out what as edited. > >> How we authorize people for these roles and what qualifications are >> required for these roles is an important question. >> >> There are a similar set of questions we should ask about the support >> forums, what the roles are and how PPMC oversight maps to them. > > I would think that the PPMC and Committers would be the logical choice. The > administration is still our responsibility. Currently we have members that > are listed in admin roles for the wiki and for the forums. > A reasonable set of guidelines might be: 0) The permission to set user permissions should be reserved for PPMC-delegates 1) Any permission that allows actions that cannot be logged or cannot easily be undone should be reserved for PPMC-delegates 2) Any permission that allows one user rights over another user (banning, suspending, locking pages, etc.) should be reserved for PPMC-delegates 3) Other permissions can be shared more broadly. The normal case would be to have PPMC delegates be committers. If not now, then they would be obvious candidates for to become committers. > Andy >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
2011/8/2 Rob Weir > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andy Brown > wrote: > > [...] > > I poked around and found this page: > > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics > > This lists some additional roles (with counts) > > Administrators (26) > Bureaucrats (4) > Editors (20) > Reviewers (5) > > Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts. > > Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active > in the past 7 days. > did you poked around 1 year ago as well? do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down? with the statistic above you don't increase the credibility ... or http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/Veroeffentl/Monatshefte/essay.asp?xYear=2004&xMonth=11&eNr=11 cheers M. M.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Hi Andy, On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 14:16:23 -0700, Andy Brown wrote: > Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the > announcement of transferring to Apache, let a lone in the last week. > Shows that someone is still interested. I would like to find out > what as edited. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges One of the 5 was me editing my user page.. Eike -- PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication. Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD pgpQCP7fO2XGN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Hi Rob, On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 16:38:02 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > I poked around and found this page: > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics > > This lists some additional roles (with counts) > > Administrators (26) > Bureaucrats (4) > Editors (20) > Reviewers (5) > > Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts. > > Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active > in the past 7 days. I think that doesn't come as a surprise, most probabbly OOo is perceived as a dead horse now. To get a sense for activity in the wiki, on mailing lists, ... one should take a look at the period before Easter this year. > How we authorize people for these roles and what qualifications are > required for these roles is an important question. To me it's unclear what the role of a Bureaucrat is or where it differs from an Administrator. It's a subset of Administrators. I'd say we could ask Clayton as he was Bureaucrat, editor, reviewer and Administrator, but ... Certainly SysOp/Administrator/Bureaucrat would be tied to Apache committers. Entry points for some overview: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:ValidationStatistics http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Administrators Reviewers appear to be members of the documentation team, as are editors but not only and that group is larger I don't know everyone. Eike -- PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication. Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD pgpBqtrtagMyd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Rob Weir wrote: I poked around and found this page: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Good find. This lists some additional roles (with counts) Administrators (26) Bureaucrats (4) Editors (20) Reviewers (5) Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts. Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active in the past 7 days. Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the announcement of transferring to Apache, let a lone in the last week. Shows that someone is still interested. I would like to find out what as edited. How we authorize people for these roles and what qualifications are required for these roles is an important question. There are a similar set of questions we should ask about the support forums, what the roles are and how PPMC oversight maps to them. I would think that the PPMC and Committers would be the logical choice. The administration is still our responsibility. Currently we have members that are listed in admin roles for the wiki and for the forums. Andy
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andy Brown wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: >> >> Another aspect I'd love to see addressed in the proposal: >> >> What other roles exist in the wiki? >> >> I know about: >> >> - Users (which we say may be anyone, provided they identify themselves >> and agree to the license) >> >> - Admins, which as we know need to be committers >> >> But any other roles? Moderators? Any form of super users? How are >> these appointed/approved? How does the PPMC exercise oversight? >> >> -Rob >> > > I will add something on this as well. Thanks for the info. > I poked around and found this page: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics This lists some additional roles (with counts) Administrators (26) Bureaucrats (4) Editors (20) Reviewers (5) Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts. Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active in the past 7 days. How we authorize people for these roles and what qualifications are required for these roles is an important question. There are a similar set of questions we should ask about the support forums, what the roles are and how PPMC oversight maps to them. -Rob > Andy >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Rob Weir wrote: Another aspect I'd love to see addressed in the proposal: What other roles exist in the wiki? I know about: - Users (which we say may be anyone, provided they identify themselves and agree to the license) - Admins, which as we know need to be committers But any other roles? Moderators? Any form of super users? How are these appointed/approved? How does the PPMC exercise oversight? -Rob I will add something on this as well. Thanks for the info. Andy
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Another aspect I'd love to see addressed in the proposal: What other roles exist in the wiki? I know about: - Users (which we say may be anyone, provided they identify themselves and agree to the license) - Admins, which as we know need to be committers But any other roles? Moderators? Any form of super users? How are these appointed/approved? How does the PPMC exercise oversight? -Rob On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Andy Brown wrote: > Dave Fisher wrote: >> >> On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Andy Brown wrote: >> >>> I work on this and see what I can come up with. I am no expert on this >>> so it will be a very rough draft, but something that I fell we will need to >>> do. We are much different that the "normal" Apache project so hopefully be >>> granted some working room. I will start a new thread as this one is getting >>> to deep to manage. >> >> Please put the word [PROPOSAL] in the subject. >> >> I think it should be in the context of openoffice.org site issues as >> opposed to apache.org issues, I think that may be the best dividing line for >> the boundary for this "working room". > > Thanks for the idea, I will go that way. > >>> I am only trying to help all of us to keep a great product where it >>> belongs. >> >> By trying you succeed. > > Thanks. >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
2) We need a credible security mechanism for the wiki. Today, for example, it is not required for a user to give their real name (the field is optional). And the password can be as little as 1 character. (Yup, I just created an account with password="x"). With 15,000 zombie accounts, lack of real names and the ability for users to create trivially crackable accounts, it would be hard to really identify a change to a particular person. Yes on password strength, no on real names. The key issue here is that at some point during either the registration or posting process, the account holder / poster actively acknowledges that the contributed content falls under whatever licence that is required. Without formal identity verification, there is no material difference between a Monica and a claimed name.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Andy Brown wrote: I work on this and see what I can come up with. I am no expert on this so it will be a very rough draft, but something that I fell we will need to do. We are much different that the "normal" Apache project so hopefully be granted some working room. I will start a new thread as this one is getting to deep to manage. Please put the word [PROPOSAL] in the subject. I think it should be in the context of openoffice.org site issues as opposed to apache.org issues, I think that may be the best dividing line for the boundary for this "working room". Thanks for the idea, I will go that way. I am only trying to help all of us to keep a great product where it belongs. By trying you succeed. Thanks.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Andy Brown wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Andy Brown wrote: >>> >>> If you talking the wiki, instead of requiring an ICLA as a person has to >>> create an account, why not make it part of that process that "All submitted >>> contributions are under AL2 license". Would that not be sufficient? >>> >> >> The IPMC guidance, via the Podling Guide that they have published [1] is: >> >> "Podlings may use a wiki to create documentation (including the >> website) providing that follow the guidelines. In particular, care >> must be taken to ensure that access to the wiki used to create >> documentation is restricted to only those with filed CLAs. The PPMC >> MUST review all changes and ensure that trust is not abused." >> >> I personally like your idea of having a click-through-license grant on >> the wiki itself, either as part of account creation or on the edit >> page itself. But if we did that, I'd suggest some related issues to >> address: >> >> 1) We shouldn't just ignore IPMC guidance. There may be some >> allowance for variation in procedures, but that should not be assumed. >> If we want to do something differently, then we need to write up that >> proposal, get consensus here among PPMC members, and then take it to >> the IPMC and probably Apache Legal Affairs (to review whatever >> language we use). I'd gladly support that. > > I work on this and see what I can come up with. I am no expert on this so it > will be a very rough draft, but something that I fell we will need to do. We > are much different that the "normal" Apache project so hopefully be granted > some working room. I will start a new thread as this one is getting to deep > to manage. Please put the word [PROPOSAL] in the subject. I think it should be in the context of openoffice.org site issues as opposed to apache.org issues, I think that may be the best dividing line for the boundary for this "working room". > >> 2) We need a credible security mechanism for the wiki. Today, for >> example, it is not required for a user to give their real name (the >> field is optional). And the password can be as little as 1 character. >> (Yup, I just created an account with password="x"). With 15,000 >> zombie accounts, lack of real names and the ability for users to >> create trivially crackable accounts, it would be hard to really >> identify a change to a particular person. > > I do not believe I have seen anyone state that there were not problems with > the current setup and improvements could not be made. This is one area that > we really need to look at and fix. > >> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/sites.html >> 2) How do we ensure that the documentation is under PPMC oversight and remains high quality? >>> >>> I received a daily report of all changes to the wiki, there is also the >>> option for "as done" report. It would only take a few minutes to do a quick >>> review of those changes, an revert them if needed. >>> >> >> OK. Maybe that report could be directed to the ooo-commits list as well? > > I am sure that is a possibility but if all that use the committers that use > the wiki get the reports then we should have that covered without adding to > the ooo-commit list. > I'm open to discussions of various technical and procedural means to achieve these goals. But I am adamant in achieving them one way or another. >>> >>> Would the above listed work? >>> >> >> I think that takes us in the right direction. Thanks. > > I am only trying to help all of us to keep a great product where it belongs. By trying you succeed. Regards, Dave > > Andy
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Andy Brown wrote: If you talking the wiki, instead of requiring an ICLA as a person has to create an account, why not make it part of that process that "All submitted contributions are under AL2 license". Would that not be sufficient? The IPMC guidance, via the Podling Guide that they have published [1] is: "Podlings may use a wiki to create documentation (including the website) providing that follow the guidelines. In particular, care must be taken to ensure that access to the wiki used to create documentation is restricted to only those with filed CLAs. The PPMC MUST review all changes and ensure that trust is not abused." I personally like your idea of having a click-through-license grant on the wiki itself, either as part of account creation or on the edit page itself. But if we did that, I'd suggest some related issues to address: 1) We shouldn't just ignore IPMC guidance. There may be some allowance for variation in procedures, but that should not be assumed. If we want to do something differently, then we need to write up that proposal, get consensus here among PPMC members, and then take it to the IPMC and probably Apache Legal Affairs (to review whatever language we use). I'd gladly support that. I work on this and see what I can come up with. I am no expert on this so it will be a very rough draft, but something that I fell we will need to do. We are much different that the "normal" Apache project so hopefully be granted some working room. I will start a new thread as this one is getting to deep to manage. 2) We need a credible security mechanism for the wiki. Today, for example, it is not required for a user to give their real name (the field is optional). And the password can be as little as 1 character. (Yup, I just created an account with password="x"). With 15,000 zombie accounts, lack of real names and the ability for users to create trivially crackable accounts, it would be hard to really identify a change to a particular person. I do not believe I have seen anyone state that there were not problems with the current setup and improvements could not be made. This is one area that we really need to look at and fix. [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/sites.html 2) How do we ensure that the documentation is under PPMC oversight and remains high quality? I received a daily report of all changes to the wiki, there is also the option for "as done" report. It would only take a few minutes to do a quick review of those changes, an revert them if needed. OK. Maybe that report could be directed to the ooo-commits list as well? I am sure that is a possibility but if all that use the committers that use the wiki get the reports then we should have that covered without adding to the ooo-commit list. I'm open to discussions of various technical and procedural means to achieve these goals. But I am adamant in achieving them one way or another. Would the above listed work? I think that takes us in the right direction. Thanks. I am only trying to help all of us to keep a great product where it belongs. Andy
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I'm not sure we are all talking about the same documentation. I suppose the > OOODEV wiki is the appropriate place to be doing that documentation, whatever > it is, that is intended in the guidelines. > I'm thinking of these things that are necessary for anyone to make use of the product. The core documentation. A look around other Apache projects would give some idea of what that doc is, at least from a developer's perspective. But there is analogous doc requirements for users, admins and app developers. Honestly, I think most of what we call doc is "core doc". > When we see the equivalent on OpenOffice.org, we should, on a per-case basis, > redirect it to OOODEV perhaps. > I don't think we want to move content across different wiki applications. I'd be happy to delete OOODEV and stick with MediaWiki for both wikis. That would give us some consistency in look and feel. It would also allow the public wiki to be a sandbox or lab where anyone could propose and develop new doc sets. As the doc matured, it could then me integrated into the official doc and maintained from there. If we have a consistent license and markup, we can do things like that. > But we do need to get to specific cases and handle them individually. > Agreed. We'll learn by doing as well. > For a general-public editable wiki, I think sticking with the Creative > Commons Attribution license should be just fine where it is already supplied. > More people seem to know what that is, and it is fully permissive without > what appears to be such high ceremony as the ALv2. > I disagree. Let me explain why. The wiki currently holds a lot of detailed plans and designs for future features. So it is used for project planning and technical design. See, for example: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Calc/Features/Multi-range_copy_and_paste There are also pages with more detailed designs, including embedded source code: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Calc/Implementation/Spreadsheet_Functions#formula.2Finc.2Fformula.2Fcompiler.hrc So it is very possible that patentable methods and copyrighted source code could migrate directly from the wiki into project source code. It is prudent to ensure that those who contribute to these wiki pages are making the necessary assertions with regards to any IP involved. This is no different than the agreements you and I made when deciding to work on standards at OASIS. Even though it is just "documentation" that documentation is the blueprint for software, and as such has IP implications. Of course, the alternate way is to move these pages and those like it into a project-wiki which is only writable by those who have returned the iCLA. > And we should look around at some of the TLP project wikis that allow public > contributions. > Pass along some links if you find some good examples. -Rob > - Dennis > > -Original Message- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 09:28 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was > re:OpenOffice.org branding) > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Andy Brown wrote: >> Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> At Apache, every committer has the ability to veto a change. Not just >>> me. Far from it. >> >> True. >> >>> In any case, in order to move the argument forward, I'd like to >>> reiterate thecific concerns that I have, to which I've seen no >>> response other than "we don't want to change". But no one is >>> addressing the fundamental questions: >>> >>> 1) How do we ensure that the future documentation is under the Apache >>> 2.0 license so that it can be copied, modified and redistributed >>> freely by others? >> >> If you talking the wiki, instead of requiring an ICLA as a person has to >> create an account, why not make it part of that process that "All submitted >> contributions are under AL2 license". Would that not be sufficient? >> > > The IPMC guidance, via the Podling Guide that they have published [1] is: > > "Podlings may use a wiki to create documentation (including the > website) providing that follow the guidelines. In particular, care > must be taken to ensure that access to the wiki used to create > documentation is restricted to only those with filed CLAs. The PPMC > MUST review all changes and ensure that trust is not abused." > > I personally like your idea of having a click-through-license grant on > the wiki itself, either as part of account creation or on the edit > page itself. But if we did tha
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
I'm not sure we are all talking about the same documentation. I suppose the OOODEV wiki is the appropriate place to be doing that documentation, whatever it is, that is intended in the guidelines. When we see the equivalent on OpenOffice.org, we should, on a per-case basis, redirect it to OOODEV perhaps. But we do need to get to specific cases and handle them individually. For a general-public editable wiki, I think sticking with the Creative Commons Attribution license should be just fine where it is already supplied. More people seem to know what that is, and it is fully permissive without what appears to be such high ceremony as the ALv2. And we should look around at some of the TLP project wikis that allow public contributions. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 09:28 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding) On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Andy Brown wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: > >> At Apache, every committer has the ability to veto a change. Not just >> me. Far from it. > > True. > >> In any case, in order to move the argument forward, I'd like to >> reiterate thecific concerns that I have, to which I've seen no >> response other than "we don't want to change". But no one is >> addressing the fundamental questions: >> >> 1) How do we ensure that the future documentation is under the Apache >> 2.0 license so that it can be copied, modified and redistributed >> freely by others? > > If you talking the wiki, instead of requiring an ICLA as a person has to > create an account, why not make it part of that process that "All submitted > contributions are under AL2 license". Would that not be sufficient? > The IPMC guidance, via the Podling Guide that they have published [1] is: "Podlings may use a wiki to create documentation (including the website) providing that follow the guidelines. In particular, care must be taken to ensure that access to the wiki used to create documentation is restricted to only those with filed CLAs. The PPMC MUST review all changes and ensure that trust is not abused." I personally like your idea of having a click-through-license grant on the wiki itself, either as part of account creation or on the edit page itself. But if we did that, I'd suggest some related issues to address: 1) We shouldn't just ignore IPMC guidance. There may be some allowance for variation in procedures, but that should not be assumed. If we want to do something differently, then we need to write up that proposal, get consensus here among PPMC members, and then take it to the IPMC and probably Apache Legal Affairs (to review whatever language we use). I'd gladly support that. 2) We need a credible security mechanism for the wiki. Today, for example, it is not required for a user to give their real name (the field is optional). And the password can be as little as 1 character. (Yup, I just created an account with password="x"). With 15,000 zombie accounts, lack of real names and the ability for users to create trivially crackable accounts, it would be hard to really identify a change to a particular person. [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/sites.html >> 2) How do we ensure that the documentation is under PPMC oversight and >> remains high quality? > > I received a daily report of all changes to the wiki, there is also the > option for "as done" report. It would only take a few minutes to do a quick > review of those changes, an revert them if needed. > OK. Maybe that report could be directed to the ooo-commits list as well? >> I'm open to discussions of various technical and procedural means to >> achieve these goals. But I am adamant in achieving them one way or >> another. > > Would the above listed work? > I think that takes us in the right direction. Thanks. > Andy >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Andy Brown wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: > >> At Apache, every committer has the ability to veto a change. Not just >> me. Far from it. > > True. > >> In any case, in order to move the argument forward, I'd like to >> reiterate thecific concerns that I have, to which I've seen no >> response other than "we don't want to change". But no one is >> addressing the fundamental questions: >> >> 1) How do we ensure that the future documentation is under the Apache >> 2.0 license so that it can be copied, modified and redistributed >> freely by others? > > If you talking the wiki, instead of requiring an ICLA as a person has to > create an account, why not make it part of that process that "All submitted > contributions are under AL2 license". Would that not be sufficient? > The IPMC guidance, via the Podling Guide that they have published [1] is: "Podlings may use a wiki to create documentation (including the website) providing that follow the guidelines. In particular, care must be taken to ensure that access to the wiki used to create documentation is restricted to only those with filed CLAs. The PPMC MUST review all changes and ensure that trust is not abused." I personally like your idea of having a click-through-license grant on the wiki itself, either as part of account creation or on the edit page itself. But if we did that, I'd suggest some related issues to address: 1) We shouldn't just ignore IPMC guidance. There may be some allowance for variation in procedures, but that should not be assumed. If we want to do something differently, then we need to write up that proposal, get consensus here among PPMC members, and then take it to the IPMC and probably Apache Legal Affairs (to review whatever language we use). I'd gladly support that. 2) We need a credible security mechanism for the wiki. Today, for example, it is not required for a user to give their real name (the field is optional). And the password can be as little as 1 character. (Yup, I just created an account with password="x"). With 15,000 zombie accounts, lack of real names and the ability for users to create trivially crackable accounts, it would be hard to really identify a change to a particular person. [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/sites.html >> 2) How do we ensure that the documentation is under PPMC oversight and >> remains high quality? > > I received a daily report of all changes to the wiki, there is also the > option for "as done" report. It would only take a few minutes to do a quick > review of those changes, an revert them if needed. > OK. Maybe that report could be directed to the ooo-commits list as well? >> I'm open to discussions of various technical and procedural means to >> achieve these goals. But I am adamant in achieving them one way or >> another. > > Would the above listed work? > I think that takes us in the right direction. Thanks. > Andy >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Rob, Let us take a time-out on this one. Some of these points are best clarified off DL before coming back here; some are noise; and some are sufficiently important to be considered properly before being raised as threads in their own right rather than buried 20 replies down in a thread on "Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)". Terry
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Rob Weir wrote: At Apache, every committer has the ability to veto a change. Not just me. Far from it. True. In any case, in order to move the argument forward, I'd like to reiterate thecific concerns that I have, to which I've seen no response other than "we don't want to change". But no one is addressing the fundamental questions: 1) How do we ensure that the future documentation is under the Apache 2.0 license so that it can be copied, modified and redistributed freely by others? If you talking the wiki, instead of requiring an ICLA as a person has to create an account, why not make it part of that process that "All submitted contributions are under AL2 license". Would that not be sufficient? 2) How do we ensure that the documentation is under PPMC oversight and remains high quality? I received a daily report of all changes to the wiki, there is also the option for "as done" report. It would only take a few minutes to do a quick review of those changes, an revert them if needed. I'm open to discussions of various technical and procedural means to achieve these goals. But I am adamant in achieving them one way or another. Would the above listed work? Andy
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Hi Rob, (comments inline) Rob Weir schrieb: On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote: On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to application developers, that documentation is product documentation. If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it is product documentation. Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this. They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA? Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else? I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and quality, namely: 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they become part of the documentation set. I don't agree. It is the nature of a wiki, that the content is not approved before, but by ongoing editing. Any such contributions must be made under Apache 2.0 license. In http://www.ooowiki.de/ we have the license information on the start page and in the header of each editing mode page. Submitting a change automatically agrees to the license. Wouldn't it be possible to do it the same with the Apache 2.0 license? 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA. That is a very formal action. So most people will not do it. But they might write some tips and tutorials. 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we can trace to a real email address is fine. Isn't it possible to set up the wiki in a way, that only registered users can write? That is already a hurdle, but I would accept it. With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by a committer, and then checked into the repository. That is fine for all things, which belong to the product binaries and to the sources, but not for the wiki content. With documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable this. I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki. That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much annoyance to contributors. We need no such formal mechanism like signing up a iCLA, but groups of people who feel responsible for special parts of the wiki. For example, compare the pages belonging to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Statistics with the corresponding ones in other languages. The better quality of the English ones are not due to a formal mechanism of contribution and pre-approving, but because the people in the group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Statistics care for the pages. It is still possible for everyone to edit the content of the wiki pages. Kind regards Regina
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > +1 > > All wikis that accept public contributions (which is essentially all > interesting wikis) must be curated. Ward Cunningham has provided the > definitive exposition about that. > > I am sure we can find responsible contributors who will be eager to do that. > Maybe some will need administrative access rights and we can require them to > be project committers as part of the extension of PPMC oversight and > responsibility. > > But with regard to contributions of documentation pages, forums, FAQ, etc., > the more extended-community involvement that is encouraged by low-friction > means, the better. > I think that is the key piece, determining what are the essential documentation pieces (the pieces without which the project cannot function and the users cannot make use of the releases) versus the broader universe of supplemental material. I hope we agree that there is some core part of the documentation set that the project must provide more direct oversight of, and which we need to ensure is under a license that permits downstream consumers to copy, modify and redistribute. That's all I'm asking for. That we treat the core documentation as an essential project asset and use those procedures that we routinely apply to core project assets. > In addition, wiki operation is very much in the Apache spirit already - there > is no change that can't be reverted (and, in many cases, the reversion > consists of moving a copy of an earlier version to be most-recent also, so > history is never lost). I have seen Wikipedia lose history, but I assume > that there are ways to avoid that with Wikimedia if we are careful. > It is funny when you read Obama's biography one day and read that he was born in 1712. It is not funny when you read an OpenOffice wiki page and a see DOS command that instructs the unwary user to delete their windows/system directory. We need to make it clear what is core, trusted documentation versus other supplemental material that we put a disclaimer on. Untrusted, unreviewed doc can do just as much damage as untrusted, unreviewed code. > I think this can be worked out as we bring up openoffice.org with hosting on > Apache infrastructure. We do not need a one-size-fits-all autocratic > solution. > We need two sizes, right: 1) core documentation and 2) supplemental. That was the idea if having two wikis in the first place. -Rob > - Dennis > > -Original Message- > From: Reizinger Zoltán [mailto:zreizin...@hdsnet.hu] > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 07:45 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was > re:OpenOffice.org branding) > > 2011.08.02. 15:47 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta: >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Reizinger Zoltán >> wrote: >>> 2011.08.02. 14:03 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta: >>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >>>>>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our >>>>>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to >>>>>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation. >>>>>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause >>>>>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right >>>>>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to >>>>>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a >>>>>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it >>>>>> is product documentation. >>>>> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the >>>>> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user >>>>> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download >>>>> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this. >>>>> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be >>>>> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the >>>>> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future >>>>> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future >>>>> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA? >>>>> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can >>>>> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
A few comments and suggestions from a mentor. On 8/1/2011 9:48 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: There are so many points and counterpoints about new/old and easy/hard. I think we need guidance about the migration. We need to state what we want to do given the strong and understandable push to preserve the Wiki, forums, and user downloads of the legacy code. Personally, I'd suggest that a few of the committers who can actually do the work here start taking chunks of it, making more concrete [PROPOSAL]s, and start working with infra@ and this list on how to do those specific tasks. Break some of the bits off into manageable chunks and make progress on them. A key point with meritocracies is that the people *doing* the work (effectively) get to decide. It feels like a number of threads recently are either discussing various details without having more concrete proposals, or are being driven by non-committers who are discussing ways that the project *won't* work. This community - in general, everyone on ooo-dev@, but more specifically the committers and PPMC - need to focus on specific ways that the project *will* work. WIth the goal of preserving the existing community knowledge base, we need to know that it is OK for us to consider doing the following with the openoffice.org domain site on Foundation hardware. (1) Make sure that we are addressing any concerns about hosting the user forums on an openoffice.org domain - hosted on an Apache Jail. Simply hosting it mostly staticly: just figure out the IP issues of hosting (what seems to be a significant amount of) content that is not under the AL (Apache License). The whole concept of this large amount of community-driven wiki content (i.e. from people not likely to sign iCLAs) really deserves it's own separate thread. In particular, figuring out how the community will plan to manage new updates to the community wiki (i.e., either ensuring that we have iCLAs or equivalent on all new contributions, or not). Note: has anyone investigated other Apache wikis and how they manage contributions from non-committers? There are plenty that do that already. (2) Allow the MediaWiki to exist as much as possible under its current terms for existing content, and under Apache terms for new content - hosted on an Apache Jail. A question for this list and for infra@ (in terms of what the Apache infrastructure team is able and willing to physically host). The best approach is to figure out more concretely what the ooo podling wants, and then work with infra@ to get it. (3) Host the old Oracle and Sun releases on download.openoffice.org through the Apache Mirror system even though they are not AL 2.0. Are these good questions to ask the Board in our report? Or should we be looking for guidance on legal-discuss. Heh, sorry, no, these are not questions to ask the board! These are things for *this* project to figure out - first step 1) what you want to do, and then step 2) how you can do it. Step 2) presumably requires talking with legal-discuss@ and infrastructure@ to get specific advice. If there are significant IP risks with what you're publishing on Apache servers today, or if there are unresolvable conflicts within the PPMC, then include things like that as "issues for the board". The board is here to provide the oversight to ensure the Foundation as a whole is running smoothly. The board has appointed a number of specific officers or committees who can help with all of these questions - like VP, Legal, the Infrastructure team, Branding, and even just the Incubator PMC (and your mentors) that can provide guidance on who to ask for help on different issues. We would certainly be very sure that it would very difficult for misunderstanding that these are NOT Apache releases. Regards, Dave Good questions though! - Shane
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Terry Ellison wrote: > Rob, > > I think that you've missed my point. The guy didn't THREATEN to leave. He > HAS left. I doubt we will get him back. My strong reaction was because of > that entirely avoidable loss of 5+ man-years of project expertise that we > will be pressed to recover for the sake on an ill-considered shout-down. > Was this really wise? > No, I do not think it was wise of him to leave. But, in the end, that is his choice. Participating in an open source project, where views can be aired freely, is not for everyone. You need the ability to air opinions and proposals an discuss them respectfully, But you should never feel that an idea is unable to be discussed, or that other members will threaten to leave because someone disagrees with them, or if they find that their ideas are not loved. That would only stifle the free expression of views from other project members. > Yes, I have only been on the DL for two days, but I have been a major > contributor to community side of the OOo project for five years. And in my > 30+ years in this business, I've seen lots of f***ed up project take-overs > in my business unit. I was trying to flag up that this old dog is starting > to sniff another one, and I would REALLY like to prevent this happening. > I assume that the project starts with a random assortment of prior OOo members, members of related projects, members of other Apache projects, members of the OASIS ODF standards committees, as well as some new members "kicking the tires" to see what all the noise is about. Some of them will find that this project is not to their liking. Some will. We should try to make this project be inviting to new members, as well as old members. But I suspect that incremental growth will come mainly from new members. But please tell me, what do you expect I should do when you or anyone else repeatedly reads your resume to me? Should I not be allowed to question proposals? Should it be considered rude to suggest alternatives? Should I feel that it would be in imposition to ask "why?" Should I feel that if I don't do exactly what you want, without question, that you will leave the project? Really? Is that the type of project you would want to work on? Is that the type of project that will best attract more contributors? In terms of project structure and oversight, Apache OpenOffice is a fresh start. No one inherits their titles from the legacy project. No questions are out of bounds. Nothing is above question. Yes, of course, we shouldn't make arbitrary changes, without good reason, just for the fun of it. But where something did not work well before, like achieving a consistent license on the documentation, then we should be looking at making necessary changes. And remember, we also have fewer code contributors today, because there are some developers who are not willing to sign the iCLA or agree with the Apache 2.0 license. Should we change that requirement as well? I don't think so. This is an Apache project. The license is not negotiable, even though that necessarily means that there will be some who, for whatever personal reasons and beliefs they honestly hold, will not be able to participate. > You seem to be positioning yourself as the project leader and absolute > arbiter of Apache policy, and YOU have caused a valuable asset to this > project to walk, yet you seem to be totally unaware of this -- or are and > don't care. If we keep this up then this Apache project will drive away > many if not most of the ex-OOo team who want to contribute. You'll be left > with an extremely tidy and well-managed DL but no OpenOffice product. > Starting an ad hominen attack does not do credit you or your arguments. At Apache, every committer has the ability to veto a change. Not just me. Far from it. In any case, in order to move the argument forward, I'd like to reiterate the specific concerns that I have, to which I've seen no response other than "we don't want to change". But no one is addressing the fundamental questions: 1) How do we ensure that the future documentation is under the Apache 2.0 license so that it can be copied, modified and redistributed freely by others? 2) How do we ensure that the documentation is under PPMC oversight and remains high quality? I'm open to discussions of various technical and procedural means to achieve these goals. But I am adamant in achieving them one way or another. > If this is the Apache way, then this will be a sad outcome. But is this the > Apache way or just your individual interpretation? I do wonder what is the > biggest project that you've run personally, or have you even done this > before? > Did you read the link I sent on decision making at Apache? Did you have any questions on it? If you actually read it, I don't think you could possibly be asking the above question. > Regards Terry > > On 02/08/11 14:40, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> On
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
+1 All wikis that accept public contributions (which is essentially all interesting wikis) must be curated. Ward Cunningham has provided the definitive exposition about that. I am sure we can find responsible contributors who will be eager to do that. Maybe some will need administrative access rights and we can require them to be project committers as part of the extension of PPMC oversight and responsibility. But with regard to contributions of documentation pages, forums, FAQ, etc., the more extended-community involvement that is encouraged by low-friction means, the better. In addition, wiki operation is very much in the Apache spirit already - there is no change that can't be reverted (and, in many cases, the reversion consists of moving a copy of an earlier version to be most-recent also, so history is never lost). I have seen Wikipedia lose history, but I assume that there are ways to avoid that with Wikimedia if we are careful. I think this can be worked out as we bring up openoffice.org with hosting on Apache infrastructure. We do not need a one-size-fits-all autocratic solution. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Reizinger Zoltán [mailto:zreizin...@hdsnet.hu] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 07:45 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding) 2011.08.02. 15:47 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Reizinger Zoltán wrote: >> 2011.08.02. 14:03 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta: >>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber >>> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >>>>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our >>>>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to >>>>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation. >>>>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause >>>>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right >>>>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to >>>>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a >>>>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it >>>>> is product documentation. >>>> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the >>>> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user >>>> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download >>>> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this. >>>> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be >>>> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the >>>> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future >>>> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future >>>> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA? >>>> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can >>>> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else? >>>> >>> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily >>> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and >>> quality, namely: >>> >>> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these >>> must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they >>> become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be >>> made under Apache 2.0 license. >>> >>> 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the >>> documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA. >>> >>> 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and >>> tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given >>> change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we >>> can trace to a real email address is fine. >>> >>> With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches >>> (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by >>> a committer, and then checked into the repository. With >>> documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for >>> achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable >>> this. >> Rob, >> I think you lives outside of this world. You will not find a lot of >> contributors which needs to wor
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Umm, the proposal page for this incubator project was on a public wiki site and was publicly edited. While there were some mistakes in the course of that, it all worked out didn't it? The project home page is where it is. That's a straw man (just like the one I just gave). It is not on OpenOffice.org and it won't be, it seems to me. It is in the Apache ooo space. I propose that we do this on an individual-case basis as we migrate/blend/divide/whatever OpenOffice.org-reached content and apache.org-reached content. I propose that we do *not* drop the iCLA hammer on everything to do with OpenOffice.org and we should deal with this on concrete terms when we have cloned the content of OpenOffice.org ready to reopen under new management but with the same welcoming face to the public. I don't accept that there has been any harm in the handling of provenance on OpenOffice.org although it certainly could have been done better. In fact, keeping it the OpenOffice.org site is probably the easiest way to avoid sticky permission problems. Of course, if any contributors want their material taken down, we should happily comply. I wouldn't even add the Apache license to the pages. The Creative Commons attribution license seems perfectly fine there and we should not mess with it. The copyright notice I would leave to sharper minds than ours. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 07:53 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding) On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > -1 > > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a > release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the > content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the > user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list. > That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is external to Apache. We're not discussing that right now. What we're discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which we are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two different things. As for "in release" versus "not in a release", I'll pose a question: Should we allow anyone to directly edit the project home page, even if they are not a project committer? Why not? It is not "in a release"? We should be trying to build a an open source release that anyone can use, modify and redistribute, according to the Apache 2.0 license. The fact that some pieces are in the source tarball and other pieces are on the website is irrelevant. We prevent others from making full use of our code if we do not allow them to also make full use of essential documentation. > There are cross-over cases, such as authoring of what will be embedded help > (in many languages) and also the support for on-line help. But even for > on-line help it would be great if it could be community-augmented. > I agree, Everything at Apache is built by the community, including the source code. We encourage contributions from all, including committers, of course, but also patches from users and other interested parties. But all such patches are reviewed and approved by project committers. > All we're accomplishing here is guaranteeing that the only well-written > documents and congenial forums for users will carry the LibreOffice logo. > > We already have two separate wikis, one that the community uses and one that > requires committers to make the changes. I notice the second one is not > getting much activity. > And I'm not seeing a lot of activity at the OpenOffice.org wiki either: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500 What does that prove? > I think this stance is too heavy-handed in an area where there is no > demonstration of harm and a great need for community engagement. We need to > be flexible here, and quickly too. > The harm is to the ability of downstream consumers to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation. The lax attention paid to this concern by OpenOffice.org is responsible for the nebulous state of the IP in the wiki's content today. That harm has already been done. I'd like to prevent that harm from continuing. > - Dennis > > -----Original Message- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was > re:OpenOffice.org branding) > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber > wrote: >> On Mon, 2011
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Hi, Original-Nachricht > Von: Rob Weir > > We already have two separate wikis, one that the community uses and one > that requires committers to make the changes. I notice the second one is > not getting much activity. > > > > And I'm not seeing a lot of activity at the OpenOffice.org wiki either: > > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500 > > What does that prove? that OpenOffice.org is a project with (still) a strong name but without community contributions? scnr André
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > -1 > > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a > release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the > content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the > user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list. > That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is external to Apache. We're not discussing that right now. What we're discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which we are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two different things. As for "in release" versus "not in a release", I'll pose a question: Should we allow anyone to directly edit the project home page, even if they are not a project committer? Why not? It is not "in a release"? We should be trying to build a an open source release that anyone can use, modify and redistribute, according to the Apache 2.0 license. The fact that some pieces are in the source tarball and other pieces are on the website is irrelevant. We prevent others from making full use of our code if we do not allow them to also make full use of essential documentation. > There are cross-over cases, such as authoring of what will be embedded help > (in many languages) and also the support for on-line help. But even for > on-line help it would be great if it could be community-augmented. > I agree, Everything at Apache is built by the community, including the source code. We encourage contributions from all, including committers, of course, but also patches from users and other interested parties. But all such patches are reviewed and approved by project committers. > All we're accomplishing here is guaranteeing that the only well-written > documents and congenial forums for users will carry the LibreOffice logo. > > We already have two separate wikis, one that the community uses and one that > requires committers to make the changes. I notice the second one is not > getting much activity. > And I'm not seeing a lot of activity at the OpenOffice.org wiki either: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500 What does that prove? > I think this stance is too heavy-handed in an area where there is no > demonstration of harm and a great need for community engagement. We need to > be flexible here, and quickly too. > The harm is to the ability of downstream consumers to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation. The lax attention paid to this concern by OpenOffice.org is responsible for the nebulous state of the IP in the wiki's content today. That harm has already been done. I'd like to prevent that harm from continuing. > - Dennis > > -----Original Message- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was > re:OpenOffice.org branding) > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber > wrote: >> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our >>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to >>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation. >>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause >>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right >>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to >>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a >>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it >>> is product documentation. >> >> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the >> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user >> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download >> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this. >> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be >> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the >> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future >> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future >> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA? >> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can >> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else? >> > > I'd like us to treat docume
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
2011.08.02. 15:47 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Reizinger Zoltán wrote: 2011.08.02. 14:03 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta: On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote: On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to application developers, that documentation is product documentation. If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it is product documentation. Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this. They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA? Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else? I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and quality, namely: 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be made under Apache 2.0 license. 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA. 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we can trace to a real email address is fine. With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by a committer, and then checked into the repository. With documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable this. Rob, I think you lives outside of this world. You will not find a lot of contributors which needs to work with this idea. I'm seeing it working exactly as it does now, with the difference that the changes made by non-committers are not immediately visible on the page until reviewed and approved by a committer. This will stop causal documentation contributors to enhance wiki page. So you think that someone will refuse to contribute unless their change is made available immediately? Have you tried this? Can you back up your assertion that no one will contribute? Take a look at the wiki logs right now: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500 What do you see? Many new zombie accounts. People updating their User pages (not documentation) and a few real documentation changes, most of which are made by Jean, who is already an Apache OpenOffice committer. So although I've seen claims that there are 35,000 user accounts, even 15,000 real accounts, I'm not seeing a huge volume of changes. Fighting with spammers is a continuous work. No changes so much because OOo 3.4 was not out on time, and the no new features happens, it is an side effect of Oracle stopping work on OOo. See my rare contribution to wiki: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=R4zoli Check it, the changes I've made during my contribution, worth for committer checks, who has not knowledge in Hungarian or OOo Base? Worth for waiting for approvals? Your idea to bring all user content under AL 2.0 will not help the users of OOo, it will hurt them, that is what my experience on tho OOo is saying. I see no further effort on this topic, your idea may be wrong. I not want to spend more time on this. I not see so much support on your side, only you forcing this idea. Time will tell that it will be useful or not. Zoltan When I started working with wiki documentation, first I checked that the written down text is working in OOo, and if I find something corrected the text. I did this when I found some time to work on wiki. If the causal user meet barriers like every post wait for moderating for committers they will lost their interest very soon. What if the wait for
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Aug 2, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > -1 > > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a > release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the > content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the > user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list. > > There are cross-over cases, such as authoring of what will be embedded help > (in many languages) and also the support for on-line help. But even for > on-line help it would be great if it could be community-augmented. > > All we're accomplishing here is guaranteeing that the only well-written > documents and congenial forums for users will carry the LibreOffice logo. > > We already have two separate wikis, one that the community uses and one that > requires committers to make the changes. I notice the second one is not > getting much activity. > > I think this stance is too heavy-handed in an area where there is no > demonstration of harm and a great need for community engagement. We need to > be flexible here, and quickly too. +1 - Let's listen carefully. We don't have to have all the answers immediately and we don't need to drown in slew of emails. Regards, Dave > > - Dennis > > -Original Message- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was > re:OpenOffice.org branding) > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber > wrote: >> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our >>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to >>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation. >>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause >>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right >>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to >>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a >>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it >>> is product documentation. >> >> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the >> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user >> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download >> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this. >> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be >> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the >> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future >> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future >> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA? >> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can >> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else? >> > > I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily > the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and > quality, namely: > > 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these > must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they > become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be > made under Apache 2.0 license. > > 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the > documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA. > > 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and > tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given > change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we > can trace to a real email address is fine. > > With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches > (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by > a committer, and then checked into the repository. With > documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for > achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable > this. > > I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki. > That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under > project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much > annoyance to contributors. > >> --Jean >> >> >> >> >> >> >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Rob, I think that you've missed my point. The guy didn't THREATEN to leave. He HAS left. I doubt we will get him back. My strong reaction was because of that entirely avoidable loss of 5+ man-years of project expertise that we will be pressed to recover for the sake on an ill-considered shout-down. Was this really wise? Yes, I have only been on the DL for two days, but I have been a major contributor to community side of the OOo project for five years. And in my 30+ years in this business, I've seen lots of f***ed up project take-overs in my business unit. I was trying to flag up that this old dog is starting to sniff another one, and I would REALLY like to prevent this happening. You seem to be positioning yourself as the project leader and absolute arbiter of Apache policy, and YOU have caused a valuable asset to this project to walk, yet you seem to be totally unaware of this -- or are and don't care. If we keep this up then this Apache project will drive away many if not most of the ex-OOo team who want to contribute. You'll be left with an extremely tidy and well-managed DL but no OpenOffice product. If this is the Apache way, then this will be a sad outcome. But is this the Apache way or just your individual interpretation? I do wonder what is the biggest project that you've run personally, or have you even done this before? Regards Terry On 02/08/11 14:40, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:00 AM, TerryE wrote: Regardless... it doesn't matter to me anymore. I'm stepping out of this discussion now, and stepping away from anything to do with OOo documentation, including the OOo Wiki. Clayton This was the outcome of an ill considered discussion. Clayton, is the one guy who really understands how the documentation is put together. He's been working full time on this for at least 5 years that I know of. He was kicked in the teeth by Oracle, albeit for ration if perhaps impersonal commercial drivers, and now has to consider his future options. Despite this and somewhat to my surprise he was willing to re-engage and support OOo in the future within Apache. His departure would truly be a loss to the project and one that I think we all should regret. In my naiveté I did get the impression that the project would be a flat consensual collaborative organisation rather than a hierarchical dictat, albeit with the Apache umbrella. OK, I fully accept that I don't understand the "Apache way" yet, but in my days in EDS I had technical oversight in taking over many account teams and ensuring continuity of service (most far larger than this project) as well as running large teams myself. I have no interest in shovelling this shit in future but I do know how to get the team to vanish like sand through your fingers. One sure way is not to listen to considered and rational experience, to ride roughshod over peoples input, and to use sarcasm as a tool in sensitive dialogue. These people are volunteers contributing pro-bono, not servants. If this is going to be the culture of this project, then it is going to wither and die. By your strong reaction, Terry, after only being on the list for 2 days, I suspect that you are not yet accustomed to the way we are debating. No one is shutting anything down. We're discussing. When there is consensus then we move forward. Decision making at Apache is described here: http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management It is a good read. In particular I see nothing about trying to force decisions by threatening to leave the project. But maybe I missed that line ;-) And remember experience at OOo is not the sole fons et origo of wisdom. There are other sources of relevant knowledge and experience. We should try to respect all views raised on this list, and not try to close down arguments by saying, "That's the way we always did it at OOo" or "I'm more experienced in doing things my way, therefore everyone else should yield". Those are not ways to reach consensus. Similarly, there are parts of Apache that are non-negotiable and areas where we have some discretion in the project. The Apache 2.0 license is an example of something that is non-negotiable. -Rob
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
-1 I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list. There are cross-over cases, such as authoring of what will be embedded help (in many languages) and also the support for on-line help. But even for on-line help it would be great if it could be community-augmented. All we're accomplishing here is guaranteeing that the only well-written documents and congenial forums for users will carry the LibreOffice logo. We already have two separate wikis, one that the community uses and one that requires committers to make the changes. I notice the second one is not getting much activity. I think this stance is too heavy-handed in an area where there is no demonstration of harm and a great need for community engagement. We need to be flexible here, and quickly too. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding) On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote: > On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our >> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to >> application developers, that documentation is product documentation. >> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause >> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right >> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to >> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a >> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it >> is product documentation. > > Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the > wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user > guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download > from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this. > They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be > able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the > license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future > updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future > contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA? > Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can > put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else? > I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and quality, namely: 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be made under Apache 2.0 license. 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA. 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we can trace to a real email address is fine. With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by a committer, and then checked into the repository. With documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable this. I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki. That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much annoyance to contributors. > --Jean > > > > > >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:35 AM, C wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 14:56, Rob Weir wrote: > > Against my better judgement, one last reply... > >> iCLA is not the same as the JCA. You should read it: > > You miss the point entirely Rob. The issue is not the fine print of > the iCLA or the JCA (I know what the iCLA says.. I read it)... it is > the very fact that requiring it for OOo user documentation raises the > bar for contribution to the documentation. If you demand that doc > contributors sign an iCLA, they simply won't bother... they just go > away - I've seen this happen over and over, and the people walked.. > not because of the fine print in the JCA... it was because they had to > sign something, and it was over their head or they can't be bothered > trying to figure it out. > And if these same non-developer, normal user retirees wanted to write an article for a magazine, on an OpenOffice feature, they would need to sign a copyright assignment for it to be published by the magazine. The point is not the user's background. Giving license to content is not a special concern of developers. It applies to anyone that creates creative works that they want others to be able to use. Remember, the mess we're in now, as we're pondering exactly what parts of the wiki we can actually migrate, was caused by lax attention to this issue given by the OOo project previously. That is reducing our flexibility now. I'd like to avoid these kinds of problems in the future. > Doc contributors are NOT developers. They are mostly "normal" people > who have no clue about software development processes. They are end > users who enjoy writing a little... editing an FAQ... writing a HowTO. > They are often retirees with some spare time on their hands. > And their contributions are greatly appreciated. I don't want to force them to learn software development process. But I do what to ensure that their contributions are made in a way that allows others to max greatest use of their contributions. That's why we're an open source project. > >> All documentation in an Apache project is community-developed. > > And Apache projects are all very technical. They are databases, web > servers, XML framework tools, development toolkits, network > application frameworks, message brokers, Java development toolsets, > XML parsers and so on.. none which are Consumer Level products (at > least that I am aware of or could find). Documentation for these > products is written by developers for developers OOo > documentation it is user oriented not developer oriented. It is a very > different animal. > Again, that is a red herring. How the documentation is written and how it is licensed are two entirely different things. Ditto for how content is written and how it is reviewed and approved. I have no wish to complicate things for the documentation writer-contributor. We should make it so they can use familiar tools and techniques. -Rob > > C. >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Reizinger Zoltán wrote: > 2011.08.02. 14:03 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta: >> >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber >> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to application developers, that documentation is product documentation. If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it is product documentation. >>> >>> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the >>> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user >>> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download >>> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this. >>> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be >>> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the >>> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future >>> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future >>> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA? >>> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can >>> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else? >>> >> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily >> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and >> quality, namely: >> >> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these >> must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they >> become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be >> made under Apache 2.0 license. >> >> 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the >> documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA. >> >> 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and >> tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given >> change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we >> can trace to a real email address is fine. >> >> With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches >> (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by >> a committer, and then checked into the repository. With >> documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for >> achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable >> this. > > Rob, > I think you lives outside of this world. You will not find a lot of > contributors which needs to work with this idea. I'm seeing it working exactly as it does now, with the difference that the changes made by non-committers are not immediately visible on the page until reviewed and approved by a committer. > This will stop causal documentation contributors to enhance wiki page. So you think that someone will refuse to contribute unless their change is made available immediately? Have you tried this? Can you back up your assertion that no one will contribute? Take a look at the wiki logs right now: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500 What do you see? Many new zombie accounts. People updating their User pages (not documentation) and a few real documentation changes, most of which are made by Jean, who is already an Apache OpenOffice committer. So although I've seen claims that there are 35,000 user accounts, even 15,000 real accounts, I'm not seeing a huge volume of changes. > When I started working with wiki documentation, first I checked that the > written down text is working in OOo, and if I find something corrected the > text. > I did this when I found some time to work on wiki. > If the causal user meet barriers like every post wait for moderating for > committers they will lost their interest very soon. What if the wait for review was only a day? > May be you will have good managed and fully license compliant documentation, > but fully out of date. Again, what if aimed to delay the review/approval by no more than 1 day? Certainly that would not be technically out of date. Even if the delay was a week it would not be out of date since releases come only every couple of months. > Zoltan >> >> I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki. >> That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under >> project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much >> annoyance to contributors. >> >>> --Jean >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:00 AM, TerryE wrote: > >> >> Regardless... it doesn't matter to me anymore. I'm stepping out of >> this discussion now, and stepping away from anything to do with OOo >> documentation, including the OOo Wiki. >> >> Clayton > > This was the outcome of an ill considered discussion. Clayton, is the one > guy who really understands how the documentation is put together. He's been > working full time on this for at least 5 years that I know of. He was > kicked in the teeth by Oracle, albeit for ration if perhaps impersonal > commercial drivers, and now has to consider his future options. Despite > this and somewhat to my surprise he was willing to re-engage and support OOo > in the future within Apache. His departure would truly be a loss to the > project and one that I think we all should regret. > > In my naiveté I did get the impression that the project would be a flat > consensual collaborative organisation rather than a hierarchical dictat, > albeit with the Apache umbrella. OK, I fully accept that I don't > understand the "Apache way" yet, but in my days in EDS I had technical > oversight in taking over many account teams and ensuring continuity of > service (most far larger than this project) as well as running large teams > myself. I have no interest in shovelling this shit in future but I do know > how to get the team to vanish like sand through your fingers. One sure way > is not to listen to considered and rational experience, to ride roughshod > over peoples input, and to use sarcasm as a tool in sensitive dialogue. > These people are volunteers contributing pro-bono, not servants. If this > is going to be the culture of this project, then it is going to wither and > die. > By your strong reaction, Terry, after only being on the list for 2 days, I suspect that you are not yet accustomed to the way we are debating. No one is shutting anything down. We're discussing. When there is consensus then we move forward. Decision making at Apache is described here: http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management It is a good read. In particular I see nothing about trying to force decisions by threatening to leave the project. But maybe I missed that line ;-) And remember experience at OOo is not the sole fons et origo of wisdom. There are other sources of relevant knowledge and experience. We should try to respect all views raised on this list, and not try to close down arguments by saying, "That's the way we always did it at OOo" or "I'm more experienced in doing things my way, therefore everyone else should yield". Those are not ways to reach consensus. Similarly, there are parts of Apache that are non-negotiable and areas where we have some discretion in the project. The Apache 2.0 license is an example of something that is non-negotiable. -Rob >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 14:56, Rob Weir wrote: Against my better judgement, one last reply... > iCLA is not the same as the JCA. You should read it: You miss the point entirely Rob. The issue is not the fine print of the iCLA or the JCA (I know what the iCLA says.. I read it)... it is the very fact that requiring it for OOo user documentation raises the bar for contribution to the documentation. If you demand that doc contributors sign an iCLA, they simply won't bother... they just go away - I've seen this happen over and over, and the people walked.. not because of the fine print in the JCA... it was because they had to sign something, and it was over their head or they can't be bothered trying to figure it out. Doc contributors are NOT developers. They are mostly "normal" people who have no clue about software development processes. They are end users who enjoy writing a little... editing an FAQ... writing a HowTO. They are often retirees with some spare time on their hands. > All documentation in an Apache project is community-developed. And Apache projects are all very technical. They are databases, web servers, XML framework tools, development toolkits, network application frameworks, message brokers, Java development toolsets, XML parsers and so on.. none which are Consumer Level products (at least that I am aware of or could find). Documentation for these products is written by developers for developers OOo documentation it is user oriented not developer oriented. It is a very different animal. C.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
2011.08.02. 14:03 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta: On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote: On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to application developers, that documentation is product documentation. If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it is product documentation. Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this. They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA? Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else? I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and quality, namely: 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be made under Apache 2.0 license. 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA. 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we can trace to a real email address is fine. With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by a committer, and then checked into the repository. With documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable this. Rob, I think you lives outside of this world. You will not find a lot of contributors which needs to work with this idea. This will stop causal documentation contributors to enhance wiki page. When I started working with wiki documentation, first I checked that the written down text is working in OOo, and if I find something corrected the text. I did this when I found some time to work on wiki. If the causal user meet barriers like every post wait for moderating for committers they will lost their interest very soon. May be you will have good managed and fully license compliant documentation, but fully out of date. Zoltan I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki. That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much annoyance to contributors. --Jean
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Regardless... it doesn't matter to me anymore. I'm stepping out of this discussion now, and stepping away from anything to do with OOo documentation, including the OOo Wiki. Clayton This was the outcome of an ill considered discussion. Clayton, is the one guy who really understands how the documentation is put together. He's been working full time on this for at least 5 years that I know of. He was kicked in the teeth by Oracle, albeit for ration if perhaps impersonal commercial drivers, and now has to consider his future options. Despite this and somewhat to my surprise he was willing to re-engage and support OOo in the future within Apache. His departure would truly be a loss to the project and one that I think we all should regret. In my naiveté I did get the impression that the project would be a flat consensual collaborative organisation rather than a hierarchical dictat, albeit with the Apache umbrella. OK, I fully accept that I don't understand the "Apache way" yet, but in my days in EDS I had technical oversight in taking over many account teams and ensuring continuity of service (most far larger than this project) as well as running large teams myself. I have no interest in shovelling this shit in future but I do know how to get the team to vanish like sand through your fingers. One sure way is not to listen to considered and rational experience, to ride roughshod over peoples input, and to use sarcasm as a tool in sensitive dialogue. These people are volunteers contributing pro-bono, not servants. If this is going to be the culture of this project, then it is going to wither and die.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:20 AM, C wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 14:03, Rob Weir wrote: >> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily >> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and >> quality, namely: >> >> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these >> must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they >> become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be >> made under Apache 2.0 license. >> >> 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the >> documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA. >> >> 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and >> tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given >> change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we >> can trace to a real email address is fine. >> >> With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches >> (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by >> a committer, and then checked into the repository. With >> documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for >> achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable >> this. >> >> I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki. >> That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under >> project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much >> annoyance to contributors. > > This is pretty much JCA regime that was in place under Sun and Oracle. > On the User Doc side, it hindered not encouraged doc contributions... > thus the move to a low entry barrier community Wiki (among other > things that we tried to implement). Accepting patches and fixes via a > bug reporting system is great if you've got the people working the > bugs and managing the input in a timely manner. otherwise you > simply have a bottleneck in one or two people. The same goes for the > MediaWiki Flagged Revisions (which is installed on the existing OOo > Wiki by the way, just not in use)... without a team of reviewers, the > edits are never approved, and community contributions dry up very > quickly. > iCLA is not the same as the JCA. You should read it: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt The OpenOffice JCA says: "Contributor hereby assigns to Sun joint ownership in all worldwide common law and statutory rights associated with the copyrights, copyright application, copyright registration and moral rights in the Contribution to the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright conventions." The Apache iCLA says: "You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works." See the key difference? With the iCLA recipients get the same rights as Apache does. There is no asymmetry like there was with the JCA where Sun received special rights. We don't have "a bottleneck in one or two people". All committers are able to review and approve patches. We have (according to Dennis's latest tally) 54 committers on the project right now. How many wiki changes do you think we receive per day? How much time would it take to review and approve a single wiki change? I'd like to see the math that would suggest a bottleneck. Of course, not every committer wants to review documentation. On the other hand, we're not limited to 54 committers. If someone is making a lot of doc changes, and we think they are of high quality, then we elect them to be committers. So in an Apache project, you should never have a review bottleneck. If you do that would be a sign that the PPMC is not doing its job of identifying new committers. > Also you really need to differentiate between Wiki documentation which > is Community developed... and Application help which is/was treated > like the source code (and required a JCA to work on). > All documentation in an Apache project is community-developed. All of it. 100% of it. Every single line. Every character, space, em-dash and en-dash. There is absolutely nothing in an Apache project, code, documentation or website that is not developed by the community. If you are making a distinction between the committers and the contributors and some other "community" then you are making a false distinction. The question is how does the community work within Apache? -Rob
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 14:03, Rob Weir wrote: > I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily > the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and > quality, namely: > > 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these > must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they > become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be > made under Apache 2.0 license. > > 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the > documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA. > > 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and > tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given > change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we > can trace to a real email address is fine. > > With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches > (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by > a committer, and then checked into the repository. With > documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for > achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable > this. > > I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki. > That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under > project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much > annoyance to contributors. This is pretty much JCA regime that was in place under Sun and Oracle. On the User Doc side, it hindered not encouraged doc contributions... thus the move to a low entry barrier community Wiki (among other things that we tried to implement). Accepting patches and fixes via a bug reporting system is great if you've got the people working the bugs and managing the input in a timely manner. otherwise you simply have a bottleneck in one or two people. The same goes for the MediaWiki Flagged Revisions (which is installed on the existing OOo Wiki by the way, just not in use)... without a team of reviewers, the edits are never approved, and community contributions dry up very quickly. Also you really need to differentiate between Wiki documentation which is Community developed... and Application help which is/was treated like the source code (and required a JCA to work on). Regardless... it doesn't matter to me anymore. I'm stepping out of this discussion now, and stepping away from anything to do with OOo documentation, including the OOo Wiki. Clayton
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote: > On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our >> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to >> application developers, that documentation is product documentation. >> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause >> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right >> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to >> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a >> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it >> is product documentation. > > Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the > wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user > guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download > from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this. > They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be > able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the > license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future > updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future > contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA? > Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can > put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else? > I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and quality, namely: 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be made under Apache 2.0 license. 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA. 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we can trace to a real email address is fine. With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by a committer, and then checked into the repository. With documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable this. I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki. That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much annoyance to contributors. > --Jean > > > > > >
