Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community

[Jörg Schmidt]

> When we have something to announce you can expect to read it in
> official places. It won't be something we'll be hiding in strange
> corners of the web.

That means if an employee identifies proposals on XING does not correspond to 
the opinion of the IBM? Not officially?
I think that's a strange point of view.

I think sentences like:

"heute mal eine ganz andere Anfrage, IBM als eine der Firmen, die sich im 
Apache OpenOffice Projekt engagiert, macht sich auch über ein Service & Support 
Konzept im Rahmen von Apache OpenOffice Gedanken. 
[...]
Ich würde gerne mehr darüber erfahren, wer im OpenOffice Umfeld aktiv ist und 
an einer Partnerbeziehung auf dieser Ebene mit IBM interessiert ist."

are absolutely clear.


But no problem, I will contact IBM directly. Thanks for your clarification.


Greetings,
Jörg

Re: crash with debug build of r1403340

[Herbert Duerr]

Hi Regina,

On 29.10.2012 22:26, Regina Henschel wrote:

I get an immediately crash, when I try to switch to presentation mode
(=F5) in Impress. It is a debug build of r1403340 on WinXP. But I'm not
sure, whether there is something wrong in my build and I need to make a
new, clean build. It would be nice, if someone can test it. [The
downloaded r1400866 is OK.]


FWIW our aoo-win7 buildbot tonight produced its weekly clean build of 
almost that revision (1403177), which can be downloaded from

  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#win
It doesn't show the reported problem here.

Our nightly aoo-win7 builds are usually incremental only, so we were a 
bit lucky that this close match was the weekly clean build.


Herbert

Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
 ...  it would probably allow to skip the release process and voting, since 
 we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for different 
 platforms).
>>>
>>> It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source releases. 
>>> Certainly these are the only "official" release. I think that the practice 
>>> is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a different bar. 
>>> It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that we do need to VOTE 
>>> on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a certain level of 
>>> trust for the packager and translations.
>>>
>>
>> But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries
>> depend on, where that source is from this project.
>>
>> It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port of
>> existing source packages.  But we're not.
>>
>> We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources
>> are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to
>> build the localized binaries.  No downstream consumer of the source
>> will be able to build these localizations without having access to the
>> translated resources.  Therefore these resources should be reviewed,
>> voted on and released.
>>
>> Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works,
>> translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from the
>> help files.  They are under copyright and made available under
>> license.  So we need to do our due diligence via the release process
>> before we distribute such materials.
>>
> 
> Should say, "before we distribute such materials in source OR source
> and binary form".  The issues are the same.
> 
> Remember, the source package is canonical.  I'm surprised to hear talk
> now of releasing only binaries.



I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to
make new translations available as soon as possible.

What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based
on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked
in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical
security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included
automatically.

The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are
not officially released and are available via the snapshot page.

When we reach a state where we have "release" build bots, we can
probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product
version but based on a new revision number including the new translations.

Juergen



> 
> -Rob
> 
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave

Re: [APEU2012] Schedule on 11/5

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 10/26/12 7:25 PM, imacat wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> I will arrive Hotel Sinsheim at noon, 11/5.  You may find me in the
> afternoon, 11/5, if you want to discuss with me about forum, wiki or
> anything.  We do not have a scheduled Hackathon, but we may still work
> on something.  See you there. ^_*'
> 
> P.S. Do we have anyone that is local at Sinsheim or will arrive earlier?
> 

Hi imacat,

we will also arrive Monday afternoon. I am looking forward to meet as
many as possible people already on Monday and we can have dinner
together or some drinks. But we are staying not directly in Sinsheim.

I will be on IRC channel #dev.oepnoffice.org for easy communication via
my smartphone.

Looking forward to meet all or many of you next week

Juergen

Re: AOO volunteers: essential skills and tasks

[Guy Waterval]

Hi Andrea,
Hi all,

2012/10/28 Andrea Pescetti 

> On 23/10/2012 Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> New Volunteer Orientation root page:
>> http://incubator.apache.org/**openofficeorg/orientation/
>>
>
> This is an excellent resource. But we received a few requests from
> prospective volunteers this weekend and I'm believing it would be
> overwhelming to point them there. I still believe these documents are
> excellent, but probably they are assuming our volunteer is above average,
> or at least willing to engage deeply with the project. They would be
> perfect for me, for you, or for a newcomer like Jan who has the skills and
> the mindset to understand in detail how things work.
>
> But we will also have (and we do have: most volunteers I see on the
> mailing lists in Italian fall in this category) volunteers who don't care
> that much about OpenOffice as a project: they use the product and just want
> to give something back. They want to scratch an itch, or just to do
> something, but they are very task-oriented: they want something to do
> rather than something to read. For example, we may have translation
> volunteers who would be perfectly satisfied if we e-mail them a PO file and
> tell them to grab POEdit and send the file back; and then they would
> consider a deeper engagement, but not earlier.
>

For people willing deeply be involved in the project, the Rob's way is
certainly the good one.
But for other people who will occasionally participate, why not a Post
Office where they could register (for security reasons, acceptation of the
license, etc.).
When they have time, they can visit the Post Office to see the list of to
do tasks, and they can download for instance a translation job. If they
think they have the skill to do it, they do the job and send it in the
pipeline. The Post Office managers collect the files and can propose them
for review before posting them to the right place in the project. So people
who not have necessary the skill or the necessary time to be involved
 deeply in the structure can also participate in the area where they are
competent and are not lost for the project.
Just an idea.

A+
-- 
gw

>
>

Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community

[Rob Weir]

On Oct 30, 2012, at 4:19 AM, "Jörg Schmidt"  wrote:

>> When we have something to announce you can expect to read it in
>> official places. It won't be something we'll be hiding in strange
>> corners of the web.
>
> That means if an employee identifies proposals on XING does not correspond to 
> the opinion of the IBM? Not officially?
> I think that's a strange point of view.
>
> I think sentences like:
>
> "heute mal eine ganz andere Anfrage, IBM als eine der Firmen, die sich im 
> Apache OpenOffice Projekt engagiert, macht sich auch über ein Service & 
> Support Konzept im Rahmen von Apache OpenOffice Gedanken.
> [...]
> Ich würde gerne mehr darüber erfahren, wer im OpenOffice Umfeld aktiv ist und 
> an einer Partnerbeziehung auf dieser Ebene mit IBM interessiert ist."
>
> are absolutely clear.

This sounds like research to me.

>
> But no problem, I will contact IBM directly. Thanks for your clarification.
>
>

If everything is "absolutely clear" to you then I don't know what you
want "clarifications" on.   But if you do have a question then just
ask it, here or via private email if that is your preference. But I
speak honestly when I say that I cannot figure out what your theory is
here and what you think is occurring.

Rob


> Greetings,
> Jörg
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Initiate a Contest for Branding of 4.0

[Kevin Grignon]

On Oct 29, 2012, at 6:37 PM, Ian Lynch  wrote:

> On 29 October 2012 10:19, Kevin Grignon  wrote:
> 
>> KG01 - see comments inline.
>> 
>> On Oct 27, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 26/10/2012 Ian Lynch wrote:
 I arranged one for the OOo schools mascot ... The winner was
 clear-cut. A 16 year old Italian boy who aspired to be a graphic
>> designer.
>>> 
>>> Here he is (by chance, he's called Andrea too):
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/editorial/interview_andrea_maggioni.html (EN)
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/it/stampa/comunicati/avv12.html (IT)
>>> A quick web search shows that in the end he managed to become a graphic
>> designer indeed!
>>> 
>>> The mascot is at the end of
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/education/schools/
>>> but it didn't have that much recognition in the end.
>>> 
>>> Indeed, as Ian pointed out, the main value of that competition was in
>> getting media exposure;
>> 
>> KG - Wouldn't the value in the contest be the new branding elements? I'm
>> not sure that this is the best way to hold a marketing event.
>> 
> 
> Maybe not the best, but will it help? Question is not perfection but is it
> better to do it than not to do it. Why not add value with a
> multi-dimensional approach rather than fix to only one thing? Especially if
> the additional effort is minimal.
> 
> From a UX design perspective, this approach presents risk. The branding is
>> bound to the UI, and other supporting visual elements.
>> 
> 
> All approaches present risk. There is no obligation on the PMC to adopt any
> branding that it does not see as appropriate for whatever reason so the
> risk of getting a brand that causes UI problems is no higher than if it is
> done entirely in house.
> 
>> 
>> We are just starting to explore the AOO branding and UX enhancements for
>> AOO 4.0. I'd prefer we explore this in house first. We don't have our full
>> inventory of requirements yet.
>> 
> 
> Why not do both? Crowd sourcing ideas is no real disadvantage if there is
> no requirement to adopt any of the specific proposals. It might be that
> only a logo is used, or a packaging presentation from the competition, or
> all of it or none of it.
> Even just framing the competition scope and rules helps provide some focus
> for development. Putting it out to art and design colleges and universities
> will raise our profile and tap into resources and expertise we currently
> don't have.

KG02 - ok, I like this. I've been looking for ways to engage design schools 
from both a UX and visual design perspective



> And in the end we don't have to adopt any of the entries if we
> don't want to, they could just help stimulate ideas.
> 
KG02 - Ok, this is less risky. I was concerned that we would be bound to the 
winning entry. 

>> 
>> I prefer that we defer this proposal.

KG02 - ok, changing my position from -1 to neutral. I'm warming up :)

>> 
>> Regards,
>> Kevin
>> 
>> 
>>> while in this (OpenOffice 4.0 visual identity) competition we will
>> probably want both media exposure and a professional outcome, so a clear
>> RFP (Request for proposal) as Graham proposes will help and it is an
>> excellent first step.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Andrea.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: [PROPOSAL] Initiate a Contest for Branding of 4.0

[Kevin Grignon]

KG02 & 03 - see comments inline

On Oct 30, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Kevin Grignon  wrote:

> 
> 
> On Oct 29, 2012, at 6:37 PM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
> 
>> On 29 October 2012 10:19, Kevin Grignon  wrote:
>> 
>>> KG01 - see comments inline.
>>> 
>>> On Oct 27, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>>> 
 On 26/10/2012 Ian Lynch wrote:
> I arranged one for the OOo schools mascot ... The winner was
> clear-cut. A 16 year old Italian boy who aspired to be a graphic
>>> designer.
 
 Here he is (by chance, he's called Andrea too):
 http://www.openoffice.org/editorial/interview_andrea_maggioni.html (EN)
 http://www.openoffice.org/it/stampa/comunicati/avv12.html (IT)
 A quick web search shows that in the end he managed to become a graphic
>>> designer indeed!
 
 The mascot is at the end of
 http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/education/schools/
 but it didn't have that much recognition in the end.
 
 Indeed, as Ian pointed out, the main value of that competition was in
>>> getting media exposure;
>>> 
>>> KG - Wouldn't the value in the contest be the new branding elements? I'm
>>> not sure that this is the best way to hold a marketing event.
>>> 
>> 
>> Maybe not the best, but will it help? Question is not perfection but is it
>> better to do it than not to do it. Why not add value with a
>> multi-dimensional approach rather than fix to only one thing? Especially if
>> the additional effort is minimal.
>> 
>> From a UX design perspective, this approach presents risk. The branding is
>>> bound to the UI, and other supporting visual elements.
>>> 
>> 
>> All approaches present risk. There is no obligation on the PMC to adopt any
>> branding that it does not see as appropriate for whatever reason so the
>> risk of getting a brand that causes UI problems is no higher than if it is
>> done entirely in house.
>> 
>>> 
>>> We are just starting to explore the AOO branding and UX enhancements for
>>> AOO 4.0. I'd prefer we explore this in house first. We don't have our full
>>> inventory of requirements yet.
>>> 
>> 
>> Why not do both? Crowd sourcing ideas is no real disadvantage if there is
>> no requirement to adopt any of the specific proposals. It might be that
>> only a logo is used, or a packaging presentation from the competition, or
>> all of it or none of it.
>> Even just framing the competition scope and rules helps provide some focus
>> for development. Putting it out to art and design colleges and universities
>> will raise our profile and tap into resources and expertise we currently
>> don't have.
> 
> KG02 - ok, I like this. I've been looking for ways to engage design schools 
> from both a UX and a visual design perspective. 
> 
>> And in the end we don't have to adopt any of the entries if we
>> don't want to, they could just help stimulate ideas.
>> 
> KG02 - Ok, this is less risky. I was concerned that we would be bound to the 
> winning entry. 
> 
>>> 
>>> I prefer that we defer this proposal.
> 
> KG02 - ok, changing my position from -1 to neutral. I'm warming up :)
> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Kevin
>>> 
>>> 
 while in this (OpenOffice 4.0 visual identity) competition we will
>>> probably want both media exposure and a professional outcome, so a clear
>>> RFP (Request for proposal) as Graham proposes will help and it is an
>>> excellent first step.

KG03 - Agreed. 

 
 Regards,
 Andrea.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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: proposal for new l10n workflow

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 10/27/12 10:51 PM, jan iversen wrote:
> Based on the comments I have received, I have updated the document.
> 
> The major changes are:
> 
> - removed l10n web page tools
> - no auto-commit in any tools
> - proposed changes to pootle server (based on request from andrea, to
> use/change existing tools)
> - added more text on the translation workflow, inkl. local teams
> 
> The document is available as pdf:
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10procNew2.pdf
> and (due to a polite hint) as a wiki page:
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/new_proposal
> Furthermore a projectplan is available as a wiki page:
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/workPlan
> 
> this mail is posted on both ooo-L10n and ooo-dev, but please use ooo-dev
> for discussions.

I noticed that somebody put an "outdated" template on
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers which I
think is a little bit early.

The new page is a great resource to discuss a new workflow and necessary
improvements. But the currently "Localization for developers" page
describes how it works today.

We should avoid confusion here, the new process is under development yet
but not available yet.

Juergen

> 
> Andrea:
> I hope you have time to see if your suggestions are well represented now,
> so this document could be used as discussion basis when you meet the pootle
> people.
> 
> 
> Have a nice evening.
> jan I.
> 
> 

Re: proposal for new l10n workflow

[jan iversen]

I am guilty.

see below.


On 30 October 2012 13:22, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:

> On 10/27/12 10:51 PM, jan iversen wrote:
> > Based on the comments I have received, I have updated the document.
> >
> > The major changes are:
> >
> > - removed l10n web page tools
> > - no auto-commit in any tools
> > - proposed changes to pootle server (based on request from andrea, to
> > use/change existing tools)
> > - added more text on the translation workflow, inkl. local teams
> >
> > The document is available as pdf:
> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10procNew2.pdf
> > and (due to a polite hint) as a wiki page:
> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/new_proposal
> > Furthermore a projectplan is available as a wiki page:
> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/workPlan
> >
> > this mail is posted on both ooo-L10n and ooo-dev, but please use ooo-dev
> > for discussions.
>
> I noticed that somebody put an "outdated" template on
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers which I
> think is a little bit early.
>
> The new page is a great resource to discuss a new workflow and necessary
> improvements. But the currently "Localization for developers" page
> describes how it works today.
>
The page it points to, is NOT the new proposal, that would be wrong, but
the first I made with a more detailed description of how it works today.

I hope that is ok ?

>
> We should avoid confusion here, the new process is under development yet
> but not available yet.
>
I totally agree, and I have not made links that suggest otherwise.


>
> Juergen
>
> >
> > Andrea:
> > I hope you have time to see if your suggestions are well represented now,
> > so this document could be used as discussion basis when you meet the
> pootle
> > people.
> >
> >
> > Have a nice evening.
> > jan I.
> >
> >
>
>

Re: proposal for new l10n workflow

[jan iversen]

I just double checked:

the pointer is: Localization
AOO, which clearly
stated (the very first lines of the document)

"This document is based on and extents
Localization_for_developers.
The document is work in progress showing the result of a detailed technical
analysis of the current process (version 3.4.1) . As such this document
should be seen as a replacement of
Localization_for_developers
."


But I will happely remove it if you prefer, but then where do I put a link
to the more detailed description of the CURRENT process.

jan.

On 30 October 2012 13:30, jan iversen  wrote:

> I am guilty.
>
> see below.
>
>
> On 30 October 2012 13:22, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
>
>> On 10/27/12 10:51 PM, jan iversen wrote:
>> > Based on the comments I have received, I have updated the document.
>> >
>> > The major changes are:
>> >
>> > - removed l10n web page tools
>> > - no auto-commit in any tools
>> > - proposed changes to pootle server (based on request from andrea, to
>> > use/change existing tools)
>> > - added more text on the translation workflow, inkl. local teams
>> >
>> > The document is available as pdf:
>> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10procNew2.pdf
>> > and (due to a polite hint) as a wiki page:
>> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/new_proposal
>> > Furthermore a projectplan is available as a wiki page:
>> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/workPlan
>> >
>> > this mail is posted on both ooo-L10n and ooo-dev, but please use ooo-dev
>> > for discussions.
>>
>> I noticed that somebody put an "outdated" template on
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers which I
>> think is a little bit early.
>>
>> The new page is a great resource to discuss a new workflow and necessary
>> improvements. But the currently "Localization for developers" page
>> describes how it works today.
>>
> The page it points to, is NOT the new proposal, that would be wrong, but
> the first I made with a more detailed description of how it works today.
>
> I hope that is ok ?
>
>>
>> We should avoid confusion here, the new process is under development yet
>> but not available yet.
>>
> I totally agree, and I have not made links that suggest otherwise.
>
>
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>> >
>> > Andrea:
>> > I hope you have time to see if your suggestions are well represented
>> now,
>> > so this document could be used as discussion basis when you meet the
>> pootle
>> > people.
>> >
>> >
>> > Have a nice evening.
>> > jan I.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1

[RGB ES]

2012/10/30 Jürgen Schmidt 

> On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>  ...  it would probably allow to skip the release process and voting,
> since we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for different
> platforms).
> >>>
> >>> It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source
> releases. Certainly these are the only "official" release. I think that the
> practice is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a
> different bar. It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that we
> do need to VOTE on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a
> certain level of trust for the packager and translations.
> >>>
> >>
> >> But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries
> >> depend on, where that source is from this project.
> >>
> >> It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port of
> >> existing source packages.  But we're not.
> >>
> >> We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources
> >> are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to
> >> build the localized binaries.  No downstream consumer of the source
> >> will be able to build these localizations without having access to the
> >> translated resources.  Therefore these resources should be reviewed,
> >> voted on and released.
> >>
> >> Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works,
> >> translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from the
> >> help files.  They are under copyright and made available under
> >> license.  So we need to do our due diligence via the release process
> >> before we distribute such materials.
> >>
> >
> > Should say, "before we distribute such materials in source OR source
> > and binary form".  The issues are the same.
> >
> > Remember, the source package is canonical.  I'm surprised to hear talk
> > now of releasing only binaries.
>
>
>
> I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to
> make new translations available as soon as possible.
>
> What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based
> on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked
> in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical
> security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included
> automatically.
>
> The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are
> not officially released and are available via the snapshot page.
>
> When we reach a state where we have "release" build bots, we can
> probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product
> version but based on a new revision number including the new translations.
>
> Juergen
>

+1. I like the idea. We can put on the download page a link to "additional
untested language packs" and add "these language packs are being prepared
for the next AOO version, but you can use them right now" or something like
that.

Regards
Ricardo




>
>
>
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Dave
>
>

Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1

[jan iversen]

+1, such a download page "additional
untested language packs" would allow us to make a translation official
immediately with a limited responsibility, just like the snapshots.

jan

On 30 October 2012 14:02, RGB ES  wrote:

> 2012/10/30 Jürgen Schmidt 
>
> > On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher 
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >  ...  it would probably allow to skip the release process and voting,
> > since we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for different
> > platforms).
> > >>>
> > >>> It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source
> > releases. Certainly these are the only "official" release. I think that
> the
> > practice is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a
> > different bar. It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that we
> > do need to VOTE on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a
> > certain level of trust for the packager and translations.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries
> > >> depend on, where that source is from this project.
> > >>
> > >> It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port of
> > >> existing source packages.  But we're not.
> > >>
> > >> We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources
> > >> are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to
> > >> build the localized binaries.  No downstream consumer of the source
> > >> will be able to build these localizations without having access to the
> > >> translated resources.  Therefore these resources should be reviewed,
> > >> voted on and released.
> > >>
> > >> Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works,
> > >> translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from the
> > >> help files.  They are under copyright and made available under
> > >> license.  So we need to do our due diligence via the release process
> > >> before we distribute such materials.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Should say, "before we distribute such materials in source OR source
> > > and binary form".  The issues are the same.
> > >
> > > Remember, the source package is canonical.  I'm surprised to hear talk
> > > now of releasing only binaries.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to
> > make new translations available as soon as possible.
> >
> > What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based
> > on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked
> > in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical
> > security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included
> > automatically.
> >
> > The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are
> > not officially released and are available via the snapshot page.
> >
> > When we reach a state where we have "release" build bots, we can
> > probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product
> > version but based on a new revision number including the new
> translations.
> >
> > Juergen
> >
>
> +1. I like the idea. We can put on the download page a link to "additional
> untested language packs" and add "these language packs are being prepared
> for the next AOO version, but you can use them right now" or something like
> that.
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > -Rob
> > >
> > >> -Rob
> > >>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> Dave
> >
> >
>

Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community

[Jörg Schmidt]

> If everything is "absolutely clear" to you then I don't know what you
> want "clarifications" on.   But if you do have a question then just
> ask it, here or via private email if that is your preference.

Hello Rob,

Ok, thank you, I will send you a private email.


Greetings,
Jörg

Re: proposal for new l10n workflow

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 10/30/12 1:33 PM, jan iversen wrote:
> I just double checked:
> 
> the pointer is: Localization
> AOO, which clearly
> stated (the very first lines of the document)
> 
> "This document is based on and extents
> Localization_for_developers.
> The document is work in progress showing the result of a detailed technical
> analysis of the current process (version 3.4.1) . As such this document
> should be seen as a replacement of
> Localization_for_developers
> ."

I simply missed some basic info how the tools have to be used etc.. I
was confused...

> 
> 
> But I will happely remove it if you prefer, but then where do I put a link
> to the more detailed description of the CURRENT process.

no need to remove it now, I know whats behind and as long as nobody
delete it I am fine

Juergen

> 
> jan.
> 
> On 30 October 2012 13:30, jan iversen  wrote:
> 
>> I am guilty.
>>
>> see below.
>>
>>
>> On 30 October 2012 13:22, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/27/12 10:51 PM, jan iversen wrote:
 Based on the comments I have received, I have updated the document.

 The major changes are:

 - removed l10n web page tools
 - no auto-commit in any tools
 - proposed changes to pootle server (based on request from andrea, to
 use/change existing tools)
 - added more text on the translation workflow, inkl. local teams

 The document is available as pdf:
 http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10procNew2.pdf
 and (due to a polite hint) as a wiki page:
 http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/new_proposal
 Furthermore a projectplan is available as a wiki page:
 http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/workPlan

 this mail is posted on both ooo-L10n and ooo-dev, but please use ooo-dev
 for discussions.
>>>
>>> I noticed that somebody put an "outdated" template on
>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers which I
>>> think is a little bit early.
>>>
>>> The new page is a great resource to discuss a new workflow and necessary
>>> improvements. But the currently "Localization for developers" page
>>> describes how it works today.
>>>
>> The page it points to, is NOT the new proposal, that would be wrong, but
>> the first I made with a more detailed description of how it works today.
>>
>> I hope that is ok ?
>>
>>>
>>> We should avoid confusion here, the new process is under development yet
>>> but not available yet.
>>>
>> I totally agree, and I have not made links that suggest otherwise.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>

 Andrea:
 I hope you have time to see if your suggestions are well represented
>>> now,
 so this document could be used as discussion basis when you meet the
>>> pootle
 people.


 Have a nice evening.
 jan I.


>>>
>>>
>>
> 

Re: proposal for new l10n workflow

[jan iversen]

If my page needs updating, feel free to do so, I actually copied all the
scripts things from the other page.

jan.

On 30 October 2012 14:28, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:

> On 10/30/12 1:33 PM, jan iversen wrote:
> > I just double checked:
> >
> > the pointer is: Localization
> > AOO, which clearly
> > stated (the very first lines of the document)
> >
> > "This document is based on and extents
> > Localization_for_developers<
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers>.
> > The document is work in progress showing the result of a detailed
> technical
> > analysis of the current process (version 3.4.1) . As such this document
> > should be seen as a replacement of
> > Localization_for_developers<
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers>
> > ."
>
> I simply missed some basic info how the tools have to be used etc.. I
> was confused...
>
> >
> >
> > But I will happely remove it if you prefer, but then where do I put a
> link
> > to the more detailed description of the CURRENT process.
>
> no need to remove it now, I know whats behind and as long as nobody
> delete it I am fine
>
> Juergen
>
> >
> > jan.
> >
> > On 30 October 2012 13:30, jan iversen  wrote:
> >
> >> I am guilty.
> >>
> >> see below.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 30 October 2012 13:22, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 10/27/12 10:51 PM, jan iversen wrote:
>  Based on the comments I have received, I have updated the document.
> 
>  The major changes are:
> 
>  - removed l10n web page tools
>  - no auto-commit in any tools
>  - proposed changes to pootle server (based on request from andrea, to
>  use/change existing tools)
>  - added more text on the translation workflow, inkl. local teams
> 
>  The document is available as pdf:
>  http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10procNew2.pdf
>  and (due to a polite hint) as a wiki page:
>  http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/new_proposal
>  Furthermore a projectplan is available as a wiki page:
>  http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/workPlan
> 
>  this mail is posted on both ooo-L10n and ooo-dev, but please use
> ooo-dev
>  for discussions.
> >>>
> >>> I noticed that somebody put an "outdated" template on
> >>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers which I
> >>> think is a little bit early.
> >>>
> >>> The new page is a great resource to discuss a new workflow and
> necessary
> >>> improvements. But the currently "Localization for developers" page
> >>> describes how it works today.
> >>>
> >> The page it points to, is NOT the new proposal, that would be wrong, but
> >> the first I made with a more detailed description of how it works today.
> >>
> >> I hope that is ok ?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> We should avoid confusion here, the new process is under development
> yet
> >>> but not available yet.
> >>>
> >> I totally agree, and I have not made links that suggest otherwise.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Juergen
> >>>
> 
>  Andrea:
>  I hope you have time to see if your suggestions are well represented
> >>> now,
>  so this document could be used as discussion basis when you meet the
> >>> pootle
>  people.
> 
> 
>  Have a nice evening.
>  jan I.
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1

[Rob Weir]

On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:03 AM, RGB ES  wrote:

> 2012/10/30 Jürgen Schmidt 
>
>> On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
 On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher 
>> wrote:
>
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> ...  it would probably allow to skip the release process and voting,
>> since we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for different
>> platforms).
>
> It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source
>> releases. Certainly these are the only "official" release. I think that the
>> practice is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a
>> different bar. It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that we
>> do need to VOTE on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a
>> certain level of trust for the packager and translations.

 But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries
 depend on, where that source is from this project.

 It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port of
 existing source packages.  But we're not.

 We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources
 are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to
 build the localized binaries.  No downstream consumer of the source
 will be able to build these localizations without having access to the
 translated resources.  Therefore these resources should be reviewed,
 voted on and released.

 Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works,
 translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from the
 help files.  They are under copyright and made available under
 license.  So we need to do our due diligence via the release process
 before we distribute such materials.
>>>
>>> Should say, "before we distribute such materials in source OR source
>>> and binary form".  The issues are the same.
>>>
>>> Remember, the source package is canonical.  I'm surprised to hear talk
>>> now of releasing only binaries.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to
>> make new translations available as soon as possible.
>>
>> What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based
>> on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked
>> in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical
>> security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included
>> automatically.
>>
>> The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are
>> not officially released and are available via the snapshot page.
>>
>> When we reach a state where we have "release" build bots, we can
>> probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product
>> version but based on a new revision number including the new translations.
>>
>> Juergen
>
> +1. I like the idea. We can put on the download page a link to "additional
> untested language packs" and add "these language packs are being prepared
> for the next AOO version, but you can use them right now" or something like
> that.
>

Even beta releases are still releases from the Apache perspective and
still require that we go through a release vote.

Why are we trying so hard to avoid this process?  It isn't that hard.
And it is important that we follow the procedures before putting the
"Apache" label on software we make available to the public.

-Rob


> Regards
> Ricardo
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
 -Rob

> Regards,
> Dave
>>
>>

Re: [RELEASE]: new snapshot base don revision r1400866

[Ariel Constenla-Haile]

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 01:40:53PM +0800, Li Feng Wang wrote:
> Hi,all,
> 
> I already run BVT on OO snapshot r1400866
> 
> Result: Passed with known issue.
> 
> Details:
> http://people.apache.org/~liuzhe/testdashboard/#bvt
> Detail in  350m1(Build:9611)-2012-10-23 and
> 350m1(Build:9611)-2012-10-22,  total 10 platforms
> 
> Known Issues:
> Bug 119525 - AOo doesn't work with Java 1.7 on Windows
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119525

This issue should be fixed, as long as you have a 32 bits JRE on your
Windows 64 bits. What remains is that OpenOffice does not work with a 64
bits JRE, but this is no issue: OpenOffice is a 32 bits application on
Windows.


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina


pgpiRxIzxpd8o.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 10/30/12 2:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:03 AM, RGB ES  wrote:
> 
>> 2012/10/30 Jürgen Schmidt 
>>
>>> On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
 On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher 
>>> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> ...  it would probably allow to skip the release process and voting,
>>> since we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for different
>>> platforms).
>>
>> It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source
>>> releases. Certainly these are the only "official" release. I think that the
>>> practice is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a
>>> different bar. It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that we
>>> do need to VOTE on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a
>>> certain level of trust for the packager and translations.
>
> But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries
> depend on, where that source is from this project.
>
> It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port of
> existing source packages.  But we're not.
>
> We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources
> are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to
> build the localized binaries.  No downstream consumer of the source
> will be able to build these localizations without having access to the
> translated resources.  Therefore these resources should be reviewed,
> voted on and released.
>
> Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works,
> translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from the
> help files.  They are under copyright and made available under
> license.  So we need to do our due diligence via the release process
> before we distribute such materials.

 Should say, "before we distribute such materials in source OR source
 and binary form".  The issues are the same.

 Remember, the source package is canonical.  I'm surprised to hear talk
 now of releasing only binaries.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to
>>> make new translations available as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based
>>> on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked
>>> in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical
>>> security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included
>>> automatically.
>>>
>>> The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are
>>> not officially released and are available via the snapshot page.
>>>
>>> When we reach a state where we have "release" build bots, we can
>>> probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product
>>> version but based on a new revision number including the new translations.
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>
>> +1. I like the idea. We can put on the download page a link to "additional
>> untested language packs" and add "these language packs are being prepared
>> for the next AOO version, but you can use them right now" or something like
>> that.
>>
> 
> Even beta releases are still releases from the Apache perspective and
> still require that we go through a release vote.
> 
> Why are we trying so hard to avoid this process?  It isn't that hard.
> And it is important that we follow the procedures before putting the
> "Apache" label on software we make available to the public.

I don't see that we try to avoid this process. But with with a certain
level of QA we have to test the new language builds anyway.

Means in detail we can start with the snapshot builds and can test it.
If we get no complains we can create a new src release (a respin if
possible) where the new translations are included. And we upload only
the new src release and the new language packs. I would be also fine
with uploading full install sets but this is matter of taste and space.

Juergen


> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
>> Regards
>> Ricardo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

 -Rob

> -Rob
>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>>
>>>

Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1

[jan iversen]

Question: Is there a rule in "the apache way" defining who can do QA, or is
it totally up to the single teams ?

Do we use the "review statistic" in pootle to anything, it seems actually
quite clever.

Jan.

On 30 October 2012 16:17, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:

> On 10/30/12 2:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:03 AM, RGB ES  wrote:
> >
> >> 2012/10/30 Jürgen Schmidt 
> >>
> >>> On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>  On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher 
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >>> ...  it would probably allow to skip the release process and
> voting,
> >>> since we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for
> different
> >>> platforms).
> >>
> >> It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source
> >>> releases. Certainly these are the only "official" release. I think
> that the
> >>> practice is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a
> >>> different bar. It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that
> we
> >>> do need to VOTE on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a
> >>> certain level of trust for the packager and translations.
> >
> > But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries
> > depend on, where that source is from this project.
> >
> > It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port
> of
> > existing source packages.  But we're not.
> >
> > We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources
> > are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to
> > build the localized binaries.  No downstream consumer of the source
> > will be able to build these localizations without having access to
> the
> > translated resources.  Therefore these resources should be reviewed,
> > voted on and released.
> >
> > Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works,
> > translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from
> the
> > help files.  They are under copyright and made available under
> > license.  So we need to do our due diligence via the release process
> > before we distribute such materials.
> 
>  Should say, "before we distribute such materials in source OR source
>  and binary form".  The issues are the same.
> 
>  Remember, the source package is canonical.  I'm surprised to hear talk
>  now of releasing only binaries.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to
> >>> make new translations available as soon as possible.
> >>>
> >>> What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based
> >>> on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked
> >>> in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical
> >>> security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included
> >>> automatically.
> >>>
> >>> The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are
> >>> not officially released and are available via the snapshot page.
> >>>
> >>> When we reach a state where we have "release" build bots, we can
> >>> probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product
> >>> version but based on a new revision number including the new
> translations.
> >>>
> >>> Juergen
> >>
> >> +1. I like the idea. We can put on the download page a link to
> "additional
> >> untested language packs" and add "these language packs are being
> prepared
> >> for the next AOO version, but you can use them right now" or something
> like
> >> that.
> >>
> >
> > Even beta releases are still releases from the Apache perspective and
> > still require that we go through a release vote.
> >
> > Why are we trying so hard to avoid this process?  It isn't that hard.
> > And it is important that we follow the procedures before putting the
> > "Apache" label on software we make available to the public.
>
> I don't see that we try to avoid this process. But with with a certain
> level of QA we have to test the new language builds anyway.
>
> Means in detail we can start with the snapshot builds and can test it.
> If we get no complains we can create a new src release (a respin if
> possible) where the new translations are included. And we upload only
> the new src release and the new language packs. I would be also fine
> with uploading full install sets but this is matter of taste and space.
>
> Juergen
>
>
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
> >> Regards
> >> Ricardo
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> 
>  -Rob
> 
> > -Rob
> >
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave
> >>>
> >>>
>
>

Re: Apache Asia Roadshow 2012 - Dec 13th Beijing

[Shenfeng Liu]

Peter,
  Please see my comments below:

2012/10/29 Peter Junge 

> Hi Simon,
>
>
> On 10/26/2012 9:48 PM, Shenfeng Liu wrote:
>
>> Don & Peter,
>>I think it is a very good opportunity to promote Apache OpenOffice in
>> China marketing through Apache Asia Roadshow 2012. And from another side,
>> the wide influence of OpenOffice can also help to promote Apache.
>>I'd like to work with Peter together on it. The target can be not only
>> attract individual volunteers to participate the community, but also
>> demonstrate the business opportunities and attract local business
>> partners.
>>While first of all, I'd like to know more details about this event.
>> Perhaps Jimmy is the right contact?
>>
>
>

  Agree with you!
  Per check with Jimmy, we need to give a outline draft now.


>  indeed, let's put together such a session for the Roadshow. A possible
> brief outline would be:
> - Introduction to and history of OpenOffice
>
+1, history and latest status. - I think you are the best one in Beijing to
present this topic. So I wonder if you can prepare for an outline?


> - What's happening around AOO in Beijing respectively China. Engineers of
> IBM and of CS2C could share what they are working on.
>
+1 again. The UOF contribution, fidelity improvement, quality improvement
efforts... I can check with Ji Yan, WeiKe or Liu Tao to see if we can work
together on it.


> - How businesses and users can benefit from AOO, ways to join the AOO
> community.
>
I think firstly CS2C can share their experience on building the business on
AOO.
Secondly, since the theme of this Roadshow is cloud, we can share the topic
of Social Integration with AOO. I will work with Da Li to prepare for the
outline.


>
> How much time we can spend on the parts would depend on how much time we
> would get in total.

I'm still checking with Jimmy for how much time can we get. But basically I
think we can start and propose the topics above.

Any suggestion?

- Shenfeng Liu (Simon)



>
>
>
>> BTW, I just took a small surgery yesterday, and in the following week I
>> have to spend most of the daytime in hospital for subsequent treatment. So
>> my response to the mail threads may be slow. But I will try to catch up on
>> this topic.
>>
>
> Get well soon!
>
> Best regards,
> peter
>
>
>
>
>
>> - Shenfeng Liu (Simon)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/10/26 Peter Junge 
>>
>>  Hi Don,
>>>
>>> thanks for the notice. Unfortunately, the Apache Asia Roadshow 2012 seem
>>> to lack of promoting the event. I only heard about it by coincidence a
>>> couple of days ago.
>>>
>>> (more inline)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/25/2012 9:47 PM, Donald Harbison wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <
 jus...@erenkrantz.com

> wrote:
>


  [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>   we plan the main topic around cloud computing: open source really
>>>

>>  produce a
>
>  basement  to the cloud computing, like Apache Hadoop and cloudstack;
>>
>>  welcome
>
>  any open source topic in or out of this area.
>>
>>
>
>  The Apache OpenOffice community has a significant local
 representation in
 Beijing. I'm cc'ing the community
 to alert our Chinese contributors to reach out to you and explore the
 possibility of adding an Apache OpenOffice
 session to increase its visibility. We just graduated to an Apache TLP,
 so
 we have a solid foundation upon which
 to build with a strong global community. The Chinese community is very
 important and making a large contribution.


>>> As I seem to be the only one in Beijing who's with OpenOffice from the
>>> beginning, I'd like to offer a talk about the history of OOo, if that is
>>> of
>>> interest. As the 13th is a weekday, I just have to find out if I can
>>> take a
>>> day off my daily job.
>>>
>>> @concom: I cannot find anything about the Apache Asia Roadshow 2012 at
>>> http://wiki.apache.org/apachecon/<
>>> http://wiki.apache.org/**apachecon/ >
>>>
>>> Do you have a link to the Apache Asia Roadshow 2012 for me? I want to
>>> write an event announcement at the homepage of the Beijing Linux User
>>> Group
>>> (http://blug.chinalug.org/). We're reaching quite a few geeks.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1

[Rob Weir]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> On 10/30/12 2:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:03 AM, RGB ES  wrote:
>>
>>> 2012/10/30 Jürgen Schmidt 
>>>
 On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher 
 wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
 ...  it would probably allow to skip the release process and voting,
 since we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for different
 platforms).
>>>
>>> It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source
 releases. Certainly these are the only "official" release. I think that the
 practice is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a
 different bar. It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that we
 do need to VOTE on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a
 certain level of trust for the packager and translations.
>>
>> But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries
>> depend on, where that source is from this project.
>>
>> It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port of
>> existing source packages.  But we're not.
>>
>> We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources
>> are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to
>> build the localized binaries.  No downstream consumer of the source
>> will be able to build these localizations without having access to the
>> translated resources.  Therefore these resources should be reviewed,
>> voted on and released.
>>
>> Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works,
>> translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from the
>> help files.  They are under copyright and made available under
>> license.  So we need to do our due diligence via the release process
>> before we distribute such materials.
>
> Should say, "before we distribute such materials in source OR source
> and binary form".  The issues are the same.
>
> Remember, the source package is canonical.  I'm surprised to hear talk
> now of releasing only binaries.



 I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to
 make new translations available as soon as possible.

 What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based
 on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked
 in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical
 security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included
 automatically.

 The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are
 not officially released and are available via the snapshot page.

 When we reach a state where we have "release" build bots, we can
 probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product
 version but based on a new revision number including the new translations.

 Juergen
>>>
>>> +1. I like the idea. We can put on the download page a link to "additional
>>> untested language packs" and add "these language packs are being prepared
>>> for the next AOO version, but you can use them right now" or something like
>>> that.
>>>
>>
>> Even beta releases are still releases from the Apache perspective and
>> still require that we go through a release vote.
>>
>> Why are we trying so hard to avoid this process?  It isn't that hard.
>> And it is important that we follow the procedures before putting the
>> "Apache" label on software we make available to the public.
>
> I don't see that we try to avoid this process. But with with a certain
> level of QA we have to test the new language builds anyway.
>
> Means in detail we can start with the snapshot builds and can test it.
> If we get no complains we can create a new src release (a respin if
> possible) where the new translations are included. And we upload only
> the new src release and the new language packs. I would be also fine
> with uploading full install sets but this is matter of taste and space.
>

It may be worth reviewing this section on "test packages" versus
"releases":  http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#release-types

It is possible to have something less than a release.  We do that, for
example, with snapshots and release candidates.  We could do something
similar with a language pack as well.  But it would need to be an
"internal only" distribution, meaning we do not advertise it with the
user community.  It is just for internal testing.

But if we want to have something available for the public at large to
use, even if we indicate it is "beta" quality, then that is still a
release.

Specific example:  We have 3 or so people helping with the Danish
translation on the L10N list.  If w

Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1

[Rob Weir]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:22 AM, jan iversen  wrote:
> Question: Is there a rule in "the apache way" defining who can do QA, or is
> it totally up to the single teams ?
>

>From an organizational perspective Apache is mainly interested in the
health of its communities and in the certain IP-related qualities of
its releases.  So you won't see an ASF-wide mandate for unit testing,
or how code coverage should be measured, etc.  These details are left
to the project communities to decide.  Quality issues, in some sense,
take care of themselves in a Darwinian sense.  If a project has poor
quality and does so consistently, it will cease to exist, since
attracting volunteers becomes difficult.

As for "who" can do QA, we welcome all volunteers interesting in
helping here.  We have a separate list, ooo...@incubator.apache.org
dedicated to this topic.

> Do we use the "review statistic" in pootle to anything, it seems actually
> quite clever.
>

I don't know.

-Rob


> Jan.
>
> On 30 October 2012 16:17, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/12 2:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> > On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:03 AM, RGB ES  wrote:
>> >
>> >> 2012/10/30 Jürgen Schmidt 
>> >>
>> >>> On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>  On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> >>> ...  it would probably allow to skip the release process and
>> voting,
>> >>> since we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for
>> different
>> >>> platforms).
>> >>
>> >> It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source
>> >>> releases. Certainly these are the only "official" release. I think
>> that the
>> >>> practice is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a
>> >>> different bar. It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that
>> we
>> >>> do need to VOTE on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a
>> >>> certain level of trust for the packager and translations.
>> >
>> > But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries
>> > depend on, where that source is from this project.
>> >
>> > It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port
>> of
>> > existing source packages.  But we're not.
>> >
>> > We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources
>> > are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to
>> > build the localized binaries.  No downstream consumer of the source
>> > will be able to build these localizations without having access to
>> the
>> > translated resources.  Therefore these resources should be reviewed,
>> > voted on and released.
>> >
>> > Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works,
>> > translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from
>> the
>> > help files.  They are under copyright and made available under
>> > license.  So we need to do our due diligence via the release process
>> > before we distribute such materials.
>> 
>>  Should say, "before we distribute such materials in source OR source
>>  and binary form".  The issues are the same.
>> 
>>  Remember, the source package is canonical.  I'm surprised to hear talk
>>  now of releasing only binaries.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to
>> >>> make new translations available as soon as possible.
>> >>>
>> >>> What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based
>> >>> on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked
>> >>> in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical
>> >>> security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included
>> >>> automatically.
>> >>>
>> >>> The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are
>> >>> not officially released and are available via the snapshot page.
>> >>>
>> >>> When we reach a state where we have "release" build bots, we can
>> >>> probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product
>> >>> version but based on a new revision number including the new
>> translations.
>> >>>
>> >>> Juergen
>> >>
>> >> +1. I like the idea. We can put on the download page a link to
>> "additional
>> >> untested language packs" and add "these language packs are being
>> prepared
>> >> for the next AOO version, but you can use them right now" or something
>> like
>> >> that.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Even beta releases are still releases from the Apache perspective and
>> > still require that we go through a release vote.
>> >
>> > Why are we trying so hard to avoid this process?  It isn't that hard.
>> > And it is important that we follow the procedures before putting the
>> > "Apache" label on software we make available to the public.
>>
>> I don't see that we try to avoid this

Re: proposal for new l10n workflow

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 10/30/12 2:45 PM, jan iversen wrote:
> If my page needs updating, feel free to do so, I actually copied all the
> scripts things from the other page.

I see it now, I must have been blind earlier, sorry for the confusion

Juergen


> 
> jan.
> 
> On 30 October 2012 14:28, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> 
>> On 10/30/12 1:33 PM, jan iversen wrote:
>>> I just double checked:
>>>
>>> the pointer is: Localization
>>> AOO, which clearly
>>> stated (the very first lines of the document)
>>>
>>> "This document is based on and extents
>>> Localization_for_developers<
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers>.
>>> The document is work in progress showing the result of a detailed
>> technical
>>> analysis of the current process (version 3.4.1) . As such this document
>>> should be seen as a replacement of
>>> Localization_for_developers<
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers>
>>> ."
>>
>> I simply missed some basic info how the tools have to be used etc.. I
>> was confused...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But I will happely remove it if you prefer, but then where do I put a
>> link
>>> to the more detailed description of the CURRENT process.
>>
>> no need to remove it now, I know whats behind and as long as nobody
>> delete it I am fine
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>>
>>> jan.
>>>
>>> On 30 October 2012 13:30, jan iversen  wrote:
>>>
 I am guilty.

 see below.


 On 30 October 2012 13:22, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:

> On 10/27/12 10:51 PM, jan iversen wrote:
>> Based on the comments I have received, I have updated the document.
>>
>> The major changes are:
>>
>> - removed l10n web page tools
>> - no auto-commit in any tools
>> - proposed changes to pootle server (based on request from andrea, to
>> use/change existing tools)
>> - added more text on the translation workflow, inkl. local teams
>>
>> The document is available as pdf:
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10procNew2.pdf
>> and (due to a polite hint) as a wiki page:
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/new_proposal
>> Furthermore a projectplan is available as a wiki page:
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/workPlan
>>
>> this mail is posted on both ooo-L10n and ooo-dev, but please use
>> ooo-dev
>> for discussions.
>
> I noticed that somebody put an "outdated" template on
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers which I
> think is a little bit early.
>
> The new page is a great resource to discuss a new workflow and
>> necessary
> improvements. But the currently "Localization for developers" page
> describes how it works today.
>
 The page it points to, is NOT the new proposal, that would be wrong, but
 the first I made with a more detailed description of how it works today.

 I hope that is ok ?

>
> We should avoid confusion here, the new process is under development
>> yet
> but not available yet.
>
 I totally agree, and I have not made links that suggest otherwise.


>
> Juergen
>
>>
>> Andrea:
>> I hope you have time to see if your suggestions are well represented
> now,
>> so this document could be used as discussion basis when you meet the
> pootle
>> people.
>>
>>
>> Have a nice evening.
>> jan I.
>>
>>
>
>

>>>
>>
>>
> 

Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1

[jan iversen]

Hi

Speaking for myself and the other 2 in the teamwe do the translation to
get AOO available in denmark (again).

Right now another openSource product is using the fact that we cannot
release our versions in danish, to their benefit.

I do not want to compete (which is why I do not write the name, we all
know), but also I want to make that AOO is THE well established, well
tested, high quality free Software that the companies want to use.

So internal things are handy, when it comes to testing, but not when it
comes to showing a danish user commity that we are still alive and kicking.

jan.

On 30 October 2012 16:48, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Jürgen Schmidt 
> wrote:
> > On 10/30/12 2:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:03 AM, RGB ES  wrote:
> >>
> >>> 2012/10/30 Jürgen Schmidt 
> >>>
>  On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir 
> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher  >
>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>  ...  it would probably allow to skip the release process and
> voting,
>  since we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for
> different
>  platforms).
> >>>
> >>> It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source
>  releases. Certainly these are the only "official" release. I think
> that the
>  practice is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a
>  different bar. It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think
> that we
>  do need to VOTE on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a
>  certain level of trust for the packager and translations.
> >>
> >> But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries
> >> depend on, where that source is from this project.
> >>
> >> It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port
> of
> >> existing source packages.  But we're not.
> >>
> >> We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources
> >> are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to
> >> build the localized binaries.  No downstream consumer of the source
> >> will be able to build these localizations without having access to
> the
> >> translated resources.  Therefore these resources should be reviewed,
> >> voted on and released.
> >>
> >> Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works,
> >> translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from
> the
> >> help files.  They are under copyright and made available under
> >> license.  So we need to do our due diligence via the release process
> >> before we distribute such materials.
> >
> > Should say, "before we distribute such materials in source OR source
> > and binary form".  The issues are the same.
> >
> > Remember, the source package is canonical.  I'm surprised to hear
> talk
> > now of releasing only binaries.
> 
> 
> 
>  I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to
>  make new translations available as soon as possible.
> 
>  What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based
>  on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked
>  in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical
>  security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included
>  automatically.
> 
>  The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are
>  not officially released and are available via the snapshot page.
> 
>  When we reach a state where we have "release" build bots, we can
>  probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product
>  version but based on a new revision number including the new
> translations.
> 
>  Juergen
> >>>
> >>> +1. I like the idea. We can put on the download page a link to
> "additional
> >>> untested language packs" and add "these language packs are being
> prepared
> >>> for the next AOO version, but you can use them right now" or something
> like
> >>> that.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Even beta releases are still releases from the Apache perspective and
> >> still require that we go through a release vote.
> >>
> >> Why are we trying so hard to avoid this process?  It isn't that hard.
> >> And it is important that we follow the procedures before putting the
> >> "Apache" label on software we make available to the public.
> >
> > I don't see that we try to avoid this process. But with with a certain
> > level of QA we have to test the new language builds anyway.
> >
> > Means in detail we can start with the snapshot builds and can test it.
> > If we get no complains we can create a new src release (a respin if
> > possible) where the new translations are included. And we upload only
> > th

Re: [APEU2012] Schedule on 11/5

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hello guys/gals;

>
> From: Jürgen Schmidt 
> 
>On 10/26/12 7:25 PM, imacat wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>>     I will arrive Hotel Sinsheim at noon, 11/5.  You may find me in the
>> afternoon, 11/5, if you want to discuss with me about forum, wiki or
>> anything.  We do not have a scheduled Hackathon, but we may still work
>> on something.  See you there. ^_*'
>> 
>> P.S. Do we have anyone that is local at Sinsheim or will arrive earlier?
>> 
>
>Hi imacat,
>
>we will also arrive Monday afternoon. I am looking forward to meet as
>many as possible people already on Monday and we can have dinner
>together or some drinks. But we are staying not directly in Sinsheim.
>
>I will be on IRC channel #dev.oepnoffice.org for easy communication via
>my smartphone.
>
>Looking forward to meet all or many of you next week
>

I will arrive on Saturday but I will be busy taking care of jet lag :). On
Sunday I will likely be extremely busy looking for the nearest Catholic
Church.

The rest of the week I will be available in Hotel Bär or in the
conference. Hopefully we can make a nice group to visit the Sinsheim
Museum too.

Looking forward to see you all there,

Pedro.

ps. I will also unsubscribe from -dev before travelling.

Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community

[imacat]

On 2012/10/29 23:26, Rob Weir said:
> Then there is the secondary question of network effect and value of
> the network.  The more AOO users there are they greater the value of
> skills in AOO extension development, of AOO training and certification
> skills, and of migration and deployment services, etc.  These business
> interests all become more valuable the more users we have.  Although
> nothing requires that business built on AOO contribute back to the
> project, in practice they often will, since helping to sustain the
> project helps their business as well.  So aside from the "volunteer
> pyramid" we set up a second virtuous cycle with business interests.

Unfortunately, in the few cases I've seen, this is just negative.
In practice many of these business just don't help to sustain the
project.  I suppose many of them do help to sustain the project.  Why
some do and some don't is another interesting issue to be investigated
further.

I occasionally hear some local business doing OpenOffice support,
but I cannot reach them.  They just don't respond to us, and have no
interests to connect to the open source community.  (Afraid of us
stealing their business?  Afraid of us sharing their profit?  Just
afraid of communication trouble?  Being conservative for Asian culture?)

This inference is basically great, but there are some potential
holes in it.

-- 
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' 
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc

<> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community

[imacat]

It's a long list of discussion to read.  There seems to be a lot to
discuss in our BoF session.

So, what is the help we need for our BoF session now?

-- 
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' 
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc

<> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [PROPOSAL] Initiate a Contest for Branding of 4.0

[Graham Lauder]

5 days is about up and we have no -1so I've started a page for creating of
the proposed RFP on the confluence wiki here:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Brand+Contest+RFP

Discussion on the marketing list?

I'm travelling for the next two days, connection may be intemittent

Cheers
GL

Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community

[Raphael Bircher]

Am 30.10.12 17:41, schrieb imacat:
> On 2012/10/29 23:26, Rob Weir said:
>> Then there is the secondary question of network effect and value of
>> the network.  The more AOO users there are they greater the value of
>> skills in AOO extension development, of AOO training and certification
>> skills, and of migration and deployment services, etc.  These business
>> interests all become more valuable the more users we have.  Although
>> nothing requires that business built on AOO contribute back to the
>> project, in practice they often will, since helping to sustain the
>> project helps their business as well.  So aside from the "volunteer
>> pyramid" we set up a second virtuous cycle with business interests.
> Unfortunately, in the few cases I've seen, this is just negative.
> In practice many of these business just don't help to sustain the
> project.  I suppose many of them do help to sustain the project.  Why
> some do and some don't is another interesting issue to be investigated
> further.
>
> I occasionally hear some local business doing OpenOffice support,
> but I cannot reach them.  They just don't respond to us, and have no
> interests to connect to the open source community.  (Afraid of us
> stealing their business?  Afraid of us sharing their profit?  Just
> afraid of communication trouble?  Being conservative for Asian culture?)
I beleve the main problem is that consultants see a product, and not a
project. Same for big companies. I often hear from consultants "I don't
care about development". They also don't have the time to join a
project, and if, then they join the marketing.

I have had a load of talk with consultants, and showed the way for verry
simple work like testing snapshots and duing bug reports. No one of them
ever particip.

What could work is if OpenOffice Committers start to sell a "development
packages" We have to put our work into a service product. But this is
not samthing that we do at Apache, it's samething for outside the ASF.

Greetings Raphael

Re: [PROPOSAL] Initiate a Contest for Branding of 4.0

[Alexandro Colorado]

On 10/26/12, Graham Lauder  wrote:
> On Friday 26 Oct 2012 11:04:46 Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Graham Lauder 
>> wrote:
>> > The launch of 4.0 is a unique opportunity in the life of AOO both now
>> > and
>> > far into the future.
>> >
>> > The branding needs to position us in the market place, be distinctive
>> > and
>> > unique and makes a statement about the product.
>> >
>> > The creation of this requires a skillset that we do not have an over
>> > abundance of in the project.
>> >
>> > The proposal therefore is to initiate a contest to create this new
>> > branding, this would have multiple benefits in terms of community
>> > outreach, marketing and raising brand awareness.
>> >
>> > The contest would be source of the eventual branding of AOO 4.0
>>
>> +1
>>
>> The devil is in the details, but I think a contest can be a great way
>> of getting many ideas, but also promoting AOO 4.0.  It makes it "an
>> event".
>>
>> I think Dave mentioned that another Apache project had a logo contest
>> and received a large number of entries.
>
> Which is why we go with "Branding", it's much broader than just a graphic
> logo.  there's color pallet, overall style, message, tenor, presentation.
> Those who just present a logo in isolation will be filtered early.  Those
> that
> have a grasp of the full depth of the brand but without the whole package
> will
> show early which is why we go back to the responders for more detail later
> on.
> Initial  proposals will to show understanding of the task first up.

Should we have some kind of documentation for proposals, something
like a template. I agree with this concept to understand branding to
its full extend and not just a logo. But is also true that design is a
work in progress and sometimes you get more by presenting different
proposals and styles.

Key here, is where is one aware of this in relation to the contest?


>
>>
>> > The process would be:
>> >
>> > Formulate a RFP with contest details and guidelines (these would
>> > include
>> > the product name and a reasonable outline of our target markets),
>> > timeframe, methodologies of presentation and breadth of branding
>> > elements.
>> >
>> > Perhaps sound out some sponsors for a prize
>> >
>> > Filter responses for eligibility according to the initial criteria
>> >
>> > Filter responses for global appropriateness
>> >
>> > Filter responses for target market relevance
>>
>> It will be important that this filtering is done in a way that
>> everyone sees as fair.  Who judges "global appropriateness", for
>> example?
>>
>> One way might be to appoint a judging panel.
>
> Indeed, although "judging" is probably not the best description, I just
> can't
> think of a better one.  The initial filtering is done on purely objective
> criteria laid out in the RFP.  Global appropriateness is a minefield I
> agree,
> but hopefully we have a broad enough cultural awareness on our L10n list to
>
> help us avoid any clumsy gaffs.

Clumsy is a very subjective term, is there a criteria that needs to be followed?

>>
>> > Communicate with the creators of this first shortlist to get them to
>> > sell
>> > their idea
>> >
>> > Shortlist to a dozen or less based on function (ie usability across
>> > multiple media)
>>
>> For maximum impact we could have blog post and social media campaign
>> to promote the short list of logos and drive traffic to the survey.
>
> +1 good plan, as Ian was saying initial target will be Design Colleges and
> oither such educational institutions.  Any others that may be interested
> could

+1

> be reached by community contact.  The initial contact will ideally be
> concentrated, so we publicise that the RFP will be available on a  specific
>
> date and the submissions will close on another date.  Otherwise it will drag
>
> on.
>
> Experience shows however that logos will continue to come long past the
> closing as people seem to think that their new version is greater than
> anything that has come before and that the whole process will be dumped just
>
> so we can bathe in the light at the feet of the new Michaelangelo!  :)

+1

> Cheers
> GL
>
>>
>> > Create a survey to gauge general public impressions/feelings with
>> > regard
>> > to certain branding criteria: Uniqueness, Impact, Impression and
>> > Representation.
>> >
>> > Reduce and Repeat.
>> >
>> > If no clear "winner" emerges then PMC becomes the tiebreaker
>> >
>> > Lazy consensus 5 days seeing as how the weekend is nearly upon us
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > GL
>


-- 
Alexandro Colorado
PPMC Apache OpenOffice
http://es.openoffice.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Initiate a Contest for Branding of 4.0

[Alexandro Colorado]

On 10/30/12, Graham Lauder  wrote:
> 5 days is about up and we have no -1so I've started a page for creating of
> the proposed RFP on the confluence wiki here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Brand+Contest+RFP
>
> Discussion on the marketing list?

I think this should be in marketing list.

>
> I'm travelling for the next two days, connection may be intemittent
>
> Cheers
> GL
>


-- 
Alexandro Colorado
PPMC Apache OpenOffice
http://es.openoffice.org

[DISCUSS] IDE, comment translation, debugging, documentation and other development issues

[Damjan Jovanovic]

Hi

AOO is by far the biggest and most complex code I have ever hacked on,
and I have many questions...

What IDE do you guys use to develop AOO? Eclipse CDT runs out of
memory indexing the code :-(.

Many comments are in German. Are translations to English welcome or
should we leave them as is?

Debugging is such a pain. Why do binaries get stripped when the tar.gz
is built even though debugging has been enabled (build debug=true
dbglevel=2 --all)?

The layout of the source code tree is incredibly complex, with eg.
confusing duplication of CSV parsing between binfilter/ and sc/. Is
there somewhere I should document the structure of various modules?
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Source_code_directories seems like a
good place to start but I would add a lot more detail.

Searching with grep takes forever. I've tried indexing the source tree
with Lucene, but it doesn't find everything. Is there a better tool?

Thank you
Damjan

Re: [DISCUSS] IDE, comment translation, debugging, documentation and other development issues

[Raphael Bircher]

Am 30.10.12 18:44, schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
> Hi
>
> AOO is by far the biggest and most complex code I have ever hacked on,
> and I have many questions...
>
> What IDE do you guys use to develop AOO? Eclipse CDT runs out of
> memory indexing the code :-(.
>
> Many comments are in German. Are translations to English welcome or
> should we leave them as is?
>
> Debugging is such a pain. Why do binaries get stripped when the tar.gz
> is built even though debugging has been enabled (build debug=true
> dbglevel=2 --all)?
>
> The layout of the source code tree is incredibly complex, with eg.
> confusing duplication of CSV parsing between binfilter/ and sc/. Is
> there somewhere I should document the structure of various modules?
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Source_code_directories seems like a
> good place to start but I would add a lot more detail.
>
> Searching with grep takes forever. I've tried indexing the source tree
> with Lucene, but it doesn't find everything. Is there a better tool?

http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/

use this one for search.
>
> Thank you
> Damjan

Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community

[Rob Weir]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM, imacat  wrote:
> On 2012/10/29 23:26, Rob Weir said:
>> Then there is the secondary question of network effect and value of
>> the network.  The more AOO users there are they greater the value of
>> skills in AOO extension development, of AOO training and certification
>> skills, and of migration and deployment services, etc.  These business
>> interests all become more valuable the more users we have.  Although
>> nothing requires that business built on AOO contribute back to the
>> project, in practice they often will, since helping to sustain the
>> project helps their business as well.  So aside from the "volunteer
>> pyramid" we set up a second virtuous cycle with business interests.
>
> Unfortunately, in the few cases I've seen, this is just negative.
> In practice many of these business just don't help to sustain the
> project.  I suppose many of them do help to sustain the project.  Why
> some do and some don't is another interesting issue to be investigated
> further.
>

Been there; done that.   You didn't see IBM very active in
OpenOffice.org years ago, did you?  There is a huge difference between
a corporate-lead and a community-led open source one.  A community-led
one is much more welcoming to other large companies..  If a company
wanted to get involved with OpenOffice.org before then there was all
the messiness with dealing with Sun and wondering about whether Sun's
priorities would dominate over everything else.  Look at the constant
battles Novell and Sun had, for example.  This changes with the move
to Apache.  So I'd recommend that we point this out to companies,
small and large.  We shouldn't let past failures in this area
discourage us too much.  It is a new situation now.

Now sure, some companies will just be interested in training or
whatever, and have zero interest in participating.  However, those
companies will be at a disadvantage compared to competing companies
that are participate. There is a level of information, skill,
expertise, even influence that comes from participating on the inside,
rather than watching from the outside.

> I occasionally hear some local business doing OpenOffice support,
> but I cannot reach them.  They just don't respond to us, and have no
> interests to connect to the open source community.  (Afraid of us
> stealing their business?  Afraid of us sharing their profit?  Just
> afraid of communication trouble?  Being conservative for Asian culture?)
>

A trainer can easily switch to training users for Google Docs, or
Microsoft Office, if they need to.  So they are not as dependent on
the success of our project.

-Rob

> This inference is basically great, but there are some potential
> holes in it.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> imacat ^_*' 
> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
>
> <> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
> OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
> EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
> Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
>

[Call-for-Review][Basic] Bug 76852: incorrect conversions Single to String and Double to String

[Damjan Jovanovic]

Hi all

Can you please help review my patch
(https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=79839&action=diff) to
bug 76852 (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=76852)?

A detailed analysis of the problem and explanation of the solution is
given in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=76852#c11

Thank you
Damjan

Re: crash with debug build of r1403340

[Regina Henschel]

Hi all,

thanks for looking.

Herbert Duerr schrieb:

Hi Regina,

On 29.10.2012 22:26, Regina Henschel wrote:

I get an immediately crash, when I try to switch to presentation mode
(=F5) in Impress. It is a debug build of r1403340 on WinXP. But I'm not
sure, whether there is something wrong in my build and I need to make a
new, clean build. It would be nice, if someone can test it. [The
downloaded r1400866 is OK.]


FWIW our aoo-win7 buildbot tonight produced its weekly clean build of
almost that revision (1403177), which can be downloaded from
   http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#win
It doesn't show the reported problem here.

Our nightly aoo-win7 builds are usually incremental only, so we were a
bit lucky that this close match was the weekly clean build.


Yes, that build works well for me too. So a problem with my build was 
likely. Therefore I have made a totally clean build, starting with 
'clone'. I'm now on r1403730 and all is OK.


Kind regards
Regina

old business...old OpenOffice domain names registered by Oracle (primarily)

[Kay Schenk]

Looking at old threads, I'm a bit confused about the outcome of this one:

http://markmail.org/message/ldigtivvyy2su62u

Currently some of the ".com" domains don't even show up on the DNS radar,
and on the others remaining registered by Oracle. Was it the outcome of
this discussion to have Oracle transfer the registrations to the ASF?

I thought that was perhaps what we wanted to do, but ti doesn't seem to
have happened yet.

Andrew, can you shed some light? Thanks.

-- 

MzK

"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never
 dealt  with a cat."
-- Robert Heinlein

Re: [DISCUSS] IDE, comment translation, debugging, documentation and other development issues

[Joost Andrae]

Hi Damjan,



AOO is by far the biggest and most complex code I have ever hacked on,
and I have many questions...


yes it is... :)



What IDE do you guys use to develop AOO? Eclipse CDT runs out of
memory indexing the code :-(.


I wouldn't try it this way...

Use dmake or maybe make (depends on the status of readiness regarding 
using make) to build it. On Windows you could use VisualStudio to debug 
it comfortly. On Linux you can use gdb and on Solaris you could use dbx 
to start a debugging session. Don't try to leave the console...it's not 
worth it...


Some building instructions including a document describing building 
requirements can be found here:

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide



Many comments are in German. Are translations to English welcome or
should we leave them as is?


German comments are present within code that hasn't been touched for a 
long time. Remember: OOo/StarOffice has been originally developed in 
Hamburg at StarDivision and most of the developers were German. But it's 
better to have German comments within the source code than having no 
comments...




Debugging is such a pain. Why do binaries get stripped when the tar.gz
is built even though debugging has been enabled (build debug=true
dbglevel=2 --all)?


Hint: If you want to run dbx or gdb then start to include gdb within the 
command line of the soffice shell script to get the runtime environment 
of the soffice binary.




The layout of the source code tree is incredibly complex, with eg.
confusing duplication of CSV parsing between binfilter/ and sc/. Is
there somewhere I should document the structure of various modules?
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Source_code_directories seems like a
good place to start but I would add a lot more detail.


Don't touch binfilter. It's somehow static and nowadays completely 
deprecated.


Do you know http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Architecture ?
Or this http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide ?



Searching with grep takes forever. I've tried indexing the source tree
with Lucene, but it doesn't find everything. Is there a better tool?


eg. OpenGrok at http://svn.services.openoffice.org/opengrok/ but be 
aware that this instance is really old and I don't know a version that 
has been updated recently and if someone at Apache Infra started to 
build-up an equal environment so far...


Nice to read is also http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Development


Kind regards, Joost

Re: OpenOffice Developer Room (devroom) at FOSDEM

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 26/10/2012 Andrea Pescetti wrote:

There is another opportunity not to miss: we can propose a (technical)
talk about Apache OpenOffice as a Main Track Talk, see the same page.
Deadline 31 October. It would be good if Juergen, or another developer,
took the occasion to show something about OpenOffice and the challenges
ahead.


Updates:

1) Deadline for Main Track Talks extended to 1 Dec, see 
https://fosdem.org/2013/ ; any high-profile developer willing to propose 
something? By the way, these are the only sponsored speakers.


2) Call for stands is open until 28 Nov: 
https://fosdem.org/2013/call_for_stands.html ; stands are not that big 
(a table with 2 chairs) and the requirement is that they are manned by 
at least 2 persons on Saturday and Sunday; so, while we will obviously 
ask around at ApacheCon EU to see if other Apache projects need a stand 
at FOSDEM, we could probably manage an Apache OpenOffice stand. About 
sharing it with non-Apache projects, see below.


Here's a brief recap of the FOSDEM facts concerning us (I've already 
forwarded everything anyway):
- Apache OpenOffice applied for a devroom; since the call for devrooms 
stated that "projects with similar goals/domains will be asked to 
co-organize a devroom" we agreed here on the list and stated explicitly 
in our application that we were willing to share a devroom with similar 
projects.
- The organizers received a separate application from LibreOffice and 
asked Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice to actually share a devroom, 
saying they were "very reluctant" to assign separate devrooms.

- Apache OpenOffice confirmed it was OK to share a devroom.
- In the end we won't share a devroom, so it should be a matter of very 
simple logic to understand who said no; but I've never seen the 
LibreOffice answer or the reasons for it.
- Apache OpenOffice has a devroom with capacity for about 80 people for 
the full day of Saturday 2 February; we should issue a call for talks 
around mid-November, to have the time to discuss it after ApacheCon.
- The "Main Track Talks" and "stands" are independent from the devrooms: 
the first one is an opportunity to have an extra talk featured in the 
main auditorium; the second one is simply a small booth available for 
meeting people, answering questions, merchandising and so on. Here the 
FOSDEM organizers do not make explicit recommendations to share tables, 
so I would save the effort, while still hoping that cross-project 
cooperation will be better in future occasions.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: OpenOffice Developer Room (devroom) at FOSDEM

[jan iversen]

Just for info, Juergen told me that he was going to talk about l10n on
apacheCon, so I suggested that we could make a speech at FOSDEM, because at
that time the new workflow is hopefully ready or so close that we know all
details.

A good theme for a main speech would be how the handle the build (and
release) process with internationalization in a big project like AOO.

Jan.


On 30 October 2012 22:01, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:

> On 26/10/2012 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> There is another opportunity not to miss: we can propose a (technical)
>> talk about Apache OpenOffice as a Main Track Talk, see the same page.
>> Deadline 31 October. It would be good if Juergen, or another developer,
>> took the occasion to show something about OpenOffice and the challenges
>> ahead.
>>
>
> Updates:
>
> 1) Deadline for Main Track Talks extended to 1 Dec, see
> https://fosdem.org/2013/ ; any high-profile developer willing to propose
> something? By the way, these are the only sponsored speakers.
>
> 2) Call for stands is open until 28 Nov: https://fosdem.org/2013/call_**
> for_stands.html  ; stands
> are not that big (a table with 2 chairs) and the requirement is that they
> are manned by at least 2 persons on Saturday and Sunday; so, while we will
> obviously ask around at ApacheCon EU to see if other Apache projects need a
> stand at FOSDEM, we could probably manage an Apache OpenOffice stand. About
> sharing it with non-Apache projects, see below.
>
> Here's a brief recap of the FOSDEM facts concerning us (I've already
> forwarded everything anyway):
> - Apache OpenOffice applied for a devroom; since the call for devrooms
> stated that "projects with similar goals/domains will be asked to
> co-organize a devroom" we agreed here on the list and stated explicitly in
> our application that we were willing to share a devroom with similar
> projects.
> - The organizers received a separate application from LibreOffice and
> asked Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice to actually share a devroom, saying
> they were "very reluctant" to assign separate devrooms.
> - Apache OpenOffice confirmed it was OK to share a devroom.
> - In the end we won't share a devroom, so it should be a matter of very
> simple logic to understand who said no; but I've never seen the LibreOffice
> answer or the reasons for it.
> - Apache OpenOffice has a devroom with capacity for about 80 people for
> the full day of Saturday 2 February; we should issue a call for talks
> around mid-November, to have the time to discuss it after ApacheCon.
> - The "Main Track Talks" and "stands" are independent from the devrooms:
> the first one is an opportunity to have an extra talk featured in the main
> auditorium; the second one is simply a small booth available for meeting
> people, answering questions, merchandising and so on. Here the FOSDEM
> organizers do not make explicit recommendations to share tables, so I would
> save the effort, while still hoping that cross-project cooperation will be
> better in future occasions.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>

Re: volunteering

[Kay Schenk]

On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Prabha Chidambaran
 wrote:
>
> Hi Apache folks: My name is Prabha Chidambaran and I am an aspiring
> technical writer living in New Jersey.
> I have a journalism background, good with computer applications and
> would love to help you all out with documentation. Please tell me
> where to get started as the Apache website is very large.
>
> Thank you very much,
> Prabha


Hello again Prabha --

First off, it would be best if you subscribed to
ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org if you intend to continue discussions
with Apache OpenOffice.

see information at:

http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html#development-mailing-list


We can always use help with the web site, which is quite large.

For the time being, I would suggest doing some investigation on your
own, and seeing what areas YOU think need more work. Recently, we've
been discussing the support page --

http://www.openoffice.org/support/index.html

but there are likely manner areas that need some attention.

Thanks again for volunteering.


--

MzK

"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never
 dealt  with a cat."
-- Robert Heinlein

Re: [PROPOSAL] Initiate a Contest for Branding of 4.0

[Rob Weir]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Graham Lauder  wrote:
> 5 days is about up and we have no -1so I've started a page for creating of
> the proposed RFP on the confluence wiki here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Brand+Contest+RFP
>

+1, maybe put "draft" in a prominent place until the details are worked out.

> Discussion on the marketing list?
>

+1, but when draft is done, we should run it by the dev list.

-Rob

> I'm travelling for the next two days, connection may be intemittent
>
> Cheers
> GL

Re: [PROPOSAL] Initiate a Contest for Branding of 4.0

[Nóirín Plunkett]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Graham Lauder  wrote:
> The launch of 4.0 is a unique opportunity in the life of AOO both now and
> far into the future.
>
>
> Perhaps sound out some sponsors for a prize

The Fedora Design Bounties have done really well using this model,
where the prize is to become a member of the Fedora design team.
They've had several successful projects completed, and by making
inclusion the prize, they've gotten new contributors to stick around
too.

See 
http://mairin.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/fedora-design-bounty-f13-feature-profiles/
for an example of one.

Noirin

Re: Fonts

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 29/10/2012 Ian C wrote:

When Writer cannot find the font named in the styles.xml, on the
system, it defaults. How is that managed?
Can someone point me to some documentaion or code that deals with that?


In the interface, this is managed by Tools - Options - OpenOffice.org - 
Fonts ; there is a rather complete help page you can access from there.



I then edited the Styles XML file to change the name of the font - to
one that does not exist.


Editing the XML files can be incomplete. For example, the font name 
appears in content.xml too. In general, OpenOffice saves the original 
font names and not the substituted ones. If you can reproduce problems 
with a real ODF document entirely processed with OpenOffice (i.e., 
something generated with OpenOffice on a system that has font X, edited 
with OpenOffice on a system that does not have font X and read back on 
the first system, finding that fonts have been replaced) then this 
should be reported as a bug, attaching all documents. But manual editing 
of XML files is too error-prone to be sure this is a bug.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [DISCUSS] IDE, comment translation, debugging, documentation and other development issues

[Ariel Constenla-Haile]

Hi Damjan,

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 07:44:06PM +0200, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> Hi
> 
> AOO is by far the biggest and most complex code I have ever hacked on,
> and I have many questions...

true, but you managed to get your first patch out of it! Congratulations
:) 

> What IDE do you guys use to develop AOO? Eclipse CDT runs out of
> memory indexing the code :-(.

I guess you cannot index the whole source tree with an IDE. It may work
to just index the modules you are working with, no need to add all the
dependencies, if a module depends on trunk/main/foo, simply add to the
parser path trunk/main/foo/inc, and for the offapi/offuh header, you can
point the parser to an SDK installation, or even point it to the solver
include dir (but this might be too consuming). I used this approach with
some IDEs and worked.


> Many comments are in German. Are translations to English welcome or
> should we leave them as is?

Of course they are welcome. Better if done by a native speaker or
someone in the know (not google translate).

> Debugging is such a pain. Why do binaries get stripped when the tar.gz
> is built even though debugging has been enabled (build debug=true
> dbglevel=2 --all)?

they are striped when delivered to the solver. You have to configure
with --disable-strip-solver.

I'm not sure a dbglevel=2 is good for all the modules, you will get too
much debug output may be missing what you want to catch.

An interesting switch when developing is --enable-dbgutil that build
a NON-PRO build http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Non_Product_Build

> The layout of the source code tree is incredibly complex, with eg.
> confusing duplication of CSV parsing between binfilter/ and sc/.

binfilter is dead code, soon to be removed when trunk is in AOO4

> there somewhere I should document the structure of various modules?
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Source_code_directories seems like a
> good place to start but I would add a lot more detail.
> 
> Searching with grep takes forever. I've tried indexing the source tree
> with Lucene, but it doesn't find everything. Is there a better tool?

Use opengrok from adfinis http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina


pgpPwy5S91c0U.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: old business...old OpenOffice domain names registered by Oracle (primarily)

[Andrew Rist]

On 10/30/2012 1:39 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

Looking at old threads, I'm a bit confused about the outcome of this one:

http://markmail.org/message/ldigtivvyy2su62u

Currently some of the ".com" domains don't even show up on the DNS radar,
and on the others remaining registered by Oracle. Was it the outcome of
this discussion to have Oracle transfer the registrations to the ASF?

I thought that was perhaps what we wanted to do, but ti doesn't seem to
have happened yet.

Andrew, can you shed some light? Thanks.


https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4906

I guess it's not been on the top of any of our lists.  The domains were 
opened up for transfer on the Oracle side (not sure if that times out).


Andrew

Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community

[Peter Junge]

I will not be in person in Sinsheim, hence we'll need one, better two 
moderators for that BoF session. The initial tasks seems quite simple. 
It's just saying hello to the attendees, making a short statement what 
the session is about, then kicking off the discussion with throwing in 
some key issues, e.g. collected from this discussion. After that it's a 
moderators job like any other.


On 10/31/2012 1:06 AM, imacat wrote:

 It's a long list of discussion to read.  There seems to be a lot to
discuss in our BoF session.

 So, what is the help we need for our BoF session now?

Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community

[Peter Junge]

On 10/29/2012 10:16 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:

About Peter's point #2...I suppose this is getting kind of abstract,
but what is the payoff from expanding AOO's community?  Typically
marketing is performed to increase sales, which earns money; AOO has
no sales, so what should the intended benefit from marketing be?


I think this is not abstract for those who have been part of the former 
OOo community.


In a typical Apache project you have developers, testers, people working 
on documentation. They join for different reason, some are delegated by 
their employers, some are freelancers who want to sharpen their profile 
as an expert for that project (among many other possible reasons) and 
some are volunteers who join for fun. With an end-user projects the same 
reasons apply for the marketing people. At OOo we had contributors who 
wrote a detailed business plan, just for fun. I, for instance, 
coordinated the efforts for OOo booth at the CeBIT in 2011 as volunteer, 
just because I enjoyed doing it.




How does Apache gain from a larger user base for AOO?  More users ->
more traffic -> more demand for resources -> more demand for people
that maintain infrastructure and the money to pay for said
infrastructure.  What is Apache's interest in promoting its offering
of AOO?


I cannot speak for Apache, but as the ASF had accepted Oracle's grant, 
they now have the responsibility to deal with it.




How does AOO gain from a larger user base?  More beta-testing, more
word-of-mouth exposure, more potential donors?  More representative
clout for acquiring resources from Apache?


Did no one consider that?



I'm not saying -- I would never say -- that making AOO available to
the world is a bad or unnecessary thing.  Given monopolistic business
practices and commercialization of software available, it's important
for there to be freely available alternatives to such things as an
office productivity suite.  But if marketing is going to occur, it
would be good to know what said marketing is meant to accomplish,
other than promotion for promotion's sake.  Promotion for promotion's
sake is the organizational manifestation of a viral idea.


Many (unpaid) volunteers are working on such a viral idea successfully 
at LO and they are rewarded with a fair amount of donations from people 
who honor the efforts. But, doesn't a similar idea apply for Apache's 
HTTP server? Why does Apache produce it, isn't it simply production for 
production's sake?




If there's to be a discussion on marketing, perhaps it should include
a manifesto that's more concrete and strategic than "Don't you think
this is great?  Let's throw money at it until you do."


That's why it should be discussed in that BoF session we're talking about.

Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community

[Peter Junge]

On 10/29/2012 11:15 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:

Hello,



[...]


Customers don't come to IBM looking only for OpenOffice.  They are
looking for a bundle of software and services and OpenOffice might
enter the discussions as a small part of the overall deal.  We
commonly work with business partners, subcontractors, etc., where
specialized skills are needed.  This includes partners large and
small.


Even if you guys only bundle AOO, isn't there a big difference between 
bundling "AOO - never heard of it" and bundling "AOO - seen it at the 
CeBIT"?




It would be good if IBM would consider the experiences of the past which 
consist of OOo, SUN and Oracle.


And you might consider IBM's experience with Linux, where we invested
over $1 billion into Linux development, but we don't sell Linux.  But
we're glad to work with partners on deals involving Linux.


IBM's success with bundling Linux on servers is strongly related to the 
popularity of Linux.


Peter

Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community

[imacat]

On 2012/10/31 08:35, Peter Junge said:
> I will not be in person in Sinsheim, hence we'll need one, better two
> moderators for that BoF session. The initial tasks seems quite simple.
> It's just saying hello to the attendees, making a short statement what
> the session is about, then kicking off the discussion with throwing in
> some key issues, e.g. collected from this discussion. After that it's a
> moderators job like any other.

If we still need one moderator, I suppose I can help. ^_*'

> On 10/31/2012 1:06 AM, imacat wrote:
>>  It's a long list of discussion to read.  There seems to be a lot to
>> discuss in our BoF session.
>>  So, what is the help we need for our BoF session now?

-- 
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' 
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc

<> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community

[Peter Junge]

On 10/31/2012 9:43 AM, imacat wrote:

On 2012/10/31 08:35, Peter Junge said:

I will not be in person in Sinsheim, hence we'll need one, better two
moderators for that BoF session. The initial tasks seems quite simple.
It's just saying hello to the attendees, making a short statement what
the session is about, then kicking off the discussion with throwing in
some key issues, e.g. collected from this discussion. After that it's a
moderators job like any other.


 If we still need one moderator, I suppose I can help. ^_*'


That would be great. :-)




On 10/31/2012 1:06 AM, imacat wrote:

  It's a long list of discussion to read.  There seems to be a lot to
discuss in our BoF session.
  So, what is the help we need for our BoF session now?

Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community

[imacat]

On 2012/10/31 01:59, Rob Weir said:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM, imacat  wrote:
>> On 2012/10/29 23:26, Rob Weir said:
>>> Then there is the secondary question of network effect and value of
>>> the network.  The more AOO users there are they greater the value of
>>> skills in AOO extension development, of AOO training and certification
>>> skills, and of migration and deployment services, etc.  These business
>>> interests all become more valuable the more users we have.  Although
>>> nothing requires that business built on AOO contribute back to the
>>> project, in practice they often will, since helping to sustain the
>>> project helps their business as well.  So aside from the "volunteer
>>> pyramid" we set up a second virtuous cycle with business interests.
>>
>> Unfortunately, in the few cases I've seen, this is just negative.
>> In practice many of these business just don't help to sustain the
>> project.  I suppose many of them do help to sustain the project.  Why
>> some do and some don't is another interesting issue to be investigated
>> further.
> Been there; done that.   You didn't see IBM very active in
> OpenOffice.org years ago, did you?  There is a huge difference between
> a corporate-lead and a community-led open source one.  A community-led
> one is much more welcoming to other large companies..  If a company
> wanted to get involved with OpenOffice.org before then there was all
> the messiness with dealing with Sun and wondering about whether Sun's
> priorities would dominate over everything else.  Look at the constant
> battles Novell and Sun had, for example.  This changes with the move
> to Apache.  So I'd recommend that we point this out to companies,
> small and large.  We shouldn't let past failures in this area
> discourage us too much.  It is a new situation now.

Yap.  I mean, your business theory is great.  But there are some
holes in it on the reality side that we need to overcome.  It may work
for IBM, but not all the other business.  Maybe some more mails?  Some
more talks with people?  Some other strategy?

> Now sure, some companies will just be interested in training or
> whatever, and have zero interest in participating.  However, those
> companies will be at a disadvantage compared to competing companies
> that are participate. There is a level of information, skill,
> expertise, even influence that comes from participating on the inside,
> rather than watching from the outside.
> 
>> I occasionally hear some local business doing OpenOffice support,
>> but I cannot reach them.  They just don't respond to us, and have no
>> interests to connect to the open source community.  (Afraid of us
>> stealing their business?  Afraid of us sharing their profit?  Just
>> afraid of communication trouble?  Being conservative for Asian culture?)
> A trainer can easily switch to training users for Google Docs, or
> Microsoft Office, if they need to.  So they are not as dependent on
> the success of our project.

I do not know if they are trainers or else.  Someone refer me to
them that they are doing OpenOffice jobs (technical?  training?
application development?  anything else?  I don't know.) and they may
need my help.  They never respond.

That said, there are some holes in your theory.

-- 
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' 
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc

<> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Apache Asia Roadshow 2012 - Dec 13th Beijing

[Peter Junge]

Hi Simon,

On 10/30/2012 11:25 PM, Shenfeng Liu wrote:

Peter,
   Please see my comments below:

2012/10/29 Peter Junge 


Hi Simon,


On 10/26/2012 9:48 PM, Shenfeng Liu wrote:


Don & Peter,
I think it is a very good opportunity to promote Apache OpenOffice in
China marketing through Apache Asia Roadshow 2012. And from another side,
the wide influence of OpenOffice can also help to promote Apache.
I'd like to work with Peter together on it. The target can be not only
attract individual volunteers to participate the community, but also
demonstrate the business opportunities and attract local business
partners.
While first of all, I'd like to know more details about this event.
Perhaps Jimmy is the right contact?



   Agree with you!
   Per check with Jimmy, we need to give a outline draft now.


I will work on it in the evening, when I'm home from work. Do you know 
--e.g. from Jimmy-- if the outline needs to meet certain requirements?






  indeed, let's put together such a session for the Roadshow. A possible
brief outline would be:
- Introduction to and history of OpenOffice


+1, history and latest status. - I think you are the best one in Beijing to
present this topic. So I wonder if you can prepare for an outline?


Yes.





- What's happening around AOO in Beijing respectively China. Engineers of
IBM and of CS2C could share what they are working on.


+1 again. The UOF contribution, fidelity improvement, quality improvement
efforts... I can check with Ji Yan, WeiKe or Liu Tao to see if we can work
together on it.


That would be great.


- How businesses and users can benefit from AOO, ways to join the AOO
community.


I think firstly CS2C can share their experience on building the business on
AOO.
Secondly, since the theme of this Roadshow is cloud, we can share the topic
of Social Integration with AOO. I will work with Da Li to prepare for the
outline.


Sounds excellent.



How much time we can spend on the parts would depend on how much time we
would get in total.


I'm still checking with Jimmy for how much time can we get. But basically I
think we can start and propose the topics above.


The amount of time we have would be great to know.



Any suggestion?


Not yet, maybe later, e.g. after drafting that outline.

Peter



- Shenfeng Liu (Simon)








BTW, I just took a small surgery yesterday, and in the following week I
have to spend most of the daytime in hospital for subsequent treatment. So
my response to the mail threads may be slow. But I will try to catch up on
this topic.



Get well soon!

Best regards,
peter






- Shenfeng Liu (Simon)




2012/10/26 Peter Junge 

  Hi Don,


thanks for the notice. Unfortunately, the Apache Asia Roadshow 2012 seem
to lack of promoting the event. I only heard about it by coincidence a
couple of days ago.

(more inline)


On 10/25/2012 9:47 PM, Donald Harbison wrote:

  On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <

jus...@erenkrantz.com


wrote:




  [...]



   we plan the main topic around cloud computing: open source really




  produce a


  basement  to the cloud computing, like Apache Hadoop and cloudstack;


  welcome


  any open source topic in or out of this area.





  The Apache OpenOffice community has a significant local

representation in
Beijing. I'm cc'ing the community
to alert our Chinese contributors to reach out to you and explore the
possibility of adding an Apache OpenOffice
session to increase its visibility. We just graduated to an Apache TLP,
so
we have a solid foundation upon which
to build with a strong global community. The Chinese community is very
important and making a large contribution.



As I seem to be the only one in Beijing who's with OpenOffice from the
beginning, I'd like to offer a talk about the history of OOo, if that is
of
interest. As the 13th is a weekday, I just have to find out if I can
take a
day off my daily job.

@concom: I cannot find anything about the Apache Asia Roadshow 2012 at
http://wiki.apache.org/apachecon/<
http://wiki.apache.org/**apachecon/ >

Do you have a link to the Apache Asia Roadshow 2012 for me? I want to
write an event announcement at the homepage of the Beijing Linux User
Group
(http://blug.chinalug.org/). We're reaching quite a few geeks.

Best regards,
Peter

Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community

[Kevin Grignon]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012, imacat wrote:

> On 2012/10/31 01:59, Rob Weir said:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM, imacat 
> > >
> wrote:
> >> On 2012/10/29 23:26, Rob Weir said:
> >>> Then there is the secondary question of network effect and value of
> >>> the network.  The more AOO users there are they greater the value of
> >>> skills in AOO extension development, of AOO training and certification
> >>> skills, and of migration and deployment services, etc.  These business
> >>> interests all become more valuable the more users we have.  Although
> >>> nothing requires that business built on AOO contribute back to the
> >>> project, in practice they often will, since helping to sustain the
> >>> project helps their business as well.  So aside from the "volunteer
> >>> pyramid" we set up a second virtuous cycle with business interests.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, in the few cases I've seen, this is just negative.
> >> In practice many of these business just don't help to sustain the
> >> project.  I suppose many of them do help to sustain the project.  Why
> >> some do and some don't is another interesting issue to be investigated
> >> further.
> > Been there; done that.   You didn't see IBM very active in
> > OpenOffice.org years ago, did you?  There is a huge difference between
> > a corporate-lead and a community-led open source one.  A community-led
> > one is much more welcoming to other large companies..  If a company
> > wanted to get involved with OpenOffice.org before then there was all
> > the messiness with dealing with Sun and wondering about whether Sun's
> > priorities would dominate over everything else.  Look at the constant
> > battles Novell and Sun had, for example.  This changes with the move
> > to Apache.  So I'd recommend that we point this out to companies,
> > small and large.  We shouldn't let past failures in this area
> > discourage us too much.  It is a new situation now.
>
> Yap.  I mean, your business theory is great.  But there are some
> holes in it on the reality side that we need to overcome.  It may work
> for IBM, but not all the other business.  Maybe some more mails?  Some
> more talks with people?  Some other strategy?
>
> > Now sure, some companies will just be interested in training or
> > whatever, and have zero interest in participating.  However, those
> > companies will be at a disadvantage compared to competing companies
> > that are participate. There is a level of information, skill,
> > expertise, even influence that comes from participating on the inside,
> > rather than watching from the outside.
> >
> >> I occasionally hear some local business doing OpenOffice support,
> >> but I cannot reach them.  They just don't respond to us, and have no
> >> interests to connect to the open source community.  (Afraid of us
> >> stealing their business?  Afraid of us sharing their profit?  Just
> >> afraid of communication trouble?  Being conservative for Asian culture?)
> > A trainer can easily switch to training users for Google Docs, or
> > Microsoft Office, if they need to.  So they are not as dependent on
> > the success of our project.
>
> I do not know if they are trainers or else.  Someone refer me to
> them that they are doing OpenOffice jobs (technical?  training?
> application development?  anything else?  I don't know.) and they may
> need my help.  They never respond.
>
> That said, there are some holes in your theory.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> imacat ^_*' >
> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
>
> <> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
> OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
> EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
> Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
>
>
Great thread. So many interesting topics to explore at a BoF.

Here are some thoughts related to broadening our skills set and
transforming the project from open source development to open source
product design and development.

In support of the community development goals, perhaps the discussion could
also explore academic partnerships. A strong academic partner can bring a
variety of skills to the effort: business, technical and design.  Could be
a great win win relationship.

Regards,
Kevin

Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community

[Peter Junge]

On 10/31/2012 11:11 AM, Kevin Grignon wrote:

[...]


Great thread. So many interesting topics to explore at a BoF.

Here are some thoughts related to broadening our skills set and
transforming the project from open source development to open source
product design and development.

In support of the community development goals, perhaps the discussion could
also explore academic partnerships. A strong academic partner can bring a
variety of skills to the effort: business, technical and design.  Could be
a great win win relationship.


Great point. Certainly worth including it in the discussion.

Peter

Re: The Impossible Question

[Kevin Grignon]

Great discussion on an important topic.

If I may, I'd like to add a ux perspective.

Support and help systems are very important and necessary, however, my goal
is to mitigate the need to such assets at the tool level. For example,
rather than put energey into updating the install documents, we could
explore design alternatives to deliver a better install experience. One
click install, with popular app marketplace integrations and easy updates
come to mind. Then provide a great first use experience that helps users
add extensions and configure their tools.

More broadly, beyond install and config, we could look to bring the great
support and user assistance assets to the user in the context of the tool
itself. For example, we could integrate help and support into the task pane
(side bar).

Regards,
Kevin


On Sunday, October 28, 2012, Kay Schenk wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Rob Weir >
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Dave Fisher 
> > 
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Oct 26, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi
> > >> Every now and then a user finds the experience of downloading,
> > installing, using AOO disappointing and frankly frustrating if not worse.
> > They will usually go to the user forums, but sometimes they will contact
> > the Apache Foundation directly. Okay, but this does not really help them.
> > >>
> > >> What we did with OpenOffice was set up a Support page, which has since
> > been moved to here, http://www.openoffice.org/support/. It's pretty much
> > an improved version of the old but of course the "ecosystem" needs
> further
> > fleshing out—it suffers from a lack of substantial existence.
> > >>
> > >> I'm also not persuaded that the route to it from either the
> application
> > download page or homepage or wherever is redundantly clear enough for the
> > befuddled enduser who installs AOO to replace his or her whatever suite
> and
> > doesn't really know where to go…..
> > >>
> > >> So, my query is the usual impossible question: What can we do to make
> > it clearer to the puzzled and frustrated how to get help? Sure, we can
> have
> > a knowledge base (kb), FAQ, etc., and also enthusiastic community
> members.
> > >>
> > >> But what would you suggest as a path, or paths for the user? I
> > personally would include something in the installation sets that point to
> > the support page above; but also banners, say, or tags,
> stickers—glaringly
> > obvious neon coloured blinking lights?—to relay users to useful pages.
> > >>
> > >> Ideas?
> > >
> > > We could emulate a version of what the ASF does to highlight the many
> > projects. Take a look at www.apache.org - you will see a feature project
> > section.
> > >
> > > Perhaps on www.openoffice.org we can add a "Featured Support Question
> /
> > Language / News". This would be backed by an xml file of FAQs, Languages
> > and News which would randomly be selected every day and republished to
> the
> > front page.
> > >
> >
> > I like the idea in general, but from a support perspective I think we
> > need to get the feed down to the client.  Why?  Because users have no
> > current reason to visit www.openoffice.org homepage on a regular
> > basis.  It is not really a necessary place for them to visit, once
> > they've downloaded.
> >
> > Most users just want to get their work done.  They don't have any
> > emotional attachment to AOO.  It is just a tool.  If they are thinking
> > about their tools rather then their work, then something is probably
> > wrong.  This is not sexy, Apple-like technology that users go gooey
> > over.   It is a good day that a user thinks about their document, but
> > not about their word processor.  The task is in the forefront, the
> > tool recedes into the background, like any good tool an extension of
> > the user.
> >
> > Well, that's one ideal, at least.
> >
> > So in terms of priorities, we should want:
> >
> > 1) Fewer bugs, not more bug FAQ's
> >
> > 2) Less need for support, not a more prominent support page
> >
>
> Well this is the ideal of course.   In some cases though, what a user
> already has running on their system may be a major culprit and something we
> can't control or deal with easily (yep! I spent a number of years in User
> Support as well).
>
>
> > 3) More quick avenues for self-help rather than hard-to-scale support
> > offerings
> >
> > 4) More skill-building pages, ways user can become more productive
> > with the tools.  We could make a destination that users would actually
> > visit if we could pull together solid content on "power tips",
> > extensions reviews, lists of topical templates (for holidays, tax
> > time, etc.).
> >
> > -Rob
> >
>
> I don't know ANYTHING about how the Help (the Support menu item) pages for
> AOO are constructed (maybe time I learned?).  There's already a LOT of
> information under "Common Help Topics". But, maybe we need to spend some
> time revisiting this area and see if the topics still meet current