Re: Pax not Pox
On 21/01/2013 Xuacu wrote: As a person working in both sides (and feeling part of both communities), I couldn't agree more. Our approach is to tell our users «Hey, we are translating a lot of free software. Try it and see what fits your needs better... It's free!» I agree. And, actually, there are no "sides"; there are no "borders". It is a fact that a large number of volunteers are helping more than one project. Splitting in "sides", "camps", "factions" is best left to journalists and bloggers who need to spice up their stories. We needn't use or justify that terminology: this is a free and open project, that welcomes all volunteers and produces software that anyone can reuse. Regards, Andrea.
Re: [RELEASE]: release schedule/preparation and start voting for AOO 3.4.1 repin
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>
> On 01/22/2013 01:41 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>
>> Am 01/22/2013 09:06 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>>>
>>> our plan was to release AOO 3.4.1 on Jan. 24th. I think I have forgot to
>>> start the necessary vote in time and plan to do this tomorrow now.
>
>
> hmmm...for some reason, I didn't think we needed a vote on this...oh well,
> my mistake obviously
>
If we have new translations then we have new contributions, content
that is part of the product, that we need to license. Maybe this is
just PO files? Maybe it is the resource bundles that the PO files are
converted into?
Since the "convenience binaries" must be based on released source, I
think we need to release (and vote on) the new source as well.
-Rob
>
>>> According to this plan think of the following release plan to vote, make
>>> the bits available, prepare announcements, prepare the download page
>>> (update for new languages), ...
>>>
>>> 1. start vote on Jan 23th and inform infra about the planned release
>>> 2. provide the bits after the final vote on Jan. 26th, I will do that
>>> late
>>> on Saturday becasue I am traveling to he US
>>> 3. inform infra and SourceForge about the release and wait at least 24
>>> hours for synchronizing the mirrors, I would say until Tuesday
>>> (Tuesday is
>>> always a good day for an announcement)
>>> 4. in the meantime prepare an announcement and have it in place for
>>> Tuesday, Jan 29th
>>
>>
>> Tuesday next week is also good.
>> I should be able to assist with the website in the evening hours (CET).
>>
>>> 5. the same for the adapted download page
>>
>>
>> @Kay, all:
>> Any need to test the additions in a test area? I've just changed the 8
>> new languages in "languages.js" to be available ("n" ---> "y"), added
>> download links to the "other.html" and also for the checksums webpage.
>
>
> It might be nice to able to do a "live" test once the packs are at
> SourceForge -- I can't tell by this when that might be -- late Sun?
>
> So, I would suggest uploading revisions to /download/test just to make
> sure.
>
>
>>
>>> 6. put the changes live and fire up the announcement, share the news via
>>> all channels
>>> 7. adapt the update mechansim to support the new languages
>>
>>
>> ... and make sure to exclude "hu" as it's already available.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>> 8. start counting the downloads
>>> 9. being proud of a further release and thank our translation volunteers
>>>
>>> 10. continue towards AOO 4.0
>>> 11. invite further translation volunteers, QA and developers to join AOO
>>> and make 4.0 a further success and available in more languages
>>>
>>> Ok 10. and 11. will have some time and a lot of work is in front of us
>>> but
>>> it will happen ;-)
>>>
>>> Sorry that I forgot the vote in time and we have to postpone the release
>>> until next week.
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> MzK
>
> "No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted."
> -- Aesop
Re: Bug in AOO 3.4.1 on the Fedora 18
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 09:38:39PM -0200, Albino Biasutti Neto wrote: > Hi > > 2013/1/22 Ariel Constenla-Haile : > > I don't have a fedora18 to test right now, but installing OpenOffice in > > fedora requires to blacklist LO. If you didn't so, then it might happen > > that your installation is broken. > > The first command in fedora 18 was yum remove libreoffice-* ;-) > It's not enough to remove LO, at least in all previous fedora versions, you have to blacklist lo in /etc/yum.conf with a line exclude=libreoffice* otherwise, when updating lo's ure will obsolete aoo-ure, and thus replace it. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpYodXitXvh7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug in AOO 3.4.1 on the Fedora 18
On 01/22/2013 03:38 PM, Albino Biasutti Neto wrote: Hi 2013/1/22 Ariel Constenla-Haile : I don't have a fedora18 to test right now, but installing OpenOffice in fedora requires to blacklist LO. If you didn't so, then it might happen that your installation is broken. The first command in fedora 18 was yum remove libreoffice-* ;-) Try running AOO from the command line, and see the output when it crashes, it might give a clue. I reboot in the pc, it seems to me better. Albino Albino-- I don't use Fedora, but we have a link to How to Install on Fedora 16/17 that might be of use on the Linux install doc on the wiki: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/FAQ/Installation/How_do_I_install_OpenOffice.org_on_Linux%3F -- MzK "No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted." -- Aesop
Re: [RELEASE]: release schedule/preparation and start voting for AOO 3.4.1 repin
On 01/22/2013 01:41 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
Am 01/22/2013 09:06 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
our plan was to release AOO 3.4.1 on Jan. 24th. I think I have forgot to
start the necessary vote in time and plan to do this tomorrow now.
hmmm...for some reason, I didn't think we needed a vote on this...oh
well, my mistake obviously
According to this plan think of the following release plan to vote, make
the bits available, prepare announcements, prepare the download page
(update for new languages), ...
1. start vote on Jan 23th and inform infra about the planned release
2. provide the bits after the final vote on Jan. 26th, I will do that
late
on Saturday becasue I am traveling to he US
3. inform infra and SourceForge about the release and wait at least 24
hours for synchronizing the mirrors, I would say until Tuesday
(Tuesday is
always a good day for an announcement)
4. in the meantime prepare an announcement and have it in place for
Tuesday, Jan 29th
Tuesday next week is also good.
I should be able to assist with the website in the evening hours (CET).
5. the same for the adapted download page
@Kay, all:
Any need to test the additions in a test area? I've just changed the 8
new languages in "languages.js" to be available ("n" ---> "y"), added
download links to the "other.html" and also for the checksums webpage.
It might be nice to able to do a "live" test once the packs are at
SourceForge -- I can't tell by this when that might be -- late Sun?
So, I would suggest uploading revisions to /download/test just to make
sure.
6. put the changes live and fire up the announcement, share the news via
all channels
7. adapt the update mechansim to support the new languages
... and make sure to exclude "hu" as it's already available.
Marcus
8. start counting the downloads
9. being proud of a further release and thank our translation volunteers
10. continue towards AOO 4.0
11. invite further translation volunteers, QA and developers to join AOO
and make 4.0 a further success and available in more languages
Ok 10. and 11. will have some time and a lot of work is in front of us
but
it will happen ;-)
Sorry that I forgot the vote in time and we have to postpone the release
until next week.
Juergen
--
MzK
"No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted."
-- Aesop
Re: RAT scans: Re: What rights are given in an SGA
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > - Messaggio originale - > >> Da: Andrea Pescetti > >> >> Pedro Giffuni wrote: >>> It would be good to tun a RAT scan over the website. We have not done >>> anything to clean the content licensewise and we probably carry >>> copyleft content, including code, there! >> >> The website contains gigabytes of materials for which we are probably unable >> to >> trace detailed history and licensing, since they come from multiple CVS >> repositories, then lost and migrated to multiple SVN repositories, then lost >> and >> migrated to the current tree. >> >> So a RAT scan wouldn't probably yield anything actionable. >> >> The only thing we know for sure is that all those materials were contributed >> to >> be put on the openoffice.org website and that we are continuing to keep them >> online. Even if there is copyleft content or code I believe it will be fine >> so >> long as we don't put it in a release (and it won't happen that some site >> contents go into a release without a thorough check). >> > > If we are distributing code there it is our responsibility. > > > I am afraid there are also tarballs that deserve special consideration. > I recall we were carrying a GPL'd slovenian dictionary (not sure if I finally > got rid of it). Some content like the SDK should be verified for licensing > content and updated. > If you have specific examples, that would be great. I thin a RAT scan on the website would be too noisy, and it only gets the static pages, not the content on the wiki. > The fact that information was transfered through CVS and SVN or whatever > is irrelevant we should know what we have and ultimately after any cleanup > SVN will remember what we had in there. > > I understand we are underpowered to fix all that but the biggest problem is > that we don't have any accounting over the content there, so it's a can of > worms waiting to be opened. > There are a range of potential issues, of varying severity: 1) Something hosted where we have no legal permission to host it. That would be bad. 2) Something hosted where there is suggestion that it is an Apache-approved release but it isn't. That is a policy issue, not a legal one. We could decide to add a disclaimer, or remove the content. I'd take this on a case-by-case basis. There are parts of the website, such as the forums and the wiki, where user content has traditionally been hosted, under a variety of licences. 3) Distribution of significant files directly from the website, with resulting bandwidth impact. This is an Infrastructure policy violation, and the content would need to be moved. Perhaps other potential issues, but we'd really need to talk specifics, In any case, I'd hope that all committers feel empowered to fix such issues when they arise. -Rob > Pedro. >
Re: Bug in AOO 3.4.1 on the Fedora 18
Hi 2013/1/22 Ariel Constenla-Haile : > I don't have a fedora18 to test right now, but installing OpenOffice in > fedora requires to blacklist LO. If you didn't so, then it might happen > that your installation is broken. The first command in fedora 18 was yum remove libreoffice-* ;-) > Try running AOO from the command line, and see the output when it > crashes, it might give a clue. I reboot in the pc, it seems to me better. Albino
Re: Bug in AOO 3.4.1 on the Fedora 18
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 03:49:15PM -0200, Albino Biasutti Neto wrote: > I am using Fedora 18 and AOO 3.4.1 > > Realizing that the AOO is crashing to do several things: word of > correction, close the page, open the AOO own. > > That's just me or a bug to be fixed? I don't have a fedora18 to test right now, but installing OpenOffice in fedora requires to blacklist LO. If you didn't so, then it might happen that your installation is broken. Try running AOO from the command line, and see the output when it crashes, it might give a clue. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpiEqGZlDVyk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RAT scans: Re: What rights are given in an SGA
- Messaggio originale - > Da: Andrea Pescetti > > Pedro Giffuni wrote: >> It would be good to tun a RAT scan over the website. We have not done >> anything to clean the content licensewise and we probably carry >> copyleft content, including code, there! > > The website contains gigabytes of materials for which we are probably unable > to > trace detailed history and licensing, since they come from multiple CVS > repositories, then lost and migrated to multiple SVN repositories, then lost > and > migrated to the current tree. > > So a RAT scan wouldn't probably yield anything actionable. > > The only thing we know for sure is that all those materials were contributed > to > be put on the openoffice.org website and that we are continuing to keep them > online. Even if there is copyleft content or code I believe it will be fine > so > long as we don't put it in a release (and it won't happen that some site > contents go into a release without a thorough check). > If we are distributing code there it is our responsibility. I am afraid there are also tarballs that deserve special consideration. I recall we were carrying a GPL'd slovenian dictionary (not sure if I finally got rid of it). Some content like the SDK should be verified for licensing content and updated. The fact that information was transfered through CVS and SVN or whatever is irrelevant we should know what we have and ultimately after any cleanup SVN will remember what we had in there. I understand we are underpowered to fix all that but the biggest problem is that we don't have any accounting over the content there, so it's a can of worms waiting to be opened. Pedro.
Re: [RELEASE]: release schedule/preparation and start voting for AOO 3.4.1 repin
Am Dienstag, 22. Januar 2013 um 23:05 schrieb Andrea Pescetti: > Marcus (OOo) wrote: > > Am 01/22/2013 09:06 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: > > > 7. adapt the update mechansim to support the new languages > > > > ... and make sure to exclude "hu" as it's already available. > > > > > This should be automatic. If I recall correctly, the update mechanism > just returns an XML file (do we have it somewhere in SVN?) with a list > of languages, platforms, latest version for that language+platform, and > URL to download it. > > So, provided that the XML file is not modified, it will still return > that the latest version available for Hungarian on, say, Windows, is > 3.4.1, which means that existing 3.4.1 installations will believe they > are up-to-date (they actually are!) and won't notify the user that newer > versions are available. > > exactly and that is the intended behaviour. I would assume that users of the Hungarian version have already installed a dictionary manually and don't need it. Oliver will help to update what's necessary to support the new languages. But he is sick this week. Juergen > > Regards, > Andrea. > >
Re: How to make money with Apache OpenOffice (proposed blog post)
On 21/01/2013 Rob Weir wrote: If anyone is uncomfortable with this I can do it on my personal blog, of course. But it is relevant to the AOO project, so I'd prefer to put it here. I see no reasons to avoid this topic. But the post would actually be more credible, and enjoyable, if we actually manage to interview a couple of consultants/companies who are making money (or even a living) out of OpenOffice. So not only a generic post by project volunteers, but a post including also a few paragraphs where established consultants provide some extra information. Regards, Andrea.
Re: Merging Lotus Symphony: Allegro moderato
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Fabrizio Marchesano wrote: > The kind of post I would have liked to have written myself: brilliant, > informative and entertaining as well. Thanks for the kind words! -Rob > It brought to my memory the statement of the harpsichordist Wanda > Lansdowska about Mozart's music: «Simplicity does not mean poverty, > indigence and ignorance! [...] The works of Mozart are clear, transparent, > and joyful as a spring, and not only those muddy pools which seem deep only > because the bottom cannot be seen.» > By replacing “works of Mozart are” with “Apache OpenOffice 4.0 is”, I > believe the description may perfectly fit. > Best regards, > > Fabrizio > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> Our latest blog post: >> https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/merging_lotus_symphony_allegro_moderato >> >> I've posted on our Facebook and Google+ pages, and once via Twitter: >> >> https://www.facebook.com/ApacheOO/posts/121057218069097 >> >> https://plus.google.com/u/0/114598373874764163668/posts/ipZVtpwoRBZ >> >> https://twitter.com/ApacheOO/status/293398126314795008 >> >> As always, your help spreading the word is much appreciated. That's >> the "social" part of social networking. >> >> Regards, >> >> -Rob >>
Re: [RELEASE]: release schedule/preparation and start voting for AOO 3.4.1 repin
Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 01/22/2013 09:06 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: 7. adapt the update mechansim to support the new languages ... and make sure to exclude "hu" as it's already available. This should be automatic. If I recall correctly, the update mechanism just returns an XML file (do we have it somewhere in SVN?) with a list of languages, platforms, latest version for that language+platform, and URL to download it. So, provided that the XML file is not modified, it will still return that the latest version available for Hungarian on, say, Windows, is 3.4.1, which means that existing 3.4.1 installations will believe they are up-to-date (they actually are!) and won't notify the user that newer versions are available. Regards, Andrea.
Re: [RELEASE]: release schedule/preparation and start voting for AOO 3.4.1 repin
Am 01/22/2013 09:06 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
our plan was to release AOO 3.4.1 on Jan. 24th. I think I have forgot to
start the necessary vote in time and plan to do this tomorrow now.
According to this plan think of the following release plan to vote, make
the bits available, prepare announcements, prepare the download page
(update for new languages), ...
1. start vote on Jan 23th and inform infra about the planned release
2. provide the bits after the final vote on Jan. 26th, I will do that late
on Saturday becasue I am traveling to he US
3. inform infra and SourceForge about the release and wait at least 24
hours for synchronizing the mirrors, I would say until Tuesday (Tuesday is
always a good day for an announcement)
4. in the meantime prepare an announcement and have it in place for
Tuesday, Jan 29th
Tuesday next week is also good.
I should be able to assist with the website in the evening hours (CET).
5. the same for the adapted download page
@Kay, all:
Any need to test the additions in a test area? I've just changed the 8
new languages in "languages.js" to be available ("n" ---> "y"), added
download links to the "other.html" and also for the checksums webpage.
6. put the changes live and fire up the announcement, share the news via
all channels
7. adapt the update mechansim to support the new languages
... and make sure to exclude "hu" as it's already available.
Marcus
8. start counting the downloads
9. being proud of a further release and thank our translation volunteers
10. continue towards AOO 4.0
11. invite further translation volunteers, QA and developers to join AOO
and make 4.0 a further success and available in more languages
Ok 10. and 11. will have some time and a lot of work is in front of us but
it will happen ;-)
Sorry that I forgot the vote in time and we have to postpone the release
until next week.
Juergen
Re: Possible broken link: other
It is possible that you are using windows, there is a tab that say open and you can select a option. On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Rolf Apelqvist wrote: > I can´t open my document in Writing > rolf.apelqv...@comhem.se
Re: Extension Site down?
Hi 2013/1/21 Raphael Bircher : > Is the Extension site down for maintenance or is there an other problem? No. extensions.openoffice.org Albino
Re: Interested in writing documentation
Hi 2013/1/22 Rakesh Thakoordyal : > I'd like to join the Apache organization writing documentation for the Open > Office suite, or other Apache products. In my day job I write developer's > documentation, use cases, step-wise instructions, respond to questions from > users, and maintain an internal wiki. I'd like to build my own portfolio of > work however (separate from my "day job work") and read that the Apache > organization would be a great way to do this. Welcome Rakesh. You can subscribe in mailing to documentation [1]. 1 - doc-subscr...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: release schedule/preparation and start voting for AOO 3.4.1 repin
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > Hi, > > our plan was to release AOO 3.4.1 on Jan. 24th. I think I have forgot to > start the necessary vote in time and plan to do this tomorrow now. > According to this plan think of the following release plan to vote, make > the bits available, prepare announcements, prepare the download page > (update for new languages), ... > > 1. start vote on Jan 23th and inform infra about the planned release > 2. provide the bits after the final vote on Jan. 26th, I will do that late > on Saturday becasue I am traveling to he US > 3. inform infra and SourceForge about the release and wait at least 24 > hours for synchronizing the mirrors, I would say until Tuesday (Tuesday is > always a good day for an announcement) > 4. in the meantime prepare an announcement and have it in place for > Tuesday, Jan 29th I volunteer to work with interested volunteers on the L10n list to prepare an announcement draft. I'll send the link to the Dev list when we have something ready for review. Also: 4 1/2: Update the NL homepages for the new languages that we are supporting, to provide correct links, etc. > 5. the same for the adapted download page > 6. put the changes live and fire up the announcement, share the news via > all channels > 7. adapt the update mechansim to support the new languages > 8. start counting the downloads > 9. being proud of a further release and thank our translation volunteers > > 10. continue towards AOO 4.0 > 11. invite further translation volunteers, QA and developers to join AOO > and make 4.0 a further success and available in more languages > > Ok 10. and 11. will have some time and a lot of work is in front of us but > it will happen ;-) > > Sorry that I forgot the vote in time and we have to postpone the release > until next week. > > Juergen
Re: [RELEASE]: release schedule/preparation and start voting for AOO 3.4.1 repin
On 22 January 2013 21:06, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > Hi, > > our plan was to release AOO 3.4.1 on Jan. 24th. I think I have forgot to > start the necessary vote in time and plan to do this tomorrow now. > According to this plan think of the following release plan to vote, make > the bits available, prepare announcements, prepare the download page > (update for new languages), ... > > 1. start vote on Jan 23th and inform infra about the planned release > 2. provide the bits after the final vote on Jan. 26th, I will do that late > on Saturday becasue I am traveling to he US > 3. inform infra and SourceForge about the release and wait at least 24 > hours for synchronizing the mirrors, I would say until Tuesday (Tuesday is > always a good day for an announcement) > 4. in the meantime prepare an announcement and have it in place for > Tuesday, Jan 29th > 5. the same for the adapted download page > 6. put the changes live and fire up the announcement, share the news via > all channels > 7. adapt the update mechansim to support the new languages > 8. start counting the downloads > 9. being proud of a further release and thank our translation volunteers > > 10. continue towards AOO 4.0 > 11. invite further translation volunteers, QA and developers to join AOO > and make 4.0 a further success and available in more languages > > Ok 10. and 11. will have some time and a lot of work is in front of us but > it will happen ;-) > +1 I have prepared a new workdir (/x1/aoo_workdir) on translate-vm, which I hope you will use instead of your home dir. Reason is that infra does not make backups of homedirs (I think the po files etc. you have needs backup )and this dir is common to for all aoo work. Please tell me, when you consider the DB for frozen for 3.4.1, then I will make an a manual dump (backup is NOT in place at the moment). Have a nice trip to the US. Rgds Jan I. > Sorry that I forgot the vote in time and we have to postpone the release > until next week. > > Juergen >
Re: Interested in writing documentation
Rakesh Thakoordyal wrote: Hello, I'd like to join the Apache organization writing documentation for the Open Office suite, or other Apache products. In my day job I write developer's documentation, use cases, step-wise instructions, respond to questions from users, and maintain an internal wiki. I'd like to build my own portfolio of work however (separate from my "day job work") and read that the Apache organization would be a great way to do this. In terms of formal training, I've completed a technical writing course and have a degree in I.T. I live in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. I feel that I'd be able a productive contributor to the team and am willing to start with any application / task. Please let me know what I need to do to be involved. Thank You, Rakesh. Hello Rakesh, and welcome to Apache OpenOffice. We are gearing up our documentation effort now and are in need of people for both user and development documentation. The first step is to subscribe to our documentation mailing list. Just send a blank email to users-subscr...@openoffice.apache.org?subject=subscribe%20users then follow the instructions in the follow-up email to validate your e-mail address. Regards Keith PS.Please reply only to the list and not to e personally, thanks.
[RELEASE]: release schedule/preparation and start voting for AOO 3.4.1 repin
Hi, our plan was to release AOO 3.4.1 on Jan. 24th. I think I have forgot to start the necessary vote in time and plan to do this tomorrow now. According to this plan think of the following release plan to vote, make the bits available, prepare announcements, prepare the download page (update for new languages), ... 1. start vote on Jan 23th and inform infra about the planned release 2. provide the bits after the final vote on Jan. 26th, I will do that late on Saturday becasue I am traveling to he US 3. inform infra and SourceForge about the release and wait at least 24 hours for synchronizing the mirrors, I would say until Tuesday (Tuesday is always a good day for an announcement) 4. in the meantime prepare an announcement and have it in place for Tuesday, Jan 29th 5. the same for the adapted download page 6. put the changes live and fire up the announcement, share the news via all channels 7. adapt the update mechansim to support the new languages 8. start counting the downloads 9. being proud of a further release and thank our translation volunteers 10. continue towards AOO 4.0 11. invite further translation volunteers, QA and developers to join AOO and make 4.0 a further success and available in more languages Ok 10. and 11. will have some time and a lot of work is in front of us but it will happen ;-) Sorry that I forgot the vote in time and we have to postpone the release until next week. Juergen
Re: RAT scans: Re: What rights are given in an SGA
On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Pedro Giffuni wrote: >> It would be good to tun a RAT scan over the website. We have not done >> anything to clean the content licensewise and we probably carry >> copyleft content, including code, there! > > The website contains gigabytes of materials for which we are probably unable > to trace detailed history and licensing, since they come from multiple CVS > repositories, then lost and migrated to multiple SVN repositories, then lost > and migrated to the current tree. > > So a RAT scan wouldn't probably yield anything actionable. > > The only thing we know for sure is that all those materials were contributed > to be put on the openoffice.org website and that we are continuing to keep > them online. Even if there is copyleft content or code I believe it will be > fine so long as we don't put it in a release (and it won't happen that some > site contents go into a release without a thorough check). Very well written. This is my understanding as well. It is an opposite problem from the IBM Symphony SGA where we know these will be fine but we just haven't done the relicensing and copyright adjustment to the files as of yet. Regards, Dave > > Regards, > Andrea.
Re: Possible broken link: other
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:53:55 +0100 Rolf Apelqvist wrote: > I can´t open my document in Writing > rolf.apelqv...@comhem.se What does it say? What operating system are you using? -- Rory O'Farrell
Re: RAT scans: Re: What rights are given in an SGA
Pedro Giffuni wrote: It would be good to tun a RAT scan over the website. We have not done anything to clean the content licensewise and we probably carry copyleft content, including code, there! The website contains gigabytes of materials for which we are probably unable to trace detailed history and licensing, since they come from multiple CVS repositories, then lost and migrated to multiple SVN repositories, then lost and migrated to the current tree. So a RAT scan wouldn't probably yield anything actionable. The only thing we know for sure is that all those materials were contributed to be put on the openoffice.org website and that we are continuing to keep them online. Even if there is copyleft content or code I believe it will be fine so long as we don't put it in a release (and it won't happen that some site contents go into a release without a thorough check). Regards, Andrea.
Bug in AOO 3.4.1 on the Fedora 18
I am using Fedora 18 and AOO 3.4.1 Realizing that the AOO is crashing to do several things: word of correction, close the page, open the AOO own. That's just me or a bug to be fixed? Albino
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > Hi Rob; > > > - Messaggio originale - >> Da: Rob Weir > >> >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - Messaggio originale - Da: Rob Weir >>> ... https://plus.google.com/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp You wrote: "OO is dead, LO is alive, switch immediately. The article sorta gets that across - read the history and LibreOffice sections. Apache OpenOffice is a moribund shell, which will live precisely as long as IBM is interested in keeping it alive. And they've shown not all that much interest of late, either." and "It was dead from neglect; Oracle donated the corpse to Apache as >> part of their (details unrevealed) 2008 deal with IBM, with a side order of f*ck-you to LO thrown in for free." and "The talk page discussion on naming of the article is interesting. Basically, once AOO 4.0 is out (if it ever comes out - IBM doesn't seem to have merged their Symphony code as yet, and it was supposed to be released next month) there'll be a serious proposal to make AOO >> a separate article and keep this one as being about the OpenOffice.org that existed from 2000 to 2011. If/when AOO 4.0 comes out with the horrible Symphony interface, expect millions of previously-happy OOo users to absolutely sh*t. It'll be the Windows 8 of office suites." So this does not suggest "good faith". In fact, it suggests >> a profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as >> well as having an axe to grind. These comments, plus your mendacious editing in the article suggests you are using Wikipedia to push a point of view. >>> >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor >>> >> >> I'm too charitable to assume that level of stupidity. >> > > What we have to understand here is that there is a group of > malinformed people that think everything they hear in the > favorite linux *office distribution is true. > > Yes the guy is enthusiastic about it, but we all know that > Wikipedia has that problem and precisely because of that > reason is not a good source of information. > Oh, but what you are missing is that Wikipedia is the 31st highest source of referrers to our website. #31 Don't you see If we don't maintain **absolute control** over this page, then we could LOSE LITERALLY DOZENS OF POTENTIAL USERS This is an existential crisis, live or die. It is obviously worth giving up our holidays to defend our view of the truth, If we're not going to go to the mat with Gerard over the minutia of the project's history, then we might as well just pack up and quit. Really. It is that important. Not. ;-) Like I said before, let him find other things to play with. I've seen this before repeatably with other obsessive types on Wikipedia. Like bad weather and food poisoning, it is just passing through. -Rob > Plus. these people usually change sides frequently :). > > > Pedro. >
Coverage of Symphony blog post
Some coverage of the latest blog post on Symphony: (In German) http://www.pro-linux.de/news/1/19363/symphony-verschmilzt-mit-openoffice.html http://www.golem.de/news/apache-openoffice-4-0-ibms-symphony-soll-openoffice-deutlich-besser-machen-1301-97058.html www.pro-linux.de/news/1/19363/symphony-verschmilzt-mit-openoffice.html I saw another article last night, in Latvian (I think), but can't find it now. Nothing in English yet that I've seen. -Rob
Re: open office draw
Original Message From: Kaili Williamson To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 06:28:52 -0800 (pst) > to whom it may concern, >i was just wondering if you could please help me...i am making a slideshow > in open office draw. i am trying to insert audio to play through out the > slide show. i was able to insert the audio, but i cant figure out how to get > it to continue past the first slide. please help. > thanks, kaili http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/Impress_Guide/Using_slide_transitions#Playing_a_sound_throughout_the_presentation
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
Hi Rob; - Messaggio originale - > Da: Rob Weir > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >> >> >> >> >> - Messaggio originale - >>> Da: Rob Weir >> ... >>> >>> https://plus.google.com/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp >>> >>> You wrote: >>> >>> "OO is dead, LO is alive, switch immediately. >>> >>> The article sorta gets that across - read the history and LibreOffice >>> sections. Apache OpenOffice is a moribund shell, which will live >>> precisely as long as IBM is interested in keeping it alive. And >>> they've shown not all that much interest of late, either." >>> >>> and >>> >>> "It was dead from neglect; Oracle donated the corpse to Apache as > part >>> of their (details unrevealed) 2008 deal with IBM, with a side order of >>> f*ck-you to LO thrown in for free." >>> >>> and >>> >>> "The talk page discussion on naming of the article is interesting. >>> Basically, once AOO 4.0 is out (if it ever comes out - IBM doesn't >>> seem to have merged their Symphony code as yet, and it was supposed to >>> be released next month) there'll be a serious proposal to make AOO > a >>> separate article and keep this one as being about the OpenOffice.org >>> that existed from 2000 to 2011. >>> >>> If/when AOO 4.0 comes out with the horrible Symphony interface, expect >>> millions of previously-happy OOo users to absolutely sh*t. It'll be >>> the Windows 8 of office suites." >>> >>> So this does not suggest "good faith". In fact, it suggests > a >>> profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as > well >>> as having an axe to grind. These comments, plus your mendacious >>> editing in the article suggests you are using Wikipedia to push a >>> point of view. >>> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor >> > > I'm too charitable to assume that level of stupidity. > What we have to understand here is that there is a group of malinformed people that think everything they hear in the favorite linux *office distribution is true. Yes the guy is enthusiastic about it, but we all know that Wikipedia has that problem and precisely because of that reason is not a good source of information. Plus. these people usually change sides frequently :). Pedro.
Re: Extension Site down?
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > Hi, > > Extensions is back, but not templates. Both sites are back now from few hours, guess if you don't see them up yet it's because of IP propagation. The problem was due to an IP change/VHOSTs configuration, I am really sorry for the inconvenience. Roberto > I wonder what the trouble has been. > > Regards, > Dave > > On Jan 21, 2013, at 11:27 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > >> Rob Weir wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Raphael Bircher wrote: Is the Extension site down for maintenance or is there an other problem? >>> Be sure to copy Roberto on things like this. >> >> As a temporary solution, I see that the site is actually online and working, >> but only reachable through the sf.net address: both >> http://aoo-extensions.sourceforge.net >> and >> http://aoo-templates.sourceforge.net >> work normally (as RGB noted, templates.openoffice.org is unavailable too). >> >> Regards, >> Andrea. -- This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
Re: publish-on-demand CDs?
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 1/22/13 3:52 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: >> Starting to see more requests for AOO CDs. Is there the equivalent of >> Lulu/CafePress for CDs/DVDs, such that they can be supplied with a >> current image and people purchase them at cost and get them mailed? >> >> Might reduce the whole sell-on-ebay thang and ensure that people can >> safely buy a legitimate copy. > > > I am not aware of it but I know we thought about collaboration with jobs > to make general merchandising stuff easy available on demand for > interested users. Probably worth to think about it again in a broader > sense. Something like t-shirts, mugs, bags, etc. > > All we need are volunteers who want to drive it and nice cool designs. > We can set a price that covers the production and jobs cost + a minimal > fee to support the project and which goes back to Apache in some way. > Details have to figured out... > Seems they do exist. The first one that popped up for me is http://kunaki.com which appears to be extremely no-nonsense. They'll produce and ship a CD in a jewel case with cover art and shrinkwrap pretty much anywhere in the world for about US$5.25. No setup cost. You can't update the product once it's created, but you can create a new product when you want. So one could create an AOO 3.4 product, a 3.4.1 product, etc. I assume that even if this was set up to operate at cost there would still need to be an ASF account associated with it, if AOO was going to list it as a certified source of CDs...?
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > > > > - Messaggio originale - >> Da: Rob Weir > ... >> >> https://plus.google.com/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp >> >> You wrote: >> >> "OO is dead, LO is alive, switch immediately. >> >> The article sorta gets that across - read the history and LibreOffice >> sections. Apache OpenOffice is a moribund shell, which will live >> precisely as long as IBM is interested in keeping it alive. And >> they've shown not all that much interest of late, either." >> >> and >> >> "It was dead from neglect; Oracle donated the corpse to Apache as part >> of their (details unrevealed) 2008 deal with IBM, with a side order of >> f*ck-you to LO thrown in for free." >> >> and >> >> "The talk page discussion on naming of the article is interesting. >> Basically, once AOO 4.0 is out (if it ever comes out - IBM doesn't >> seem to have merged their Symphony code as yet, and it was supposed to >> be released next month) there'll be a serious proposal to make AOO a >> separate article and keep this one as being about the OpenOffice.org >> that existed from 2000 to 2011. >> >> If/when AOO 4.0 comes out with the horrible Symphony interface, expect >> millions of previously-happy OOo users to absolutely sh*t. It'll be >> the Windows 8 of office suites." >> >> So this does not suggest "good faith". In fact, it suggests a >> profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as well >> as having an axe to grind. These comments, plus your mendacious >> editing in the article suggests you are using Wikipedia to push a >> point of view. >> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor > I'm too charitable to assume that level of stupidity. -Rob > cheers, > > Pedro.
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:45 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 22 January 2013 15:36, Rob Weir wrote: > >> So this does not suggest "good faith". In fact, it suggests a >> profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as well >> as having an axe to grind. > > > An opinion is not the same as a conflict of interest; I am of course > open to persuasion. > I did not say "conflict of interest". We were talking about "good faith", the term that you introduced. > As I noted, Wikipedia is a do-ocracy; I certainly don't own the page > in any way. If your desired outcome is for the issues you perceive to > be dealt with, I *suggest* (not require) following the pointers I've > listed. See you on the talk page! > I suggest that bulldozing the article with hundreds of edits is a form of asserting control, if not outright ownership. As I said before, the prudent course is to simply wait for you to engage in your next obsession and then let cooler heads prevail. This means not me, and certainly not you. -Rob > > - d.
Re: publish-on-demand CDs?
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Donald Whytock wrote: > Starting to see more requests for AOO CDs. Is there the equivalent of > Lulu/CafePress for CDs/DVDs, such that they can be supplied with a > current image and people purchase them at cost and get them mailed? > The coolest thing I saw in this area was when I was in South Africa. It was called the "Freedom Toaster": http://www.freedomtoaster.org/ Think of it like a vending machine for open source software. Useful in populated areas where bandwidth is low. But for mail order, I don't know of one. But this could be something for Amazon to think about. They recently did a thing where they would rip music CD's that you purchase and give you the MP3's as well. Why not offer to mail media for the downloadable software they already offer? (They already offer downloads of AOO 3.4.1). -Rob > Might reduce the whole sell-on-ebay thang and ensure that people can > safely buy a legitimate copy. > > Don
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
- Messaggio originale - > Da: Rob Weir ... > > https://plus.google.com/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp > > You wrote: > > "OO is dead, LO is alive, switch immediately. > > The article sorta gets that across - read the history and LibreOffice > sections. Apache OpenOffice is a moribund shell, which will live > precisely as long as IBM is interested in keeping it alive. And > they've shown not all that much interest of late, either." > > and > > "It was dead from neglect; Oracle donated the corpse to Apache as part > of their (details unrevealed) 2008 deal with IBM, with a side order of > f*ck-you to LO thrown in for free." > > and > > "The talk page discussion on naming of the article is interesting. > Basically, once AOO 4.0 is out (if it ever comes out - IBM doesn't > seem to have merged their Symphony code as yet, and it was supposed to > be released next month) there'll be a serious proposal to make AOO a > separate article and keep this one as being about the OpenOffice.org > that existed from 2000 to 2011. > > If/when AOO 4.0 comes out with the horrible Symphony interface, expect > millions of previously-happy OOo users to absolutely sh*t. It'll be > the Windows 8 of office suites." > > So this does not suggest "good faith". In fact, it suggests a > profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as well > as having an axe to grind. These comments, plus your mendacious > editing in the article suggests you are using Wikipedia to push a > point of view. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor cheers, Pedro.
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
On 22 January 2013 15:36, Rob Weir wrote: > So this does not suggest "good faith". In fact, it suggests a > profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as well > as having an axe to grind. An opinion is not the same as a conflict of interest; I am of course open to persuasion. As I noted, Wikipedia is a do-ocracy; I certainly don't own the page in any way. If your desired outcome is for the issues you perceive to be dealt with, I *suggest* (not require) following the pointers I've listed. See you on the talk page! - d.
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:21 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 22 January 2013 15:06, Rob Weir wrote: > > >> I'm not going to do this on your timing or your terms. > > > The other apposite Wikipedia policy page: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith > So I hope you'll assume good faith with any edits you see. I might have initially assumed good faith from you, but that was lost when seeing your Google+ comments on Apache OpenOffice, on a post where you talked about your edits. (Note that I have had to edit your comments slightly to avoid violating our policy against vulgarities on the mailing list) https://plus.google.com/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp You wrote: "OO is dead, LO is alive, switch immediately. The article sorta gets that across - read the history and LibreOffice sections. Apache OpenOffice is a moribund shell, which will live precisely as long as IBM is interested in keeping it alive. And they've shown not all that much interest of late, either." and "It was dead from neglect; Oracle donated the corpse to Apache as part of their (details unrevealed) 2008 deal with IBM, with a side order of f*ck-you to LO thrown in for free." and "The talk page discussion on naming of the article is interesting. Basically, once AOO 4.0 is out (if it ever comes out - IBM doesn't seem to have merged their Symphony code as yet, and it was supposed to be released next month) there'll be a serious proposal to make AOO a separate article and keep this one as being about the OpenOffice.org that existed from 2000 to 2011. If/when AOO 4.0 comes out with the horrible Symphony interface, expect millions of previously-happy OOo users to absolutely sh*t. It'll be the Windows 8 of office suites." So this does not suggest "good faith". In fact, it suggests a profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as well as having an axe to grind. These comments, plus your mendacious editing in the article suggests you are using Wikipedia to push a point of view. -Rob > (Compare: https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/draftlist-conduct-policy.html ) > > >> A look at the article history [1] shows that as most of us were >> enjoying conviviality with friends and family, you were spending your >> Christmas and New Year's holidays making hundreds of edits to the >> OpenOffice article. This suggests to me a more than slightly >> obsessive nature. > > > I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004, so I think that can be > reasonably assumed. (That or boredom.) > > >> So the prudent course would be to simply wait for >> you to find another axe to grind, another crusade, another target for >> your attentios. Then, when you are immersed in some other grand >> mission, calmer heads will prevail, and I would not be surprised if >> the article were then totally rewritten. > > > That would be pretty much what I did. The page was a neglected > disaster, with things like formatting errors that had been there > months. I looked through the edit history since 2004, and it had never > at any time been a coherently-written page. > > Much as with AOO, Wikipedia tends to be a do-ocracy; I'm sure you've > long tired of people who only complain when you finally do something > and they don't like the way you did it. > > At present IMO the page is mediocre and slightly coherent, which is at > least better than it was before. > > A good place to raise issues with the article is its talk page: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OpenOffice Although Rob certainly > may have other things to do with his time, others here may have a > moment to raise issues. > > > - d. > > > [1]
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays
On Jan 22, 2013, at 7:20 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Jürgen Schmidt > wrote: >> On 1/22/13 3:59 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: >>> There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its >>> own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its >>> own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History of OO page? >> >> I hope not because AOO is OOO and even if some people don't like this >> fact it is still true. You can compare it with a company XY with lets >> say 100 employees. Even if 50 employees will leave the company the >> company will remain being company XY. >> >> We have all rights, the trademark, etc. we are OpenOffice! If the wiki >> page would change or split it would be the wrong signal. >> >> It is valid to name LibreOffice as well as the former go-oo or Symphony >> as fork from the project. But it is simply wrong to name AOO a fork. >> > > Right. I assume his goal is to: > > 1) Have queries for "OpenOffice" (the more popular search query) go to > a dead OpenOffice.org page > > 2) Have that page then state that OpenOffice.org was discontinued and > the successor is LibreOffice and then link to that page. > > But the error is that OpenOffice.org was never discontinued. The > code, the trademark, the website and the a good portion of the > community came to Apache. It was stilled called "OpenOffice.org" > while at Apache! Remember, we did that for a good 6 months, and all > that while we continued to distribute OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 from our > website. > > So it is entirely false to say that OpenOffice was discontinued. It > was brought over to Apache, and only months later was it renamed. So > this is just a simple product renaming. The ball was never dropped. > There was no loss of continuity. openoffice.org is still the name of the website and where you can go to download what is now Apache OpenOffice. OpenOffice.org is still a registered trademark now owned by the ASF. Regards, Dave > > -Rob > > >> Just my personal opinion >> >> Juergne >> >>> >>> Though if there isn't an OO page it might start a redirect war... >>> >>> Don >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: > Don > Thanks > Inline... > > > Donald Whytock wrote: >> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to >> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as >> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an >> argument. >> >> Regarding conflicts of interest: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide >> >> This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject >> matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally >> committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises >> "personal involvement" is a complicated question. >> >> Regarding opinionated content: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion >> >> AKA >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX >> >> This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over >> things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have >> said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader >> doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and >> value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such >> person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value >> judgments. >> >> Just above that is >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought >> >> AKA >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM >> >> which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research. >> >> Regarding it getting ugly: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground >> >> AKA >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND >> >> Regarding dispute resolution: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution >> >> Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things >> that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for >> situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content >> of the article. >> >> Regarding neutral point-of-view: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute >> >> This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure >> for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part >> of an NPOV
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Saransh Sharma wrote: > Is there any difference in OOO and AOO > It was a product renaming. OpenOffice.org was the name used from 2000, when Sun initially made their StarOffice (acquired from StarDivision) product open source, until around December 2011 when we agreed at Apache to rename it to Apache OpenOffice. When we want to make a distinction, we still use "OpenOffice.org" to refer to version 3.3.0 (or 3.4.0 beta) and earlier. And we call 3.4.0 and later "Apache OpenOffice". -Rob > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: > >> There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its >> own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its >> own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History of OO page? >> >> Though if there isn't an OO page it might start a redirect war... >> >> Don >> >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts >> wrote: >> >> Don >> >> Thanks >> >> Inline... >> >> >> >> >> >> Donald Whytock wrote: >> >>> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to >> >>> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as >> >>> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an >> >>> argument. >> >>> >> >>> Regarding conflicts of interest: >> >>> >> >>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide >> >>> >> >>> This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject >> >>> matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally >> >>> committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises >> >>> "personal involvement" is a complicated question. >> >>> >> >>> Regarding opinionated content: >> >>> >> >>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion >> >>> >> >>> AKA >> >>> >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX >> >>> >> >>> This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over >> >>> things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have >> >>> said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader >> >>> doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and >> >>> value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such >> >>> person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value >> >>> judgments. >> >>> >> >>> Just above that is >> >>> >> >>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought >> >>> >> >>> AKA >> >>> >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM >> >>> >> >>> which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research. >> >>> >> >>> Regarding it getting ugly: >> >>> >> >>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground >> >>> >> >>> AKA >> >>> >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND >> >>> >> >>> Regarding dispute resolution: >> >>> >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution >> >>> >> >>> Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things >> >>> that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for >> >>> situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content >> >>> of the article. >> >>> >> >>> Regarding neutral point-of-view: >> >>> >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute >> >>> >> >>> This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure >> >>> for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part >> >>> of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard. The >> >>> similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should >> >>> be the very last resort. >> >>> >> >>> Don >> >> >> >> Thanks Don. I was but you were not, and I wish that Gerard were as aware >> >> of the importance of neutrality as you and the writers of these policy >> >> statements seem to have been. >> >> >> >> But out of a fair amount of personal experience with Wikipedia, my >> >> persistent impression is that unless the affected parties fix things on >> >> their own, the copy stays there, as if it were truth itself, though it >> >> be something other. >> >> >> > >> > Isn't one of their slogans, "Be bold"? IMHO, it could use a total >> rewrite. >> > >> > The current version can't decide whether it is writing about the >> > product or the project, and seems to want to tell the history of the >> > world from the Great Flood for every section. Much more useful for >> > the typical reader would be a section describing OpenOffice, the >> > product, in its current version, followed by a description of the >> > current project, then a section on history, broken into sections, of >> > "StarDivision", "Sun Stewardship", "Oracle Strewardship" and "Apache >> > Project". Or do it by release. You ca
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
On 22 January 2013 15:06, Rob Weir wrote: > I'm not going to do this on your timing or your terms. The other apposite Wikipedia policy page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith (Compare: https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/draftlist-conduct-policy.html ) > A look at the article history [1] shows that as most of us were > enjoying conviviality with friends and family, you were spending your > Christmas and New Year's holidays making hundreds of edits to the > OpenOffice article. This suggests to me a more than slightly > obsessive nature. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004, so I think that can be reasonably assumed. (That or boredom.) > So the prudent course would be to simply wait for > you to find another axe to grind, another crusade, another target for > your attentios. Then, when you are immersed in some other grand > mission, calmer heads will prevail, and I would not be surprised if > the article were then totally rewritten. That would be pretty much what I did. The page was a neglected disaster, with things like formatting errors that had been there months. I looked through the edit history since 2004, and it had never at any time been a coherently-written page. Much as with AOO, Wikipedia tends to be a do-ocracy; I'm sure you've long tired of people who only complain when you finally do something and they don't like the way you did it. At present IMO the page is mediocre and slightly coherent, which is at least better than it was before. A good place to raise issues with the article is its talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OpenOffice Although Rob certainly may have other things to do with his time, others here may have a moment to raise issues. - d. [1]
Re: Extension Site down?
Hi, Extensions is back, but not templates. I wonder what the trouble has been. Regards, Dave On Jan 21, 2013, at 11:27 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Raphael Bircher wrote: >>> Is the Extension site down for maintenance or is there an other problem? >> Be sure to copy Roberto on things like this. > > As a temporary solution, I see that the site is actually online and working, > but only reachable through the sf.net address: both > http://aoo-extensions.sourceforge.net > and > http://aoo-templates.sourceforge.net > work normally (as RGB noted, templates.openoffice.org is unavailable too). > > Regards, > Andrea.
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 1/22/13 3:59 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: >> There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its >> own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its >> own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History of OO page? > > I hope not because AOO is OOO and even if some people don't like this > fact it is still true. You can compare it with a company XY with lets > say 100 employees. Even if 50 employees will leave the company the > company will remain being company XY. > > We have all rights, the trademark, etc. we are OpenOffice! If the wiki > page would change or split it would be the wrong signal. > > It is valid to name LibreOffice as well as the former go-oo or Symphony > as fork from the project. But it is simply wrong to name AOO a fork. > Right. I assume his goal is to: 1) Have queries for "OpenOffice" (the more popular search query) go to a dead OpenOffice.org page 2) Have that page then state that OpenOffice.org was discontinued and the successor is LibreOffice and then link to that page. But the error is that OpenOffice.org was never discontinued. The code, the trademark, the website and the a good portion of the community came to Apache. It was stilled called "OpenOffice.org" while at Apache! Remember, we did that for a good 6 months, and all that while we continued to distribute OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 from our website. So it is entirely false to say that OpenOffice was discontinued. It was brought over to Apache, and only months later was it renamed. So this is just a simple product renaming. The ball was never dropped. There was no loss of continuity. -Rob > Just my personal opinion > > Juergne > >> >> Though if there isn't an OO page it might start a redirect war... >> >> Don >> >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts >>> wrote: Don Thanks Inline... Donald Whytock wrote: > Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to > object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as > finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an > argument. > > Regarding conflicts of interest: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide > > This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject > matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally > committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises > "personal involvement" is a complicated question. > > Regarding opinionated content: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion > > AKA > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX > > This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over > things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have > said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader > doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and > value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such > person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value > judgments. > > Just above that is > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought > > AKA > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM > > which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research. > > Regarding it getting ugly: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground > > AKA > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND > > Regarding dispute resolution: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution > > Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things > that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for > situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content > of the article. > > Regarding neutral point-of-view: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute > > This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure > for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part > of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard. The > similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should > be the very last resort. > > Don Thanks Don. I was but you were not, and I wish that Gerard were as aware of the importance of neutrality as you and the writers of these policy statements seem to have been. But out of a fair amount of personal experience wi
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
On 1/22/13 4:06 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:43 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> Take a look at the lovely new page: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice >>> Some choice bits of distortion: >> >> >> Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it. >> >> Useful pages in dealing with contentious topics (which is everything): >> > > I'm not going to do this on your timing or your terms. That would be > foolish and merely lead to edit warring. > > A look at the article history [1] shows that as most of us were > enjoying conviviality with friends and family, you were spending your > Christmas and New Year's holidays making hundreds of edits to the > OpenOffice article. This suggests to me a more than slightly > obsessive nature. So the prudent course would be to simply wait for > you to find another axe to grind, another crusade, another target for > your attentios. Then, when you are immersed in some other grand > mission, calmer heads will prevail, and I would not be surprised if > the article were then totally rewritten. nothing to add, if I would write something on wikipedia I would ensure that the facts are well researched and true. Especially if I would never have had any relation to the topic. Juergen > > Regards, > > -Rob > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OpenOffice&action=history > > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources >> >> Cheers, looking forward to help. The talk page welcomes you! >> >> Anyone with a good clippings file for the history of OO from 2000? >> Such a history, that gets across *why* OO is as historically important >> as it is, is not yet written, as far as I know. I went through the OO >> clippings pages and archive.org but didn't find a lot. >> >> >> - d.
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays
On 1/22/13 3:59 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: > There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its > own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its > own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History of OO page? I hope not because AOO is OOO and even if some people don't like this fact it is still true. You can compare it with a company XY with lets say 100 employees. Even if 50 employees will leave the company the company will remain being company XY. We have all rights, the trademark, etc. we are OpenOffice! If the wiki page would change or split it would be the wrong signal. It is valid to name LibreOffice as well as the former go-oo or Symphony as fork from the project. But it is simply wrong to name AOO a fork. Just my personal opinion Juergne > > Though if there isn't an OO page it might start a redirect war... > > Don > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: >>> Don >>> Thanks >>> Inline... >>> >>> >>> Donald Whytock wrote: Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an argument. Regarding conflicts of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises "personal involvement" is a complicated question. Regarding opinionated content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value judgments. Just above that is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research. Regarding it getting ugly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND Regarding dispute resolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content of the article. Regarding neutral point-of-view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard. The similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should be the very last resort. Don >>> >>> Thanks Don. I was but you were not, and I wish that Gerard were as aware >>> of the importance of neutrality as you and the writers of these policy >>> statements seem to have been. >>> >>> But out of a fair amount of personal experience with Wikipedia, my >>> persistent impression is that unless the affected parties fix things on >>> their own, the copy stays there, as if it were truth itself, though it >>> be something other. >>> >> >> Isn't one of their slogans, "Be bold"? IMHO, it could use a total rewrite. >> >> The current version can't decide whether it is writing about the >> product or the project, and seems to want to tell the history of the >> world from the Great Flood for every section. Much more useful for >> the typical reader would be a section describing OpenOffice, the >> product, in its current version, followed by a description of the >> current project, then a section on history, broken into sections, of >> "StarDivision", "Sun Stewardship", "Oracle Strewardship" and "Apache >> Project". Or do it by release. You can either tell a project history >> or a technical/product history in any given section, but trying to do >> both at once is a disaster, as the current version demonstrates. >> >> -Rob >> >>> louis
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:43 PM, David Gerard wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: > >>Take a look at the lovely new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice >>Some choice bits of distortion: > > > Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it. > > Useful pages in dealing with contentious topics (which is everything): > I'm not going to do this on your timing or your terms. That would be foolish and merely lead to edit warring. A look at the article history [1] shows that as most of us were enjoying conviviality with friends and family, you were spending your Christmas and New Year's holidays making hundreds of edits to the OpenOffice article. This suggests to me a more than slightly obsessive nature. So the prudent course would be to simply wait for you to find another axe to grind, another crusade, another target for your attentios. Then, when you are immersed in some other grand mission, calmer heads will prevail, and I would not be surprised if the article were then totally rewritten. Regards, -Rob [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OpenOffice&action=history > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources > > Cheers, looking forward to help. The talk page welcomes you! > > Anyone with a good clippings file for the history of OO from 2000? > Such a history, that gets across *why* OO is as historically important > as it is, is not yet written, as far as I know. I went through the OO > clippings pages and archive.org but didn't find a lot. > > > - d.
Re: publish-on-demand CDs?
On 1/22/13 3:52 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: > Starting to see more requests for AOO CDs. Is there the equivalent of > Lulu/CafePress for CDs/DVDs, such that they can be supplied with a > current image and people purchase them at cost and get them mailed? > > Might reduce the whole sell-on-ebay thang and ensure that people can > safely buy a legitimate copy. I am not aware of it but I know we thought about collaboration with jobs to make general merchandising stuff easy available on demand for interested users. Probably worth to think about it again in a broader sense. Something like t-shirts, mugs, bags, etc. All we need are volunteers who want to drive it and nice cool designs. We can set a price that covers the production and jobs cost + a minimal fee to support the project and which goes back to Apache in some way. Details have to figured out... Juergen
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays
Is there any difference in OOO and AOO On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: > There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its > own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its > own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History of OO page? > > Though if there isn't an OO page it might start a redirect war... > > Don > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts > wrote: > >> Don > >> Thanks > >> Inline... > >> > >> > >> Donald Whytock wrote: > >>> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to > >>> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as > >>> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an > >>> argument. > >>> > >>> Regarding conflicts of interest: > >>> > >>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide > >>> > >>> This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject > >>> matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally > >>> committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises > >>> "personal involvement" is a complicated question. > >>> > >>> Regarding opinionated content: > >>> > >>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion > >>> > >>> AKA > >>> > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX > >>> > >>> This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over > >>> things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have > >>> said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader > >>> doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and > >>> value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such > >>> person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value > >>> judgments. > >>> > >>> Just above that is > >>> > >>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought > >>> > >>> AKA > >>> > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM > >>> > >>> which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research. > >>> > >>> Regarding it getting ugly: > >>> > >>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground > >>> > >>> AKA > >>> > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND > >>> > >>> Regarding dispute resolution: > >>> > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution > >>> > >>> Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things > >>> that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for > >>> situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content > >>> of the article. > >>> > >>> Regarding neutral point-of-view: > >>> > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute > >>> > >>> This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure > >>> for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part > >>> of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard. The > >>> similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should > >>> be the very last resort. > >>> > >>> Don > >> > >> Thanks Don. I was but you were not, and I wish that Gerard were as aware > >> of the importance of neutrality as you and the writers of these policy > >> statements seem to have been. > >> > >> But out of a fair amount of personal experience with Wikipedia, my > >> persistent impression is that unless the affected parties fix things on > >> their own, the copy stays there, as if it were truth itself, though it > >> be something other. > >> > > > > Isn't one of their slogans, "Be bold"? IMHO, it could use a total > rewrite. > > > > The current version can't decide whether it is writing about the > > product or the project, and seems to want to tell the history of the > > world from the Great Flood for every section. Much more useful for > > the typical reader would be a section describing OpenOffice, the > > product, in its current version, followed by a description of the > > current project, then a section on history, broken into sections, of > > "StarDivision", "Sun Stewardship", "Oracle Strewardship" and "Apache > > Project". Or do it by release. You can either tell a project history > > or a technical/product history in any given section, but trying to do > > both at once is a disaster, as the current version demonstrates. > > > > -Rob > > > >> louis > -- Best Regards Saransh Sharma Upscale Consultancy PVT LTD. Disclaimer: -- This email was sent from within the Upscale Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd. The contents of this email, including the attachments, are LEGALLY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL to the intended recipient at the email address to which
Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays
There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History of OO page? Though if there isn't an OO page it might start a redirect war... Don On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: >> Don >> Thanks >> Inline... >> >> >> Donald Whytock wrote: >>> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to >>> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as >>> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an >>> argument. >>> >>> Regarding conflicts of interest: >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide >>> >>> This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject >>> matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally >>> committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises >>> "personal involvement" is a complicated question. >>> >>> Regarding opinionated content: >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion >>> >>> AKA >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX >>> >>> This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over >>> things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have >>> said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader >>> doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and >>> value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such >>> person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value >>> judgments. >>> >>> Just above that is >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought >>> >>> AKA >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM >>> >>> which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research. >>> >>> Regarding it getting ugly: >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground >>> >>> AKA >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND >>> >>> Regarding dispute resolution: >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution >>> >>> Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things >>> that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for >>> situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content >>> of the article. >>> >>> Regarding neutral point-of-view: >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute >>> >>> This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure >>> for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part >>> of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard. The >>> similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should >>> be the very last resort. >>> >>> Don >> >> Thanks Don. I was but you were not, and I wish that Gerard were as aware >> of the importance of neutrality as you and the writers of these policy >> statements seem to have been. >> >> But out of a fair amount of personal experience with Wikipedia, my >> persistent impression is that unless the affected parties fix things on >> their own, the copy stays there, as if it were truth itself, though it >> be something other. >> > > Isn't one of their slogans, "Be bold"? IMHO, it could use a total rewrite. > > The current version can't decide whether it is writing about the > product or the project, and seems to want to tell the history of the > world from the Great Flood for every section. Much more useful for > the typical reader would be a section describing OpenOffice, the > product, in its current version, followed by a description of the > current project, then a section on history, broken into sections, of > "StarDivision", "Sun Stewardship", "Oracle Strewardship" and "Apache > Project". Or do it by release. You can either tell a project history > or a technical/product history in any given section, but trying to do > both at once is a disaster, as the current version demonstrates. > > -Rob > >> louis
publish-on-demand CDs?
Starting to see more requests for AOO CDs. Is there the equivalent of Lulu/CafePress for CDs/DVDs, such that they can be supplied with a current image and people purchase them at cost and get them mailed? Might reduce the whole sell-on-ebay thang and ensure that people can safely buy a legitimate copy. Don
Re: How to make money with Apache OpenOffice (proposed blog post)
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Wolf Halton wrote: > sorry for the top-posting. > Android doesn't give me a lot of choice. > > My current employment is deploying opensource software for libraries, so I > am profiting modestly from developers' work that I didn't pay for, exept > when the company pays one or another of them as a contractor to solve an > issue we can't sort out. > > I do not think the projects are being molded in our company image. At the > moment, AOO is not one of the projects we are actively marketing. Since I > have a personal interest in AOO, I would like to see ways I could sell AOO > to my managers as a product to support and offer to our members/patrons. > > True, profits do not always rain down on opensource developers. If there > are no profits available from leveraging FOSS, then there is nothing to > send back to the projects in any fashion, is there? > I think the idea is that a successful open source product (or a success product of almost any kind, software or other) creates an adjacent market for complementary goods and services. The iPhone is a successful platform, so there are many apps and accessories for it. And this is circular, the larger ecosystem is based on the success of the iPhone, but the ecosystem reinforces the success of the platform. Microsoft Office experiences great success in this area. This is not because the code is proprietary. As large part of it is due to the network effects of getting past a threshold of market penetration where these ecosystem effects start to work in our favor. With OpenOffice, 33 million downloads now. We'll hit 50 million before the snow stops falling in Massachusetts. This is small compared to Microsoft Office, but it is (I think) large enough to be interesting. We talked about doing a survey once. Maybe it is time to do this more seriously. If we had a better sense of the user demographics, of home use versus business, academic, government, etc., and size of organization, it might clarify exactly what kinds of opportunities are out there. -Rob > Wolf Halton > http://sourcefreedom.com > Apache developer: > wolfhal...@apache.org > On Jan 21, 2013 3:06 PM, "janI" wrote: > >> On 21 January 2013 20:10, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:52 PM, janI wrote: >> > > On 21 January 2013 19:36, Rob Weir wrote: >> > > >> > >> I'm wondering if anyone would be offended or object with a blog post >> > >> along the lines of "How to make money with Apache OpenOffice"? >> > >> >> > >> I appreciate that Apache is a non-profit and that we do not pay for >> > >> developers, etc. But we are also commercially friendly, and our >> > >> permissive license and focus on consumable source releases supports >> > >> this. One view is that this is good for the community, to encourage >> > >> commercial interest in a product, since that leads to investment in >> > >> the code, and investment leads to a larger, more diverse community. >> > >> Yes, some will take and never give back. But for many commercial >> > >> ventures there are notable advantages to working with the community, >> > >> having credibility and commit privileges, etc. So it s a win-win, I >> > >> think. >> > >> >> > >> The proposed blog post would cover a few business models, emphasize >> > >> the opportunity brought on by the end of life of MS Office 2003, etc. >> > >> >> > >> If anyone is uncomfortable with this I can do it on my personal blog, >> > >> of course. But it is relevant to the AOO project, so I'd prefer to >> > >> put it here. >> > >> >> > > >> > > For me it would depend a lot on the wording. It is a fact that >> > > people/companies make money of our non-paid work, but to me it is >> another >> > > level to actively promote it. >> > > >> > > The right place to put it, is as you write the AOO blog and The >> business >> > > models should be presented in a way that (if for nothing else, then >> pure >> > > morally) part of the earnings should flow back to AOO, in order to keep >> > us >> > > going, >> > > >> > >> > Yes, that would be my intent. >> > >> > > I do not really see it as win-win, when a company makes money and has >> > > commit rights. I (as many others) have commit rights and do not earn >> > money, >> > > we do it for other reasons. >> > > >> > >> > Maybe this question deserves its own thread, but what would increase >> > your enjoyment/satisfaction with volunteer with AOO? >> > >> good question, it is easier to say what would demotivate, and that is when >> I put in a lot work to help end-users, and the community actively >> encourages others to make money on it. >> >> See later "eco system". >> >> If seeing the project advance faster, seeing more stuff getting done, >> > fewer things left undone, then this is made easier with more >> > investment into the ecosystem. And that becomes a virtuous cycle, >> > since that success attracts more volunteers, which leads to further >> > success. >> > >> >> Well that depends, I am sure th
Re: Merging Lotus Symphony: Allegro moderato
The kind of post I would have liked to have written myself: brilliant, informative and entertaining as well. It brought to my memory the statement of the harpsichordist Wanda Lansdowska about Mozart's music: «Simplicity does not mean poverty, indigence and ignorance! [...] The works of Mozart are clear, transparent, and joyful as a spring, and not only those muddy pools which seem deep only because the bottom cannot be seen.» By replacing “works of Mozart are” with “Apache OpenOffice 4.0 is”, I believe the description may perfectly fit. Best regards, Fabrizio On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > Our latest blog post: > https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/merging_lotus_symphony_allegro_moderato > > I've posted on our Facebook and Google+ pages, and once via Twitter: > > https://www.facebook.com/ApacheOO/posts/121057218069097 > > https://plus.google.com/u/0/114598373874764163668/posts/ipZVtpwoRBZ > > https://twitter.com/ApacheOO/status/293398126314795008 > > As always, your help spreading the word is much appreciated. That's > the "social" part of social networking. > > Regards, > > -Rob >
Interested in writing documentation
Hello, I'd like to join the Apache organization writing documentation for the Open Office suite, or other Apache products. In my day job I write developer's documentation, use cases, step-wise instructions, respond to questions from users, and maintain an internal wiki. I'd like to build my own portfolio of work however (separate from my "day job work") and read that the Apache organization would be a great way to do this. In terms of formal training, I've completed a technical writing course and have a degree in I.T. I live in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. I feel that I'd be able a productive contributor to the team and am willing to start with any application / task. Please let me know what I need to do to be involved. Thank You, Rakesh.
Re: How to make money with Apache OpenOffice (proposed blog post)
sorry for the top-posting. Android doesn't give me a lot of choice. My current employment is deploying opensource software for libraries, so I am profiting modestly from developers' work that I didn't pay for, exept when the company pays one or another of them as a contractor to solve an issue we can't sort out. I do not think the projects are being molded in our company image. At the moment, AOO is not one of the projects we are actively marketing. Since I have a personal interest in AOO, I would like to see ways I could sell AOO to my managers as a product to support and offer to our members/patrons. True, profits do not always rain down on opensource developers. If there are no profits available from leveraging FOSS, then there is nothing to send back to the projects in any fashion, is there? Wolf Halton http://sourcefreedom.com Apache developer: wolfhal...@apache.org On Jan 21, 2013 3:06 PM, "janI" wrote: > On 21 January 2013 20:10, Rob Weir wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:52 PM, janI wrote: > > > On 21 January 2013 19:36, Rob Weir wrote: > > > > > >> I'm wondering if anyone would be offended or object with a blog post > > >> along the lines of "How to make money with Apache OpenOffice"? > > >> > > >> I appreciate that Apache is a non-profit and that we do not pay for > > >> developers, etc. But we are also commercially friendly, and our > > >> permissive license and focus on consumable source releases supports > > >> this. One view is that this is good for the community, to encourage > > >> commercial interest in a product, since that leads to investment in > > >> the code, and investment leads to a larger, more diverse community. > > >> Yes, some will take and never give back. But for many commercial > > >> ventures there are notable advantages to working with the community, > > >> having credibility and commit privileges, etc. So it s a win-win, I > > >> think. > > >> > > >> The proposed blog post would cover a few business models, emphasize > > >> the opportunity brought on by the end of life of MS Office 2003, etc. > > >> > > >> If anyone is uncomfortable with this I can do it on my personal blog, > > >> of course. But it is relevant to the AOO project, so I'd prefer to > > >> put it here. > > >> > > > > > > For me it would depend a lot on the wording. It is a fact that > > > people/companies make money of our non-paid work, but to me it is > another > > > level to actively promote it. > > > > > > The right place to put it, is as you write the AOO blog and The > business > > > models should be presented in a way that (if for nothing else, then > pure > > > morally) part of the earnings should flow back to AOO, in order to keep > > us > > > going, > > > > > > > Yes, that would be my intent. > > > > > I do not really see it as win-win, when a company makes money and has > > > commit rights. I (as many others) have commit rights and do not earn > > money, > > > we do it for other reasons. > > > > > > > Maybe this question deserves its own thread, but what would increase > > your enjoyment/satisfaction with volunteer with AOO? > > > good question, it is easier to say what would demotivate, and that is when > I put in a lot work to help end-users, and the community actively > encourages others to make money on it. > > See later "eco system". > > If seeing the project advance faster, seeing more stuff getting done, > > fewer things left undone, then this is made easier with more > > investment into the ecosystem. And that becomes a virtuous cycle, > > since that success attracts more volunteers, which leads to further > > success. > > > > Well that depends, I am sure that e.g. IBM (just an example) could throw in > a lot of man power, and we could move high speed, but the price would be to > de facto work to IBM rules, and that is a situation we should avoid. > > I believe that one of the reasons for AOO success is difference between the > people involved, which enforces discussions and compromisses...something > you easily loose when money is involved. > > To me is essential that the eco system is primarely kept intact by "real" > volunteers...and that paid volunteers (sorry could not find a better > expression), which have more time and resources are not taking over. Just > to be completely clear, this statement is meant as a general rule, and in > not to point at you or all other paid people in AOO, who all do a great > job. > > > > > > This is of course just my opinion which in one sentence is > > > "good initative, but feeling comfortable depends a lot on content of > the > > > business models" > > > > > > > Well, I haven't written in yet, but I was thinking of a listing or > > catalog of ways of making money from OpenOffice. Maybe 10 or so. So > > not "get rich quick" stuff, and generally a pitch for involvement by > > for-profit organizations. > > > > I like your idea, and a catalogue of ideas is good...but think about giving > it the twist of a danish expression "when it
Re: What rights are given in an SGA
Dave Fisher wrote: On Jan 21, 2013, at 6:49 PM, Rob Weir wrote: I volunteer to run a RAT scan on the trunk every two weeks and remove any IBM headers that are found there. So we'll never be more then two weeks behind. Yes, I think that allows for any committer to scratch an itch. OK, great to see we have an agreement here. So, while it's clear that the former Symphony team will know better than others how to handle the Symphony code, now any committer can help. (I know this was already the case, but it's good to have it addressed explicitly). Regards, Andrea.
