Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!

[Peter Kovacs]

Dennis, I agree that the PMC has to take the discussion in the end. 
However for me as a noob, the PMC is a Part of the ASF.
I also agree on the beeing specific part. Thats why I would like to have 
better layout, because I believe that centers the discussion more 
solution finding.


This is also a topic that in my eyes is a PMC core point. We have a 
unique Community structure, because a lot of our community are none IT 
knowlegeable folks.
And currently we do only little work in community building. Plus we 
realy suck from the dev side in communicating with our community.


I personally do not care so much if we have 100 entities following up on 
the goal.
But in my eyes we need a way to ensure project health and turn towards 
the community we have. We were last year at the edge of project 
retirement. We are slowly fighting our way out by pure voluntary work of 
people that belive in the market name Open Office.
How long can we keep this up? Especially with the constant annoyance of 
Libre Office shooting at our faulty structures.
We need ways to build strebgthen our core, and that goes beyond what we 
do now. How we can achieve this I do not know.


I think LibreOffice are to a certain degree correct. The ASF is not 
capable to do the Project Open Office at this Point. The structure of 
Libre Office is a much more healthy one for the kind of Project 
Libre/Open Office is.
However I think we can build a similar powerfull structure if not more 
powerfull. At the same time we must walk in Sync with the ASF.


This is what the Discussion is all about. If we move in the wrong 
direction, please suggest a better one.


At least this is my view on the topic. I declare also that I personally 
have no interest in payed dev work. I switch my employee soon, and my 
future employee restricts my codeing work towards my contract with the 
ASF. I am currently enjoy more freedom. I am doing this out of love 
towards Open Office. I say this so no one gets the wrong thoughts.


All the best
Peter

On 19.01.2017 17:14, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

I have comments in-line.

Also, let us speak of chicken and egg.

I observe that the Board and the Offices of ASF do not wish to deal with hypothetical 
cases.  Exceptions must be specific and actionable.  Also, exceptions do not create 
precedents.  If one project sees something they want as exception for them, they must 
create specific exception of their own.  (AOO has exception for bundling some writing 
tools in binaries only, not in source code, because licenses are incompatible.  It is 
very specific and not a precedent for other projects. When details of another exception 
are worked out, it is often revealed that the cases are not the same. The ASF avoids 
common risk of others seeing more "precedent" for their case than there 
actually is.)

It seems to me that if there is a request for some sort of external 
relationship(s), the external parties must already exist and be prepared to 
provide detailed agreement on how it will partner with AOO project in a way 
that preserves the principles and purpose of the ASF in how AOO participates in 
the arrangement.  This is not hard.

I do not think making exceptions about hypothetical arrangements and then 
seeking external parties will work.

That is why it may be better for external party to be created first, operating 
as good downstream citizen, before requiring anything of the AOO PMC and ASF 
Board.  Ideally, no significant attention will be required.  The only thing 
external entity cannot do, and PMC would have to intervene, is make use of 
Apache trademarks in other than allowed ways.  Since it is not proposed that 
the external entity release any software product, this should be agreeable.

Also, the external party should not promise others that requested features will 
be incorporated in AOO in the manner they desire.  They will never have the 
authority to control AOO project actions, even though by mutual work, there may 
often be good alignment.

Only my thoughts, not thoughts from any PMC or Board discussion.

  - Dennis


-Original Message-
From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:legi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 23:08
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org
Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!

Star Citizen proofed that a community can follow developers intend and
raise the money needed.
Even if we can not use the business model, we can learn something from
their communication model they have developed.

Also what becomes clear to me is that we can not operate with a single
entity. If I consider that we need to position us global right from the
start, this is not so bad.

Maybe it would be better if we lay out a white paper on some model. Then
we talk about this. We can then check for concerns. Note them down and
find a solution for it.
@Raphael do you like to write your idea in a document? I think we have a
similar idea. Maybe I can put my idea as 

Require guidance for adding 3/4 columns

[raymondgoudg...@outlook.com]

Sent from my ipad trust you can advise Raymond Goudge Moama 2731

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: What is the oldest Linux that AOO can run on? Is there a policy wrt baseline libraries/distro release?

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 13/01/2017 Fernando Cassia wrote:

I wonder what are the older Linux version that AOO-current (whatever
is the latest version) will run on?


Version 4.1.3 is built on CentOS 5 with glibc 2.5.


And I'm trying to create a VM with the oldest possible, still
supported Linux version, with AOO on it.
CentOS 5.5 is still a target platform?


We use the latest CentOS 5, so this would be CentOS 5.11. But binaries 
will work on all the CentOS 5.x series and everything newer than it 
(which basically means any modern, non-modern and even quite old 
Linux-based desktop system).



And going forward, what do you plan to use as a base? is there a
policy? like "the oldest version of CentOS still supported"? or
"latest CentOS -1" or what?


For the current 4.1.x series the baseline is so far going to stay CentOS 
5.x; I expect we may want to revise this after 4.1.4 is released, but 
for the moment this was not discussed.



Or are the AOO Linux binaries just expected to work on any Linux
regardless of glibc version?


They will need glibc >= 2.5; this requirement is deliberately chosen  so 
that it is satisfied by virtually all Linux-based desktop systems 
available today.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!

[Dennis Hamilton]

Correction: It is d...@community.apache.org where developer community discusses 
topics such as this.

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 08:15
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
> 
[ ... ]
> I recommend that all developers interested in this discussion also
> subscribe to d...@communit.apache.org where good discussion can be held.
[ ... ]

RE: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I have comments in-line.

Also, let us speak of chicken and egg.

I observe that the Board and the Offices of ASF do not wish to deal with 
hypothetical cases.  Exceptions must be specific and actionable.  Also, 
exceptions do not create precedents.  If one project sees something they want 
as exception for them, they must create specific exception of their own.  (AOO 
has exception for bundling some writing tools in binaries only, not in source 
code, because licenses are incompatible.  It is very specific and not a 
precedent for other projects. When details of another exception are worked out, 
it is often revealed that the cases are not the same. The ASF avoids common 
risk of others seeing more "precedent" for their case than there actually is.)

It seems to me that if there is a request for some sort of external 
relationship(s), the external parties must already exist and be prepared to 
provide detailed agreement on how it will partner with AOO project in a way 
that preserves the principles and purpose of the ASF in how AOO participates in 
the arrangement.  This is not hard.  

I do not think making exceptions about hypothetical arrangements and then 
seeking external parties will work.

That is why it may be better for external party to be created first, operating 
as good downstream citizen, before requiring anything of the AOO PMC and ASF 
Board.  Ideally, no significant attention will be required.  The only thing 
external entity cannot do, and PMC would have to intervene, is make use of 
Apache trademarks in other than allowed ways.  Since it is not proposed that 
the external entity release any software product, this should be agreeable.

Also, the external party should not promise others that requested features will 
be incorporated in AOO in the manner they desire.  They will never have the 
authority to control AOO project actions, even though by mutual work, there may 
often be good alignment.

Only my thoughts, not thoughts from any PMC or Board discussion.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:legi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 23:08
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
> 
> Star Citizen proofed that a community can follow developers intend and
> raise the money needed.
> Even if we can not use the business model, we can learn something from
> their communication model they have developed.
> 
> Also what becomes clear to me is that we can not operate with a single
> entity. If I consider that we need to position us global right from the
> start, this is not so bad.
> 
> Maybe it would be better if we lay out a white paper on some model. Then
> we talk about this. We can then check for concerns. Note them down and
> find a solution for it.
> @Raphael do you like to write your idea in a document? I think we have a
> similar idea. Maybe I can put my idea as variation suggestion next to it
> afterwards.
[orcmid] 


Raphael raised his questions on d...@community.apache.org.  The responses are 
informative.

> Then we can see if we can refine the document.
> I think we need to focus on reaching a goal somehow, this discussion
> dissolves somewhat because we focus to much on the ASF and bugs. Then on
> goals concepts and stuff.
> 
> When we have a clear view, we can reach out to the ASF and hear their
> concerns, update the concept based on their feedback. I assume this way
> we will find a solution that works for everybody.
[orcmid] 

If you do not understand the concerns of the ASF and that AOO is ASF project, 
you may waste your time.  It works best to operate in models of external 
support that have worked well.

Please consider this document now in draft, meant to be aligned with detailed 
documents it refers to:
.

I recommend that all developers interested in this discussion also subscribe to 
d...@communit.apache.org where good discussion can be held.

Also, it is the PMC that must communicate with ASF Board.  The PMC is 
responsible for the care of the project in terms of satisfying and preserving 
ASF spirit for projects.

Discussion and creation on dev@ is fine.  But PMC must as a body agree to some 
proposal if it is so exceptional that Board approval is required.
> 
> In Germany it is said that to lay out a business model takes 8 -16
> month. So IMHO we have time, does not need to be perfect.
> 
> All the best
> Peter
> 
> Dennis E. Hamilton  >
> schrieb am Mi., 18. Jan. 2017, 17:36:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   > -Original Message-
>   > From: Raphael Bircher [mailto:rbircherapa...@gmail.com
>  ]
>   > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 21:36
>   > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org 
>   > Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to
> contribute!
>   >
>