Re: Editing needed on BZ footer -- remove podling reference
On Nov 16, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Nov 15, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On 11/14/2012 05:06 PM, TJ Frazier wrote: On 11/14/2012 18:47, Kay Schenk wrote: HI -- Could one of our BZ admins please remove the podling reference in the footer area for Apache OOo Bugzilla? Thanks. Hi, Kay, A little research in the BZ Help [1] reveals in Section 6.3.5 that the global footer is in a template, global/footer.html.tmpl. AFAIK it will take root access to the system to change, i.e., we need a site maintainer to do it. HTH, /tj/ Thanks again...Ok, I set up a task for infra -- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5529 And it is already done! BTW - There is no Apache OOo or Apache OpenOffice.org project. Shouldn't we rename this the Apache OpenOffice Bugzilla instead of Apache OOo Bugzilla? Regards, Dave We probably should. I saw this also, but didn't take the time to bring this up. :/ We should probably do as you suggest Apache OOo - Apache OpenOffice. You'e only talking about the footer contents, right? More than the footers for this one the name is in many places on the front. TJ might know how big this lift is. Regards, Dave [1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/docs/en/html/cust-templates.html -- MzK “How wrong is it for a woman to expect the man to build the world she wants, rather than to create it herself?” -- Anais Nin -- MzK “How wrong is it for a woman to expect the man to build the world she wants, rather than to create it herself?” -- Anais Nin
Re: promoting svn assets
Hi Joe, Thanks! On Nov 21, 2012, at 8:17 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: With the holiday weekend coming up, I'd like to suggest that that's as good a time as any to adjust the location of your svn tree to top-level. Instead of doing a straight svn mv of the tree, I plan to copy it instead and set the old location read-only, given that past source releases still depend on the old svn urls to work. You will mark the old svn read-only before you perform the copy, correct? Not today, and probably not tomorrow, but before Monday, unless there are strong objections listed on this thread. The implication is that we will ALL need to recheck out our svn source and cms trees from the new location. We'll find out when try to commit. In that case we can svn checkout the new, svn diff the old, apply our changes to the new, and commit.. Correct? Best Regards, Dave Thanks.
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:50 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 11/21/12 10:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 11/21/2012 09:41 PM, schrieb jan iversen: On 21 November 2012 21:30, Andrea Pescettipesce...@apache.org wrote: Jürgen Schmidt wrote: I got the impression that the majority would support a 4.0 version as our next release. So do I. Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations available as soon as possible. One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal Since we have no critical bugs in 3.4.1, I would keep using the 3.4.x series until 4.0 is available. If a security issue emerges that suggests we should make a new release, we will fix it and release 3.4.2; otherwise, I would just keep adding new languages to 3.4.1 and make a couple of 4.0-beta releases, to get better exposure and QA, rather than a 3.5 release. But the 3.4.x series must have some predictable schedule or this won't work. For example, I would propose the following: - We announce on ooo-l10n that 2 December is the first deadline for integration of new languages in 3.4.1 December 2 is very close, when I think of the work in progress on a number of languages, I would suggest end of the year. indeed very close and I will be offline for some further days next week. I count at least 3 languages Danish, Polish, Scots Gaelic. And when we increase the deadline until the end of the year we potentially get even more. - We integrate and build available new languages in the week after it (and we already have two, Danish and Polish) - Native-language teams do some QA - We approve/publish the new builds and the new source release (a 3.4.1 respin, rather than a 3.4.2, since this would confuse users) Would it not be more confusing to change the 3.4.1 distribution files ? I would warmly suggest only to release language packs, since they are separate and do NOT change the existing distribution. If I have understood it correct, only new full install and langpacks files will be distributed - or maybe only langpack files. both would be possible, I ma flexible here. For using the same download mechanism and no further special handling it would be helpful to have the same files as for all other langs. I don't think that it's needed to replace files except for the source files. Exactly, we would release the new languages only on base of 3.4.1 and a new src release. When we do a further 3.4.2 release we can build the new languages in the same way as the others. I think that we will need a new source release - we could call the source release 3.4.1b. It would give us good practice at voting on a release based on simple IP scans with RAT and svn diff to prove that the only changes are language files. We trust, but we must verify. I don't have any strong opinions regarding whether we hurry for a 3.5 or develop a feature rich and well tested 4.0. Once we reach consensus on this issue we should have Marketing publish the plan so the user base will know what to expect with an estimated timeline - emphasis on estimated. Regards, Dave Juergen
Re: desktop publishing
Hi Phil, It is not completely impossible that an extension could be added to AOO to read and write Publisher files. It just takes one or two Java programmers with the time and interest. See [1] for where the effort could start. On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:36 AM, Fernand Vanrie wrote: Juergen, Maybe 1 machine has a MS office package for the unsalvable problems the 99 others have Windows with LO ,OO, Thunderbird, Inkscape, Gimp, Image Magick and a free Adobe PDF reader We can read and write MS text and spreadsheets, in the editing world PDF is the exchange format by exelence. (For that reason PDF must been a graphic format in LO and LO :-) It would great if PDF could be imported into any of Presenter, Writer and Draw. Perhaps this can be a goal of the new Drawing work. BTW - Postscript lives inside the PDF file format all of the drawing primitives are very close to postscript and operate the same way. SVG is also a descendent of Postscript. (as Postscript is a descendent of Xerox Interpress plus III) But I'm biased and have built a publishing chain based on applications producing postscript pages with special comments, shell scripts to collate into postscript documents, conversion to PDF w/ghostscript or editable PPTX using Java and Apache POI. We've also done PDF into editable shapes and text in PPTX using Apache PDFBox and Apache POI. Should we make the effort to go to ODF we will likely be using ODFToolkit. To close the loop if you want to process Publisher files and help with understanding the files format Apache POI is a good place. [1] Regards, Dave [1] http://poi.apache.org/hpbf/index.html Maybe you comes to Fosdem in Brussels, we would be happy to invite you to show on the work floor how is works here Greetz Fernand Hi Fernand, I would love to read a more detailed public success story about your experience and work with writer. It sounds very interesting especially when you stay in one world, means no heavy exchange of MS formats. Thanks for sharing Juergen Am Donnerstag, 15. November 2012 um 09:34 schrieb Fernand Vanrie: Alexandro , On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Phillip Zadro ricaza1...@hotmail.com.auwrote: hi Is there any likelihood that OpenOffice will one day include a desktop publisher? There is only one thing that is stopping me from migrating completely from Microsoft Office to either OpenOffice or LibreOffice and it is their lack of a Desktop Publisher comparable with MS Publisher. I have used Publisher for over 15 years and love its practicality, particularly with paginating of booklets. Even a separate program like Serif PagePlus cannot save in MS format either, so I am obliged to stay with MS Office. Pity.. Thanks Phil Draw is a perfect Desktop publisher, is so perfect is compatible with other We uses exclusifly Writer (+ lot of basic macro's) to make over 8.000 full color magazine pages par year. This pages are all i2 languages versions, with cutouts (we uses Edit Contour) transparancies etc...) Our Editors places lowres images embedded in there documents, a final macro checks the resolution quality and changes the lowres with the highres (stored on a server) just before exporting to PDF Sinds there is SVG, we no longer use EPS and Adobe to make our PDF's. PostScript is dead anyhow (lack of transparency) the LO/OO- PDF export is with use off a Lanczos filter nearly perfect. We only needs a payed Color Server to transfer our RGB PDF's to CMYK Our magazines are printed by different print houses (15.000-3.000 exp.) on high quality paper, there are no complaints from our printers and the readers can not sea the difference between our Magazines an thus maded by payed DTP applications Just a pitty thats SVG is still exported as bitmap (sould been repaired in 3.7) and PDF is still not a accepted as a graphic format like we can use (Tiff, jpg, etc...) Greetz Fernand desktop publishers like Scribus and is based on a frame based paradigm. There are some features that would be desirable but is pretty easy to complete basic and medium tasks like Flyers, Booklets and all it has layers which keeps design separated from content. And have multiple layouts and use of vectorial forms. With improved use of SVG Draw is also gaining strenght in the area of design compatibility and would be improving as more features are considered.
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 22/11/2012 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 11/21/12 10:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 11/21/2012 09:41 PM, schrieb jan iversen: On 21 November 2012 21:30, Andrea Pescetti wrote: I would propose the following: - We announce on ooo-l10n that 2 December is the first deadline for integration of new languages in 3.4.1 December 2 is very close ... indeed very close and I will be offline for some further days next week. I count at least 3 languages Danish, Polish, Scots Gaelic. I we have 3 languages ready I wouldn't wait much longer. I mean, if we reach the point where we can automate it enough (we have to, at least for the 3.4.x series), then we can respin 3.4.1 even on a monthly basis. If it is too much work then we have an infrastructural problem to solve. We will still need to VOTE as it will be a source release. That is not automatic. Of course, since most of this work is on you, Ariel and mirrors I would perfectly accept to shift the date forward if you believe it's better; but communicating a clear deadline and releasing a few new languages soon would prove that we are ready to do these releases without too much overhead, and that volunteers can test their work without waiting for months. Marcus (OOo) wrote: When we release new languages I think it's worth enough to name it 3.4.2. No, if we name it 3.4.2 we imply it has something new in the English, German, Italian, ... version and communicating it would be unnecessary complex. If it is 3.4.1, it must be distributed as 3.4.1. Yes, but also distinct from the other 3.4.1 source release. Regards, Dave Regards, Andrea.
Re: [proposal/question] wiki.openoffice.org future: mediaWiki or Apache JSPWiki.
Sorry to top post. Jspwiki has been in the incubator for a few years. There is no guarantee it will ever graduate. They have not switched completely to ASF infrastructure. Please look in the general@i.a.o archives and the incubator board reports. While this discussion is good lets not be hasty. Best Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone On Dec 3, 2012, at 10:04 AM, C smau...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:43 PM, imacat ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw wrote: Which tweaks? If I knew then I could include it in the new version, problem is that a.o. imicat tells that there have been made modifications, and none of it seems to be documented. There are 2 ways to find it out: 1. Ask Terry Ellison himself. He left his e-mail in the user database. http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/User:TerryE Terry wasn't so involved in the Wiki - that was my mess (at least when it was hosted at Sun/Oracle). TerryE was heavily involved with the User Forum rollout and sustaining maintenance. Tweaks/changes on the Solaris Zone were documented (changes outside of the standard Solaris Zone config that was in place at the Sun Data Centre in Hamburg). Server tweaks since moving to Ubuntu on Apache... no idea. I was not involved in that. 2. A more strict method: Untar a fresh-new MediaWiki 1.15, and run diff to find out what is changed. Applied the changes to MediaWiki 1.16 *on a test site* to see if they work. If they work, do the same on the live site and update the symbolic link to point to the patched MediaWiki 1.16. This is how I did when upgrading my lab's WordPress from its tweaked older version. Any updates I did were pretty basic. A new copy of MWiki was downloaded. The database was backed up. The standard OOoWikiSkin was copied over which included the footer tweaks (as documented at the time) included, and the Google Analytics (also documented). The Wiki was upgraded using the PHP scripting provided with MWiki and it was brought online on the testing domain. The extensions/content were tested and when all was working the new Wiki was brought online on the main domain. (the details were a bit more complex, but this covers most of the high level steps that I used to do with each MWiki engine update). No core functionality tweaks were made at any point in the core MWiki PHP code (none that I was ever aware of or can remember). Standing up a new Wiki on a new MWiki engine was primarily a task of making sure the old extensions still worked or were updated ot current versions compatible with the new MWiki core. Any obsolete extensions woudl be removed (happened once in a while but the impact was always small). There was a lot of discussion around doing work on the caching configurations on the webserver side, but nothing was ever really done there. Clayton
Re: www.apache.org/projects has no AOO ??
The transition to TLP is not complete. We do not use JIRA. We have our bugzilla instance Regards, Save Sent from my iPhone On Dec 3, 2012, at 1:19 PM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: When I look in www.apache.org projects, take indexes, I cannot find: Apache OpenOffice OpenOffice or OOO The same goes for the JIRA issues system. Should it not be there ? (or does our project have another code) Jan.
Re: [RELEASE, IMPORTANT]: What is a release - my lesson learned at ApacheCon EU 2012
Oliver-Ranier, You have written an excellent summary. These releases both official source releases and user convenience binaries are distinct and voted. These should not be confused with the following: (1) current svn source trunk. (2) binaries built for QA, l10n, or other purposes especially release candidates. As long as we do not distribute these unofficial internal purpose artifacts to our release channels and do not promote these to the general public as releases we are doing our best. Rob mentions edge cases where an internal to the project build gets out. For this case it might make sense to discuss with infra on IRC if a people account is a concern of theirs and how they would prefer to mitigate that risk. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone On Dec 5, 2012, at 1:43 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi, In the thread regarding our planned release for further languages - thread subject [RELEASE]: new languages for AOO 3.4.1 - a discussion took place about what we want/should release and what kind of binary packages should be made available and on which location. Thus, I just want to share what I had learned in the discussions with Apache members at the ApacheCon EU 2012 regarding releases made by an ASF project. The discussion was more or less about all paragraphs in section What Is A Release? found at [1]: my lesson learned A release - in nomenclature of ASF - is more or less the publication of the open source material of an ASF project. A binary packages which are produced on the basis of a certain release are only for the convenience to the users. These binary packages do not belong to the released material. /my lesson learned My conclusions for our AOO project releases are: - An AOO release consists of the source package which we are creating based on a certain revision of our source code repository. - We are producing certain binary packages based on the same source code repository revision which we had tested in advanced. - We are providing the produced binary packages as convenience to our users together this the publication of our release. [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#releases Best regards, Oliver.
Re: dist move...
On Dec 6, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Andrew Rist wrote: On 12/6/2012 9:40 AM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Herbert Duerr h...@apache.org wrote: On 06.12.2012 00:03, Kay Schenk wrote: I put in a request, as part of our graduation process, to have our dist area moved to a top level. INFRA-5607 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5607 The issue is requesting a move to http://www.apache.org/dist/ooo, but shouldn't this better be named */openoffice (or */aoo)? Herbert Herbert -- see comments by Henk on the ticket. It does appear that /dist/openoffice will be the new top-level name for our *next* release -- nothing will be moved now. Perhaps this was already communicated to infra and I was not aware of it. Also, of more immediate concern is the archiving of the 3.4.0 source release and possibly the 3.3. patch. All of this is driven by the nature of /dist/, how it is mirrored outside Apache, and the pretty substantial resources taken up by our release. There are consequences to moving something once it is there - some mirrors might end up with both areas mirrored, for example. The best way to resolve that (in the opinion of infra - AIUI) is to move the location on our next release, this allows for planing of resources and the notification of the mirror network. It seems a reasonable approach to me. This is the direction the comments are going in Kay's issue. Since the 3.4.1 Language packs are supplements to the 3.4.1 source release and will have incubator branding they will go into the incubator/ooo/ location. Some might think that we should be doing a full 3.4.2 with non-incubator branding, but no real need IMO. Regards, Dave Andrew
Re: Admin mailing list?
On Dec 12, 2012, at 6:55 PM, Rob Weir wrote: If we're going to have all of these wiki account requests via email, would it makes sense to create a special admin list (or webmaster list) for these and similar requests, and maybe also for general website development topics? sysadmin requests to a special ML may make sense, but I don't think that the website development topics belong in that ML. website topics already overlap into marketing and L10n. Regards, Dave -Rob
Re: [WEBSITE] Problem with .htm files
On Dec 17, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Andrea, On Dec 16, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Dave Fisher wrote: I think that we can purge these *.htm duplicates, but if we do it will be a sledgehammer build. It will also be a problem, unless we accompany it with other changes: for example, http://www.openoffice.org/pt/ would completely break, and all external sites that now link to some of our .htm files would break too. Got it. It was intentional. Before doing so we would need to make a group decision about how to treat the two types of files. Regardless of what templates we apply, the best solution should: 1) Allow a .htaccess redirect/rewrite from .htm to .html (to preserve existing internal and external links) 2) Have the SVN file names match the URLs: editing a file named news.htm in SVN should not result in a change in a page with URL .../news.html. The current handling confuses the CMS too (for example, no diff is reported). So either we mass-rename files from .htm to .html and rely on 1) above, or we don't change .htm to .html but publish .htm URLs. We need only do (1) and I would do it within the httpd config like our existing redirects. Regardless if there are both file1.htm and file1.html in the source, one of these must be removed from the source svn. Dave, Andrea -- Only ONE copy is in source, the htm file. The duplicate gets generated from CMS -- but the new html is the most recent copy (on the actual web tree) -- generated from htm. Could we fix our templating to just continue to allow for htm instead of combing them as we're doing now? It can be tried on a local copy. The prospective changes are required in lib/view.pm, but exactly what these changes are I am guessing at this point. It will be something about determining which type of page htm vs. html and then make the appropriate call here: I think, but do not know. If someone wants to experiment on a local build then I'll give pointers, but I may not have time to check for a day or two. maybe that would work. The web server seems happy enough to server up htm in addition to html I don't know what this would do to the html file now on the web server. maybe a re-publish for say /pt/about would make this new html file go away once we fixed the templating. Either way we need to republish those directories somehow to either remove the extra htm or the extra html files. The redirect that has been requested will force all *.htm into *.html which I find to be simpler, but may be confusing to volunteers. Regards, Dave Thoughts? See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5668 for this request along with a set to avoid an incubator redirect for certain links. We do not need to do (2) because we already are making this change in the staging and publish. You see no diffs for the old htm files because they are not changed. I do see diffs in the html versions of the pages. Even with the redirect in place, it still makes sense to edit the pages to use *.html and not *.htm in links. There are two different procedures from view.pm used: ... There are several templates used from templates/. To me, .htm and .html are not different file types and were never used as such: I mean, volunteers historically committed .htm or .html according to their habits, but it doesn't make sense to have different ways of handling them now. So I would tend to rename all .htm to .html and put the .htaccess redirect in place, and have only one type of HTML files to handle. I think it is ok to force the pages to be *.html. We should have some consistency. Maybe soon it will be time to start switching openoffice.org to mdtext. Regards, Dave Regards, Andrea. -- MzK No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted. -- Aesop
Re: [WEBSITE] Problem with .htm files
On Dec 17, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Dave Fisher wrote on Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:20:05 -0800:
On Dec 17, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Andrea,
On Dec 16, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Dave Fisher wrote:
I think that we can purge these *.htm duplicates, but if we do it
will be a sledgehammer build.
It will also be a problem, unless we accompany it with other changes: for
example, http://www.openoffice.org/pt/ would completely break, and all
external sites that now link to some of our .htm files would break too.
Got it.
It was intentional. Before doing so we would need to make a group
decision about how to treat the two types of files.
Regardless of what templates we apply, the best solution should:
1) Allow a .htaccess redirect/rewrite from .htm to .html (to preserve
existing internal and external links)
2) Have the SVN file names match the URLs: editing a file named
news.htm in SVN should not result in a change in a page with URL
.../news.html. The current handling confuses the CMS too (for example,
no diff is reported). So either we mass-rename files from .htm to .html
and rely on 1) above, or we don't change .htm to .html but publish .htm
URLs.
We need only do (1) and I would do it within the httpd config like our
existing redirects. Regardless if there are both file1.htm and file1.html
in the source, one of these must be removed from the source svn.
Dave, Andrea --
Only ONE copy is in source, the htm file. The duplicate gets
generated from CMS -- but the new html is the most recent copy (on
the actual web tree) -- generated from htm.
Could we fix our templating to just continue to allow for htm
instead of combing them as we're doing now?
It can be tried on a local copy. The prospective changes are required in
lib/view.pm, but exactly what these changes are I am guessing at this
point.
It will be something about determining which type of page htm vs. html and
then make the appropriate call here:
I think, but do not know. If someone wants to experiment on a local build
then I'll give pointers, but I may not have time to check for a day or two.
I think you could define:
sub htm_page {
my (@r) = html_page @_;
$r[1] = 'html' if $r[1] eq 'htm';
@r
}
and then use that in path.pm.
Thank you. I'll give that a try in a few hours when I finish my work day.
Meanwhile it is likely that you will delay the JIRA issue. I'll keep you posted
both here and there.
Regards,
Dave
Re: [WEBSITE] Problem with .htm files
On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
On Dec 17, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Dave Fisher wrote on Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:20:05 -0800:
On Dec 17, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Andrea,
On Dec 16, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Dave Fisher wrote:
I think that we can purge these *.htm duplicates, but if we do it
will be a sledgehammer build.
It will also be a problem, unless we accompany it with other changes:
for example, http://www.openoffice.org/pt/ would completely break, and
all external sites that now link to some of our .htm files would break
too.
Got it.
It was intentional. Before doing so we would need to make a group
decision about how to treat the two types of files.
Regardless of what templates we apply, the best solution should:
1) Allow a .htaccess redirect/rewrite from .htm to .html (to preserve
existing internal and external links)
2) Have the SVN file names match the URLs: editing a file named
news.htm in SVN should not result in a change in a page with URL
.../news.html. The current handling confuses the CMS too (for example,
no diff is reported). So either we mass-rename files from .htm to .html
and rely on 1) above, or we don't change .htm to .html but publish .htm
URLs.
We need only do (1) and I would do it within the httpd config like our
existing redirects. Regardless if there are both file1.htm and file1.html
in the source, one of these must be removed from the source svn.
Dave, Andrea --
Only ONE copy is in source, the htm file. The duplicate gets
generated from CMS -- but the new html is the most recent copy (on
the actual web tree) -- generated from htm.
Could we fix our templating to just continue to allow for htm
instead of combing them as we're doing now?
It can be tried on a local copy. The prospective changes are required in
lib/view.pm, but exactly what these changes are I am guessing at this
point.
It will be something about determining which type of page htm vs. html and
then make the appropriate call here:
I think, but do not know. If someone wants to experiment on a local build
then I'll give pointers, but I may not have time to check for a day or two.
I think you could define:
sub htm_page {
my (@r) = html_page @_;
$r[1] = 'html' if $r[1] eq 'htm';
@r
}
and then use that in path.pm.
Thank you. I'll give that a try in a few hours when I finish my work day.
Meanwhile it is likely that you will delay the JIRA issue. I'll keep you
posted both here and there.
Actually the r[1] line needed to be reversed.
Here is the patch about to be applied:
Index: view.pm
===
--- view.pm (revision 1423170)
+++ view.pm (working copy)
@@ -101,6 +101,12 @@
return Template($template)-render(\%args), html = \%args;
}
+sub htm_page {
+ my (@r) = html_page @_;
+ $r[1] = 'htm' if $r[1] eq 'html';
+ @r
+}
+
sub sitemap {
my %args = @_;
my $template = content$args{path};
Index: path.pm
===
--- path.pm (revision 1423170)
+++ path.pm (working copy)
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
[qr!rightnav.mdtext$!, single_narrative = { template =
navigator.html }],
[qr!\.mdtext$!, single_narrative = { template =
single_narrative.html }],
[qr!\.html$!, html_page = { template = html_page.html }],
- [qr!\.htm$!, html_page = { template = html_page.html }],
+ [qr!\.htm$!, htm_page = { template = html_page.html }],
) ;
# for specifying interdependencies between the files
We can discuss the cleanup of the old *.html files later.
Regards,
Dave
Regards,
Dave
Re: Help needed on CMS : How can we bypass template application?
On Dec 17, 2012, at 2:18 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Alternately you could write a positive
regexp and a pass_thru view to view.pm
a'la
sub pass_thru {
my %args = @_;
open my $fh, $args{path} or die Can't open $args{path}:$!;
read $fh, my $content, -s $fh;
return $content, html = %args;
}
Thanks, I like that approach. After testing locally, and a with a
small modification, I've checked that in.
We've collided, fyi. I guess my full scan will follow yours. I was applying
Daniel's htm suggestion with the same comment :-)
Regards,
Dave
-Rob
From: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org dev@openoffice.apache.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Help needed on CMS : How can we bypass template application?
1 or 2 is the easiest to accomplish:
just alter the regexps in path.pm to ignore
those directories (you'll need a negative pattern
so be sure to test it before applying).
From: Rob Weir robw...@apache.org
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 11:23 AM
Subject: Help needed on CMS : How can we bypass template application?
On the marketing list we're preparing a content experiment to try
different variations of social networking icon placement. The idea is
to increase brand awareness by encouraging downloaders to share the
good news about AOO with their friends.
As part of this experiment we're creating several variations of the
download page. But we're changing more than the body. We're working
directly with the HTML, changing stuff that ordinarily would be done
via the template skeleton, header, footer, etc. Don't worry, this is
just a mock up. Whatever we learn from this experiment would feed back
into the real template. However, in order to do this experiment we
need to be able to freely change the page and make, in some cases, 9
different variations of it.
The problem is if we check in these mockups, the CMS will try to apply
the template. And that makes a mess, since we already have the
template applied. (Remember, we're starting from the full HTML).
So what we're looking for is some easy way we can avoid applying the
site-wide template to a set of web pages. Since this experimentation
will likely be an ongoing effort, it would be good to have a way that
does not require mucking around with perl script every time.
Is there any way we can arrange it so:
1) All files in a given directory, say /content-experiment, are passed
through as-is with no template applied?
or
2) All files that match a given naming pattern, say,
-content-experiment.html, skip the templating process
or
3) All files with a given meta header such as meta
property=content-experiment value=true skip the templating
process
(I think 3 is the most flexible, but not sure how hard this is to code).
Regards,
-Rob
[DISCUSS] Recourse for Sites Which Do Not Acknowledge Trademarks
One of the ways that sites that offer downloads of Apache OpenOffice (or OpenOffice.org) often do is: (1) Don't acknowledge that the trademarks are the Apache Software Foundation's. (2) Make use of the project's and ASF's resources to offer free support and other downloads. They simply hide as legitimate sites. One example is openoffice.us.com. One thing that we can do to get in the way of this is keep a list of these domains and when web requests are referred from them we can take users to a warning page where we can explain the situation, help users get to legitimate resources and let these providers know how to properly reference trademarks and make their offering distinct from Apache OpenOffice. Perhaps there is something that can be done with Google to have them downgrade search terms for OpenOffice for specific URLs. Regards, Dave
Re: [mwiki] IS DOWN FOR DB MAINTENANCE for the next couple of hours !!!!
Sent from my iPhone On Dec 25, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: FWIW; It also came to my memory that there was the idea to attempt merging at least some of the documentation from MWiki to CWiki by using this plugin: https://studio.plugins.atlassian.com/wiki/display/UWC/Universal+Wiki+Converter Ultimately no one gave it a try due to lack of resources (access to the db, running CWiki, I recall) The community wanted the mWiki and Terry showed up to migrate it. I do have admin karma in the cWiki if someone is interested in doing further development there I'll help. Regards, Dave cheers, Pedro. Da: Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org A: dev@openoffice.apache.org dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: janI j...@apache.org Inviato: Lunedì 24 Dicembre 2012 14:45 Oggetto: Re: [mwiki] IS DOWN FOR DB MAINTENANCE for the next couple of hours FWIW; One of the suggestions from Terry E was moving from MySQL to PostgreSQL, which offered advantages for doing proper backups. My memory is sketchy so you may want to dig up the details in the archives. Pedro. Da: janI j...@apache.org A: dev@openoffice.apache.org Inviato: Lunedì 24 Dicembre 2012 6:50 Oggetto: [mwiki] IS DOWN FOR DB MAINTENANCE for the next couple of hours Hi. I have taken wiki.openoffice.org, down for a db maintenance. Jan I.
Re: FYI: Wiki performance.
Hi JanI, Thanks for your work here! On Dec 27, 2012, at 12:47 PM, janI wrote: the Wiki is very slow these days, it is NOT because of spam attack, but actually something positive. We have loads of users, seeking all kind of information, according to the access log. Does anyone have access to our google analytics, I would like to know (if possible) on day by day basis 24/dec - end dec, how many unique hits the wiki have had. I am analyzing the VM, httpd, mysql and ATS (of course with infra) to see how we get it to perform better. I would focus on IO bandwidth in the VM and memory. Is memcached being used? Would it make sense to move mysql onto its own VM? I can't give detailed help, I manage people who manage LAMP stacks. Regards, Dave thx in advance for your patience. jan I.
Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.
Jan, On Dec 31, 2012, at 12:11 PM, jan iversen wrote: excuse me I did NOT say that anybody did a bad job! on the contrary I think a lot of people do a real big job I simply try to make the job easier. but I do understand when a polite question is unwanted. How did my answer to Andrew imply any of the above? sorry for suggestion a possible improvement that will not happen again. Please keep asking questions. You suggested that we use one of the ASF supported tools like Continuum. Please see http://www.apache.org/dev/services.html#build which lists, Continuum, Buildbot, Gump and Jenkins. Andrew answered that we are using one of ASF supported tools - Buildbot. A lot of projects use it - http://ci.apache.org/builders Note that the Apache CMS also uses Buildbot. I was thanking Andrew explicitly because he is generally silent in his work. Happy New Year! And THANK YOU JAN for your hard work! Your contributions are appreciated! Regards, Dave Jan i Den 31/12/2012 19.23 skrev Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net: Hi Andrew, On Dec 31, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Andrew Rist wrote: On 12/31/2012 2:09 AM, janI wrote: Is there a reason why we use our own buildbot and not one of the infra supported ones, like e.g. Continuum. We /are/ using the ASF buildbot infrastructure. So I'm kind of confused by the question. check http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/ Also, the decision to go with buildbot, vs maven or something else in the ASF ci quiver was due to the complexity of our build. Add to that the strange gymnastics we have to do on Windows (Herbert will attest to the strangeness!!) it is pretty much the only option as I see it. You and the rest of the buildbot team do a tremendous job! Best Regards, Dave A. Sharing servers with other and having other people maintain the build routines should be to our advantage. Or do I see life in the wrong light ? rgds Jan I
Re: [PROPOSAL] New Apache OpenOffice 4 logo proposals...
Hi Michael, I like the logo - a lot. I have a problem with the video that is significant. You are using the same music that Microsoft is using for its Surface Advertising on TV. Also, at the end you are using a non-standard Apache Software Foundation logo and feather placement. Although we want people and institutions to use Apache OpenOffice and not Microsoft Office, we cannot be subversive about it. Please keep up with your work and contributions, just be careful that you aren't appropriating others images and music. For fun here is a more original version of the music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYyzBbWPV5w Best Regards and Happy New Year, Dave On Dec 26, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Michael Acevedo wrote: Greetings to all in the mailing list and those in this AOO Logo Proposal subject, In this email, I would like to mention that I have added two new logo proposals to the Apache OpenOffice Logo exploration wiki article. Now let me explain what this new logo it's all about. The new logo design does away with the orb and changes it for a gull ring that rests under a blue background which itself rests on circles which are inspired on the Adobe Flex logo multicolor scheme. The new gull ring while being new, retains the familiar circular shape of the current OpenOffice logo, but at the same time is a new take that pays respect to the orb. All of these elements are wrapped in a modern black gradient icon than makes the logo stand out. Furthermore, the new logo actually changes the look of the word OpenOffice into a more modern non-capitalized openoffice word design (also an inspiration from the Adobe Flex project logo). The latter serves the function of highlighting Apache as the owner of the project (whose name is in capital letters), yet the non-capitalized openoffice names takes presence by being written in a larger size font. Overall, the new logo design is simple, clean, and modern. Now that I have given a sense of the new logo, I would like to show you a reveal video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC-tOuhTm9Y But there is one last detail, which actually is a testament to the power of OpenOffice. The detail is that the logo that you see at the end of the video was 99% made in Apache OpenOffice Draw. Hope you liked the logo and the reveal video. Happy Holidays! You can see the formal proposal in the Cwiki at Apache: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.x+-+Logo+Explorations On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Michael Acevedo vea1...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings Kevin, I would not mind posting the logos to that AOO UX wiki. Thing is I don't know where it is or whether it is on the cwiki or mwiki (if it is on the latter, I need to request an account). Let me know. On Saturday, December 22, 2012, Kevin Grignon wrote: Michael, Great work. Design is very iterative. Keep pushing! Using the design explorations is a great way to stimulate a conversation which can help us better understand the requirements. Perhaps we could harvest the criteria for success in the thread and capture in the wiki Then we can make the design review process less subjective by having people review design explorations relative to stated goals. Also, the mailing list is tough place to review designs, can you post the design explorations to the AOO UX wiki? Regards, Kevin On Dec 23, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Michael Acevedo vea1...@gmail.com wrote: I think I've come up with something that is simplistic on the eye but beautiful an lively. Still working on it but stay tuned. On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Michael Acevedo vea1...@gmail.com wrote: RGB, I see the ring as something different. The blue to me represents the open blue sky, and the ring around it as a frame to an opening of an open world. On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:16 AM, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/12/22 janI j...@apache.org I am no designer, but I have tried to make a suggestion to better explain what I mean. The current proposals all have squares / circles etc. and apart from the original similarity with windows8 that has a special signal value. A surface (square/circle etc) especially with a border, signal: - limitation or positive a product that fullfills a single purpose - closeness or positive a product the specialize in one function AOO is in my mind much more, we are open at levels where normal products can only dream to go: - AOO is used in nearly every corner of the earth. - AOO is open for translation to no matter how small a language group - AOO is open for developers who want to hack their own specialized versions - AOO is open for repackaging supplying the core of a wider extented product. I could go on. I think it is important that our logo signals this freedom and openess after all we are OPEN office. +1. The ring around the orb give the idea of boundaries, limits, and we are
Re: What does supported mean for us?
HI Rob, I like your emphasis here on Supported. Let's discuss support in terms of actual process and precisely what are official releases vs. user convenience releases. Both of which are VOTED, but only the source code release can be completely vetted by all of the project. The convenience binaries are well tested and approved. These are what you are discussing when you describe Supported below. So when the project votes to release a user convenience binary we are voting to support that configuration. This can change at any release. Packages are built by project members using the buildbot or on personal equipment. Let's look at Apache Subversion's packages [1]. The project only produces source code and the binary packages are the responsibility of third parties. AOO has both project supported packages, the voted on user convenience binaries. There are also third party packages which project member's produce and support. Examples are FreeBSD and Solaris. I think that AOO should provide a page with a table that lists Free support. Columns might be. (1) Operating System and Version. (2) Apache Open Office Version as a link to a download. (3) Packager - AOO, FreeBSD, Adfinis (sic), etc. (4) Available free support - forum, ML, etc. (Would we support FreeBSD/Solaris AOO on dev ML?) The table could be followed by a description about what support means as you describe below plus some indication about how to get on the list which should include a vetting procedure and a project VOTE. Regards, Dave [1] http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html On Jan 1, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Rob Weir wrote: When a commercial software vendor says a configuration is supported it means something, typically that to the extent the software license includes an entitlement to support, that the vendor will provide that service for that configuration. So saying something is supported is essentially an obligation. With a volunteer-run, open source project, supported cannot mean quite the same thing. We're not obligated, in any contractual sense, to provide anyone with anything. That's the nature of a volunteer effort. However, users and organizations considering OpenOffice will naturally think in terms of support, even if they user that term loosely. We use that term as well, in our release notes, etc. But I think we ought to have a more precise definition of what we mean when we say something is supported, in order to avoid any confusion. This question has come up recently, with regards to the status of Windows 8, where that OS had not been released at the time AOO 3.4.1 was released. So here's a strawman proposal for what supported means for us. 1) Supported is a statement we make about a specific version of AOO used with a specific platform, e.g., AOO 3.4.1 with Windows XP SP3 or AOO 3.4 with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. 2) Supported means we encourage use of AOO in that configuration. We have high confidence that the combination is stable, that it works well and is safe. 3) Our confidence in stating something is supported should have a solid basis in testing. Something is not supported by us guessing it should work. It is supported only after we have successfully completed testing of that release with that platform. We probably should define exactly what level of testing is required. 4) Supported also implies that the supported configuration is sufficiently available and there is sufficient expertise that we have confidence that users will have a high quality experience seeking support on the forums and user list. 5) Supported also implies that we stand behind that release and will take necessary steps to correct *critical* bugs, especially security flaws, via rapidly produced point releases where necessary. Note that these are all expectations that a user might have, though any given user might think that supported means only a subset of these. What we probably really need is more of a lifecycle statement, including when support for a configuration ends. -Rob
We Need One - Fwd: DOAP
HI Andrea, We need to fill out a project DOAP file in order to be listed on www.apache.org on the bottom left. Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org Date: January 2, 2013 5:28:58 PM PST To: gene...@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: DOAP Reply-To: gene...@incubator.apache.org delivered-to: mailing list gene...@incubator.apache.org DOAP files are required for all TLPs, per the Branding policy: http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs DOAP files are used to autogenerate the projects listing site: http://projects.apache.org/indexes.html DOAP files are the best way we have currently to ensure we have a single, simple and machine-parseable list of all software projects available at the ASF. We currently under-utilize this: it would be nice if projects had more detailed DOAPs that we could entice people to create interesting visualizations of all Apache projects. It should also be linked to more, so that newcomers to the ASF have an easier way to find all the different software technologies that Apache projects have to offer to the world. From the brand perspective, DOAPs are required so the ASF can track all formal TLP projects and major software products that our projects ship (among other reasons, so we can one day auto-generate our list of trademarks). DOAPs should also have sufficient information about software downloads available so that if someone does write a crawler to inspect software products, they'll get useful information. It would be nice if projects kept DOAPs up to date with all new releases, etc., but I personally don't have the effort available in the near future to push on that area. What's more important is ensuring all TLPs have at least a basic DOAP that's checked in and reflected at projects.a.o We really need to explain this more clearly in the incubator docs, and make it clear that having a DOAP checked in is part of the branding checklist that is required to complete before graduation. I.e., we should ensure that podlings meet the Project Branding Requirements before they go to graduate. - Shane On 1/2/2013 5:08 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: Hi, Onami is not listed below, but we have a Doap file (which needs some maintenance :-) http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/onami/committers/doap_Onami.rdf Three questions, because I am not so familiar with Doap files. 1) do we have to add them manually to: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site-tools/trunk/projects/files.xml 2) On onami we maintain several independent components. Should we maintain different doap files (one for each component), like it seems to be done by Commons? 3) Should the doap file become part of the release? thanks! Christian On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Hi there. In the process of cleaning up photark, I noticed that very few incubating projects have DOAP files. That is, I looked at https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site-tools/trunk/projects/files.xml. If that page is stale and DOAP-i-ness happens elsewhere, someone please fill me in and excuse this noise. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] lazy consensus for new News scrolling
On Jan 3, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: Here's is the latest/final draft for the proposed new user portal web site home page incorporating News scrolling: http://www.openoffice.org/test/ I like it. Great work. I am invoking lazy consensus for this change. If I hear no complaints by Sunday 1750 PDT, I will implement this change. Thereafter all news items will not be added to the home page directly or to /news/index.html, but to /news/newslist.ssi (this is a text file, not html), LIFO order, maintaining the styling you see for other items there. It would be good if there were dates on all of the entries. I can see how to change this into mdtext in such a way that any file named news.mdtext is specially converted like the topnav.html. We can then set brand.mdtext to include a newsfeed url and allow news feeds to be translated or special for certain directories. But then don't wait for me. Regards, Dave -- MzK No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted. -- Aesop
Re: Can't Escape the CAPTCHA Cats on MIki
Maybe you all are on different browsers? Good luck herding these cats ... a little cat cha cha. Regards, Dave On Jan 4, 2013, at 2:34 PM, Regina Henschel wrote: Hi all, I run into the same problem. I do not get my page saved. In the help text for that captcha it is mentioned, that there should be a submit near the pictures, but there is nothing. I'll write a bibliography for my article and need external links. Kind regards Regina Rob Weir schrieb: Was trying to edit the QA page to add a link to the @AOOBugs twitter account. When I go to save I'm prompted with a dialog and a message: Your edit includes new external links. To help protect against automated spam, please select just the cat photos in the box below: Although I lack advanced degrees in zoology or veterinary medicine, I am somewhat familiar with the differences between canine and feline species. But I cannot seem to get past this screen. Every time I select the cats and then try to submit the edits, I'm returned back to the same CAPTCHA dialog. No error messages. Any ideas? -Rob
Re: [PROPOSAL] lazy consensus for new News scrolling
On Jan 7, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
snip
Since this is the visitors first impression of the project, I wonder
if it is worth exploring further to see if there is a way to address
these issues? As I mentioned before, the ASF home page has a latest
activity panel that avoids both of these problems:
http://www.apache.org/
Can we copy what they do?
Yes. See below where I show where to find the rest of the code that Rob has
tracked down.
We can handle it like a feed with ASF::Value type patterns in path.pm
Or we can use xslt and parse a file file in view.pm
Or a combination.
ummm...not sure about this. We would need to do more thorough investigation
here. Right now, I can not easily determine how this column is generated --
manually vs something else.
I did a little research on how the ASF home page works.
You cans see the source here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/
index.html is here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/content/index.html
and Latest Activity looks like this:
h3Latest Activity/h3
div class=section-content
pemThis is an overview of activity going on with our
projects. SVN commits, bug reports, tweets, you name it/em./p
/div
{% for e in twitter.list %}
div class=section-content
a href={{ e.url }}@/a{{ e.title|safe }}
/div
{% endfor %}
{% for e in svn.list %}
div class=section-content
a class=svn
href=http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?revision={{ e.revision
}};view=revisionr{{ e.revision }}/a
{{ e.message|safe|truncatewords_html:20 }} ({{
e.projects|safe }}) mdash;
a
href=http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html#{{ e.author }}{{
e.author }}/a
/div
{% endfor %}
{% for e in jira.list %}
div class=section-content
a class=bug href={{ e.url }}{{
e.title|safe }}/abr/
{{ e.content|safe|truncatewords_html:20 }}
/div
{% endfor %}
/div
So they are iterating over twitter.list, svn.list and jira.list. But
it is not leaping out at me where that data comes from. Presumably it
is RSS/Atom feeds, but I don't see the glue that connects this.
Take a look at www.apache.org's trunk/lib/path.pm:
our @patterns = (
[qr!^/index\.html$!, news_page =
{
svn = ASF::Value::SVN-new(limit = 5),
jira = ASF::Value::Jira-new(limit = 5,
url = http://s.apache.org/q4;),
announce = ASF::Value::Mail-new(list = 'annou...@apache.org',
limit = 3),
planet = ASF::Value::Blogs-new(blog = planet, limit= 3),
blog = ASF::Value::Blogs-new(blog = foundation, limit= 3),
twitter = ASF::Value::Twitter-new(name = 'TheASF', limit = 3),
},
],
[qr!^/dev/index\.html$!, news_page =
{
svn = ASF::Value::SVN-new(limit = 5),
twitter = ASF::Value::Twitter-new(name=infrabot, limit = 3),
blog = ASF::Value::Blogs-new(blog = infra, limit= 3),
jira = ASF::Value::Jira-new(limit = 5,
url = http://s.apache.org/lg;),
},
],
[qr!^/dev/sitemap\.html$!, sitemap = { headers = { title = Developer
Sitemap }} ],
[qr!^/licenses/exports/index\.html$!, exports = {} ],
[qr!\.mdtext$!, single_narrative = { template = single_narrative.html
}],
);
And also view.pm, doap2perl.xsl and list2urls.xsl
sub news_page {
my %args = @_;
my $count=0;
for (fetch_doap_url_list()) {
my $result = parse_doap($_);
next unless defined $result;
push @{$args{projects}}, $result;
last if ++$count == 3;
}
return ASF::View::news_page(%args);
}
sub parse_doap {
my $url = shift;
my $doap = get $url or die Can't get $url: $!\n;
my ($fh, $filename) = tempfile(XX);
print $fh $doap;
close $fh;
my $result = eval `xsltproc lib/doap2perl.xsl $filename`;
unlink $filename;
return undef if $result-{pmc} =~ m!^http://attic\.apache\.org!;
return $result;
}
sub fetch_doap_url_list {
my $xml = get
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site-tools/trunk/projects/files.xml;
or die Can't get doap file list: $!\n;
my ($fh, $filename) = tempfile(XX);
print $fh $xml;
close $fh;
chomp(my @urls = grep /^http/, `xsltproc lib/list2urls.xsl
Re: Is there consensus on latest MS Office formats?
On Jan 8, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote: Hello all, I'm back on the dev mailing list because there are some interesting topics sometimes. But no further involvement in the AOO project anymore. Before AOO starts to try such OOXML filter, I think it would be interesting to have a global consensus about what is intended about OOXML. The OOXML compatibility was a rather frequent question in the Google Moderator session, same in the forums. If AOO offers the possibility to save in OOXML, what is the future of ODF then? Why users should bother with a still rather unknown format if they can save in OOXML for compatibility with MS Office users? So what is exactly the rationale to implement the export filter? There was a time, back 5 years ago, when it was not certain whether OOXML would survive or not. I, and many others, spent a lot of energy trying to prevent that from happening. We knew that if OOXML was standardized and accepted that it would perpetuate Microsoft's lock-in advantage and make extra work for competitors like OpenOffice. We knew that if OOXML survived we'd waste resources implementing it, rather than other, more useful features that users want. We were right to have this concern, but we lost that battle, and these things have now come to pass. IMHO it is time to make the best of the situation we find ourselves in. There is the Java based Apache POI which includes OOXML4J. I am on the POI PMC. Two of the Mentors for ODFToolkit are also on the POI PMC. I have always thought that one needs to be in the MIDDLE of this position. If the following is possible - xlsx - ods - xlsx - ods OR pdf - pptx - odf - pdf then the software that enables such interop will be what people in institutions will use. No institution with 2,000 desktops is going to seriously think of Apache OpenOffice as a viable solution to test unless it can do a reasonably accurate job converting. OOXML is the default format in MS Office 2007, 2010 and 2013. Office 2003, which defaulted to the binary formats, hits end of support next year. So, whether we like it or not, our users will be receiving OOXML documents from people, and when they collaborate they will want to be able to return modified OOXML documents. OOXML is the new DOC format. We wouldn't think of not supporting DOC, would we? But even as we support DOC we know that ODF, as the native format for OpenOffice, will give the best fidelity and preservation. Everything else other than ODF is a foreign language to OpenOffice that we speak imperfectly. Differences in conversions due to the file format should be well documented. After all a choice is being made. Do we really want to go this way and then handle the users ranting because of the glitches of such a format? This is an excellent point. We don't want users to be frustrated by a partial implementation. So maybe it could be exposed as an experimental feature? With enough samples and the knowledge of standards people like Rob we can certainly highlight the INHERENT superiority. I guess that it is still easy to get a pirated copy of MS Office nowadays. So if someone wants MSO for free, this should not really be a big deal (and MS would certainly let it be so that its OOXML still expands). And the numbers show that AOO has not lost its leverage compared to LibreOffice for example (the only other to propose the OOXML export filter). So the sub-question is: do really our users need that OOXML export filter? As we saw in the Google Moderator counts, this feature was near the top. This is a political question. The previous OOo team took a decision. What is the AOO team position on that now? This could have long term consequences. I hope we can avoid the politics. For example, with the license we have taken a pragmatic view rather than follow the copyleft purists. Where other projects have stripped all non-GPL extensions from their extensions repository, we're happy for our users to have a choice and decide for themselves. So maybe a good compromise would: 1) Aim to provide the industry's best support for ODF 2) Continue to explain the value and advantage of ODF to our users 3) Support whatever formats that our users need to be productive with OpenOffice in real-world work. Exactly. People need Interop. Without interop it will be either Microsoft Office or OpenOffice, but NOT both. And by the way, what flavor of the OOXML would be supported? Transient or ISO? Presumably we would implement Microsoft OpenXML, what they actually can read. Microsoft has fixed problems when they have deviated from the ISO spec. I know of one significant instance on the initial release of Mac PowerPoint 2008. They had a patch in one month. It helped that Lawrence Livermore Labs was the one reporting the trouble. Microsoft claims to
Re: Bug list in release notes: why bugzilla account needed?
The solution is already found on the Forum. Here is a shortened version of the long unsaved version. http://s.apache.org/xLN Regards, Dave On Jan 14, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: Hi - Works for me without login: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=junk That's a quick search query. Try a saved search, like: http://s.apache.org/Huv -Rob Regards, Dave On Jan 14, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: Hmm... could be used for spamming. Maybe it's policy after all. There are some saved queries and reports that are quite expensive, computationally. Cross-tabulations, etc., and they take several seconds for me to run them. So perhaps they want to avoid a DoS attack based on a trivial wget of an expensive query URL? -Rob cheers, Pedro. Da: janI j...@apache.org A: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Inviato: Lunedì 14 Gennaio 2013 16:10 Oggetto: Re: Bug list in release notes: why bugzilla account needed? Easy solution. make an account anonymous with a easy password, and publish that...nearly as good as not needing to login. rgds Jan I. On 14 January 2013 21:57, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: Hi Hagar; It's not a policy, it's simply the way bugzilla works. A developer (hi hdu@ :) recently wrote a nice script that crosschecks bugzilla issues with commits so the situation will improve greatly in the near future. Pedro. Da: Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net A: dev@openoffice.apache.org Inviato: Lunedì 14 Gennaio 2013 15:42 Oggetto: Bug list in release notes: why bugzilla account needed? Here is a message on the forum about the necessity to have a login to view the list of the bug fixes: http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50t=58749 Indeed, why is it mandatory to have an account to view the bug list? This is not user-friendly. Can the policy be changed? Hagar
Re: Adapt the naming of our project deliverables - OpenOffice.org -- Apache OpenOffice
On Jan 14, 2013, at 2:46 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: Hi, On 12.01.2013 00:39, Dave Fisher wrote: On Jan 11, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 01/11/2013 03:06 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: On 1/10/13 3:56 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: Hi, On 10.01.2013 11:55, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: Hi Oliver-Rainer, On 10.01.2013 11:23, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: I have finished the renaming from OpenOffice.org to Apache OpenOffice - see issue 121388. Beside corresponding changes in the user interface this change has impact on the following important and critical stuff: - folder/directory names - package names - Windows registry key names and values - ... As the folder/directory path to the user profile is also changed, the user profile of a former installed AOO (or OOo) version is not taken over. for installation script purposes of add-ons etc., where can one find the concrete strings for folder/directory names on the various operating system platforms and the Windows registry key names and values? Unfortunately, there is no single place in the source code. I also had not the resources to clean this up during the renaming work - hint, hint, hint :-) Please have a look at issue 121388, the wiki page referenced in one of the issue's comments and the intrinsic changes I have made. The product installation folder is more or less a form of the $PRODUCTNAME + [major version number]. E.g.: - Windows: Apache OpenOffice 3 - Linux: apache_openoffice3 On Linux platforms we have also the basis installation folder. It name is found in /main/instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst The user profile folder is more or less $PRODUCTNAME/[major version number]/ The Windows registry keys and values can be found in module main/scp2/ I hope that helps a little bit. I was thinking about the name and here I mean the name that is used for the folder etc. The name is used in the help, in tools option, in the menu... We changed OpenOffice.org to Apache OpenOffice so good so far. But would it be nicer to shorten the folder, menu entries, ... to simply OpenOffice Folders Linux: /opt/openoffice4 Mac: OpenOffice.app Windows: OpenOffice 4 Tools Option OpenOffice OpenOffice Writer OpenOffice ... Help OpenOffice instead of hundreds of Apache OpenOffice The idea is that the project and product is called Apache OpenOffice but in practice we would use in the product the short from OpenOffice. The intro, start center, about can of course use images where we use Apache OpenOffice. Well it's just an idea and I know it would require some further work but now would be the time for it. I believe legally should it be ok today but it have to checked to be safe. What's your opinion? In general a very good idea: Shorter menu entries, etc. and a higher attention of the open source product. And yes, we should get this clarified from trademarks@. If it is called Apache OpenOffice software or product on first use on certain pages then it is permissible to use short forms like OpenOffice in various places. There is no trouble with that approach. Look at the Apache Hadoop project's home page - http://hadoop.apache.org/ We should make sure that somewhere we use OpenOffice.org ® for the link to the website to preserve that trademark in certain jurisdictions. As you might have seen, I also changed OpenOffice.org website to Apache OpenOffice website in some place of the help content. Dave, do you think we should keep OpenOffice.org in such cases? In order to preserve registered trademark in places like China we have to have places where we show and use OpenOffice.org®. Using that for the website is one easy and important way to do that. Is there room for a phase like The Apache OpenOffice product website at OpenOffice.org®? We should likely include this in the footer in the website. Probably this needs to be a full discussion under its own topic. Regards, Dave Best regards, Oliver.
Re: svn commit: r1435127 - /openoffice/symphony/trunk/README
Hi Rob, Would you please discuss this change. Thanks, Dave On Jan 18, 2013, at 5:24 AM, robw...@apache.org wrote: Author: robweir Date: Fri Jan 18 13:24:28 2013 New Revision: 1435127 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1435127view=rev Log: Remove reference to the redundant file list in the SGA which was confusing for some. We should restore if we can find a way to post a public copy of that list. Modified: openoffice/symphony/trunk/README Modified: openoffice/symphony/trunk/README URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/symphony/trunk/README?rev=1435127r1=1435126r2=1435127view=diff == --- openoffice/symphony/trunk/README (original) +++ openoffice/symphony/trunk/README Fri Jan 18 13:24:28 2013 @@ -13,17 +13,19 @@ file are provided under the Apache v2 li based on the source code of IBM Lotus Symphony v3.0.1. The files in the contributed package are in four categories: + 1) Original Oracle owned files that IBM downloaded from the Oracle Openoffice.org website - this includes both unmodified files as well as files that were modified by IBM. The IBM owned materials are contributed under the SGA, the Oracle owned materials are provided under the Apache v2 license. The total constitutes approximately 56,000 files. + 2) IBM owned files. This constitutes approximately 12000 files. + 3) Files downloaded from Apache OpenOffice v3.4 under the Apache v2 license. This constitutes approximately 250 files. + 4) Third Party Library files that are under an open source license. This constitutes approximately 150 files. -Please refer to the list contained in the Software Grant and Corporate Contributor License -Agreement for more information. Note: Files that are created or modified by IBM and contain IBM owned materials include file headers of the following form:
Re: What rights are given in an SGA
On Jan 21, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Jan 21, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Rob Weir wrote: Since this has come up recently, I'd like to point you all to a recent thread on the legal-discuss list: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser If you are not familiar with the SGA form, you can see it here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt As you can see, it is a combined Corporate CLA and Software Grant Agreement. Notice it does not speak of the Apache License, but it does offer its own copyright and patent license. The license portion in question was this: Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works. The question was: What does software distributed by the Foundation mean? Does that mean only releases? Code in SVN? What exactly? As you can read in the archives, the response was that stuff in SVN is considered distributed by the Foundation, so the license of the SGA applies to contributions made under SGA and checked into Subversion. But note also Roy's later clarifying response: The dev subversion repo is not a means of distributing to the general public. It distributes to our self-selected development teams that are expected to be aware of the state of the code being distributed. When we distribute to the general public, it is called a release. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser That was the basis for the DISCLAIMER I put in the root of our Subversion a couple of days ago: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/DISCLAIMER I don't think this is anything new. We already know that code that we're releasing requires careful review and verification of file headers, LICENSE and NOTICE files, etc. That is part of what it means to publish a release at Apache. But we have other stuff in Subversion that we do not intend to include in a release, and for which we do not make this effort. For example, /devtools, /ooo-site and /symphony. Agreed this follows the policy here: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html One subtle point here is the following: If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in it, the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either: • remove such notices, or • move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable project release, or • provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or relocation of the notices. The SGA does not give those rights. Until we address this subtle distinction we have two classes of committer on this project. IBMers and others. This distinction needs to be eliminated / minimized. And perhaps a more subtle point (you seemed to miss it, for example) is the section that says: When must Apache projects comply with this policy? All releases created and distributed after November 1, 2006 must comply with this policy. The source in the /symphony directory is not planned to be included in any release, so I don't see this policy as applicable. I did not miss that at all. You are correct that it is not required by the ASF. But because something is not required does not mean it should not be done. If IBM will or has granted the ASF these specific rights then anyone from the project can make these changes as they move the files. But unless this is so it is only safe for an IBM employee listed on a CCLA to do it. That is the hang up as non-IBM project committers may be constrained from doing this until this matter is cleared up. That is a hypothetical issue, since no developers have stepped forward to volunteer merging these files into the AOO 4.0 trunk. And just in the spirit of brainstorming, if a project member is able to confirm that the SGA terms are sufficient for them to work with the code (and I think any reasonable reading would show that they are) then they can go ahead and help merge it and ignore the header cleanup question. Let's do this. Should any project contributor wish to work on a portion of this code someone from IBM will handle these two tasks: (1) Add the Apache License 2.0 Header. (2) Move the IBM (and other) Copyrights to NOTICE. I'm not saying the whole tree, but on request for a reasonable number of files. But before we release AOO 4.0 we'll of course run a RAT scan and that will identify any issue
Re: What rights are given in an SGA
On Jan 21, 2013, at 6:49 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Jan 21, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Jan 21, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Rob Weir wrote: Since this has come up recently, I'd like to point you all to a recent thread on the legal-discuss list: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser If you are not familiar with the SGA form, you can see it here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt As you can see, it is a combined Corporate CLA and Software Grant Agreement. Notice it does not speak of the Apache License, but it does offer its own copyright and patent license. The license portion in question was this: Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works. The question was: What does software distributed by the Foundation mean? Does that mean only releases? Code in SVN? What exactly? As you can read in the archives, the response was that stuff in SVN is considered distributed by the Foundation, so the license of the SGA applies to contributions made under SGA and checked into Subversion. But note also Roy's later clarifying response: The dev subversion repo is not a means of distributing to the general public. It distributes to our self-selected development teams that are expected to be aware of the state of the code being distributed. When we distribute to the general public, it is called a release. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser That was the basis for the DISCLAIMER I put in the root of our Subversion a couple of days ago: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/DISCLAIMER I don't think this is anything new. We already know that code that we're releasing requires careful review and verification of file headers, LICENSE and NOTICE files, etc. That is part of what it means to publish a release at Apache. But we have other stuff in Subversion that we do not intend to include in a release, and for which we do not make this effort. For example, /devtools, /ooo-site and /symphony. Agreed this follows the policy here: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html One subtle point here is the following: If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in it, the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either: • remove such notices, or • move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable project release, or • provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or relocation of the notices. The SGA does not give those rights. Until we address this subtle distinction we have two classes of committer on this project. IBMers and others. This distinction needs to be eliminated / minimized. And perhaps a more subtle point (you seemed to miss it, for example) is the section that says: When must Apache projects comply with this policy? All releases created and distributed after November 1, 2006 must comply with this policy. The source in the /symphony directory is not planned to be included in any release, so I don't see this policy as applicable. I did not miss that at all. You are correct that it is not required by the ASF. But because something is not required does not mean it should not be done. If IBM will or has granted the ASF these specific rights then anyone from the project can make these changes as they move the files. But unless this is so it is only safe for an IBM employee listed on a CCLA to do it. That is the hang up as non-IBM project committers may be constrained from doing this until this matter is cleared up. That is a hypothetical issue, since no developers have stepped forward to volunteer merging these files into the AOO 4.0 trunk. And just in the spirit of brainstorming, if a project member is able to confirm that the SGA terms are sufficient for them to work with the code (and I think any reasonable reading would show that they are) then they can go ahead and help merge it and ignore the header cleanup question. Let's do this. Should any project contributor wish to work on a portion of this code someone from IBM will handle these two tasks: Heck, I'll do one better. I volunteer to run a RAT scan
Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)
On Jan 21, 2013, at 7:02 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: 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): 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. We tried to preserve all the web content at www.openoffice.org. Here are some links: http://www.openoffice.org/editorial/ http://www.openoffice.org/about/ http://www.openoffice.org/awards/index.html http://www.openoffice.org/about_us/testimonials.html Regards, Dave - d. David, Extensive records of OOo since its inception in 2000 exist. My own understanding is that the milestones are still obvious. I have personal accounts, but these would need to be validated by public citation. The generally useful milestone pages may still, too, be available via the Internet Archive, of course; but that goes without saying--? louis 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): 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. -- Louis Suárez-Potts, PhD Age of Peers, Inc. Twitter: @luispo Skype: louisiam GMail: lui...@gmail.com Mobile: +1.416.625.3843
Re: RAT scans: Re: What rights are given in an SGA
On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:12 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: Hello; - Messaggio originale - Da: Jürgen Schmidt 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. what do you mean with SDK? Our OpenOffice SDK is part of the normal source tree and doesn't contain anything critical. I just looked and it appears we are pointing to the latest source indeed. I was afraid that there might be pages pointing to older releases http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sdk/ I cleaned out older versions of dmake and a GPL'd dictionary that we were carrying but without an audit we have no certainty about what may be left. And no, I don't have time to hunt for specific cases so that's the reason why I am suggesting a rat scan. There's no hurry though, just something to consider for a TODO list. I think that rather than a RAT scan, a checkout of the web tree plus find/greps would uncover issues. Do you have search strings (other than GPL) to suggest? Regards, Dave Pedro.
Re: Draft blog post: Apache OpenOffice at FOSDEM 2013
LGTM! I would not wait very long to publish it. Regards, Dave On Feb 1, 2013, at 4:39 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: I drafted a short article on what's coming at FOSDEM this weekend. You can find the draft at https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=apache_openoffice_at_fosdem_2013 and I'll proceed to publish as soon as I get some positive feedback (or corrections/integrations). Everything else is ready, rollup and flyers are printed, and it looks like we are set to have a nice weekend! By the way, if someone is already in Brussels we could maybe meet tonight already, at the FOSDEM beer event or elsewhere. Regards, Andrea.
Re: [bikeshed] I like blue titles.
On Feb 1, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Feb 1, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: Hello; I know this can easily become the biggest bikeshed ever ... Can we change the red title in the website (Call for Volunteers, as of lately) to dark blue? The reasons: - The tone of red chosen looks like it was made to fit at the last moment. It has no aesthetic coherence with the rest of the website. It was chosen quickly and I was thinking it would be for unusual events. Now it appears to be a common element which is OK. - It makes us look desperate (or so seem to think some bloggers). The concern should be what works? Not what some bloggers think. Breaking out from the visual clutter of the page is important. We want to stand out, not blend in and be overlooked. IMHO. I like blue if it will always be there Oh course there are other ways of standing out, like with a banner graphic. That could give us a more professional image while still standing out. What ever can be done... Regards, Dave -Rob Just my $0.02 UX. Pedro.
Re: [bikeshed] I like blue titles.
On Feb 1, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Tanja Meece wrote: Red immediately sends up a warning flag in my mind and that of other user's I'm sure. That was the original intent. There has to be some way to change the color. There is and it is done! It is now the same blue as the rest of the header text. Regards, Dave TMCM On Feb 1, 2013 9:43 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: Da: Dave Fisher ... Can we change the red title in the website (Call for Volunteers, as of lately) to dark blue? The reasons: - The tone of red chosen looks like it was made to fit at the last moment. It has no aesthetic coherence with the rest of the website. It was chosen quickly and I was thinking it would be for unusual events. Firstly, I hope I am doing this properly, if not I apologize in advance. I agree. I believe that a red sends the wrong signals. It sends up more of a warning flag, rather than an invitation for volunteers. The first time I saw it I thought I'd done something wrong. I recall it started when we were about to release 3.4 and the blog went down so we just had to release on the website. Now it appears to be a common element which is OK. It is being changed everytime there's something to communicate: Like if we break (yet) another download milestone. The red chair is becoming part of the furniture. - It makes us look desperate (or so seem to think some bloggers). The concern should be what works? Not what some bloggers think. Breaking out from the visual clutter of the page is important. We want to stand out, not blend in and be overlooked. IMHO. I like blue if it will always be there I suspect we will have it forever :(. Oh course there are other ways of standing out, like with a banner graphic. That could give us a more professional image while still standing out. What ever can be done... Again, just chose a color for the bikeshed that seems average among the proposals ;). Pedro.
Re: [bikeshed] I like blue titles.
On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:04 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: Thank you Dave! It's still perfectly visible without being too scandalous. I like it. Now for a new bikeshed ... I would use Volunteers wanted, instead of Volunteers needed ;). Semantics are important! Just kidding ... :). It's not a bikeshed it is a good point! Done! Here is another bikeshed. There was no easy navigation back to www.openoffice.org® from openoffice.apache.org where this announcement takes the user. So, I added one to the left nav at the bottom of General. Regards, Dave Regards, Dave Pedro. Da: Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net A: dev@openoffice.apache.org Inviato: Venerdì 1 Febbraio 2013 17:49 Oggetto: Re: [bikeshed] I like blue titles. On Feb 1, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Tanja Meece wrote: Red immediately sends up a warning flag in my mind and that of other user's I'm sure. That was the original intent. There has to be some way to change the color. There is and it is done! It is now the same blue as the rest of the header text. Regards, Dave TMCM On Feb 1, 2013 9:43 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: Da: Dave Fisher ... Can we change the red title in the website (Call for Volunteers, as of lately) to dark blue? The reasons: - The tone of red chosen looks like it was made to fit at the last moment. It has no aesthetic coherence with the rest of the website. It was chosen quickly and I was thinking it would be for unusual events. Firstly, I hope I am doing this properly, if not I apologize in advance. I agree. I believe that a red sends the wrong signals. It sends up more of a warning flag, rather than an invitation for volunteers. The first time I saw it I thought I'd done something wrong. I recall it started when we were about to release 3.4 and the blog went down so we just had to release on the website. Now it appears to be a common element which is OK. It is being changed everytime there's something to communicate: Like if we break (yet) another download milestone. The red chair is becoming part of the furniture. - It makes us look desperate (or so seem to think some bloggers). The concern should be what works? Not what some bloggers think. Breaking out from the visual clutter of the page is important. We want to stand out, not blend in and be overlooked. IMHO. I like blue if it will always be there I suspect we will have it forever :(. Oh course there are other ways of standing out, like with a banner graphic. That could give us a more professional image while still standing out. What ever can be done... Again, just chose a color for the bikeshed that seems average among the proposals ;). Pedro.
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
The next shed to bike ;-) On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:21 PM, w...@apache.org wrote: Author: wave Date: Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013 New Revision: 1441659 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1441659view=rev Log: No clear link back to www.openoffice.org Modified: openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext Modified: openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?rev=1441659r1=1441658r2=1441659view=diff == --- openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext (original) +++ openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013 @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ - [License](/license.html) - [Trademarks](/trademarks.html) - [Press](/press.html) + - [OpenOffice.org®](http://www.openoffice.org/) + # Community - [Get Involved](/get-involved.html)
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Two hours with a wrong (R) if it is wrong won't invalidate anything. There is room for a mistake. Please just disagree and let me be responsible enough to make an adjustment. If I had not responded in a few hours then what you did is ok. My point is about letting time pass. You do a lot for OpenOffice and that is great! Sent from my iPhone On Feb 2, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Rob Weir rabas...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams william...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: -1 I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right. Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! A full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask the committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this together. OK. IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together, right? Nope. It's universally uncool to revert someone else's commit. You raised the -1, let *them* do the revert, after you've provided convincing rationale to the community... Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right and did not act quickly. -Rob --tim
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
I have no problem with the change that you made, and I said so in my initial reply. My problem is the way that you characterized it. You can be more polite. For example, I like the link you added, but I think that the (R) is not correct and so I removed it... That is all I'm going to say about it for now. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone On Feb 2, 2013, at 9:41 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: - Messaggio originale - Da: Rob Weir ... So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really urgent please take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying: Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for now and we can discuss this issue with legal@. Actually, I did explain this in the BZ issue for this item, and I did this **two weeks ago**: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624 If this is going on for more than two weeks you could've waited some more minutes. Actually, no. Talking about the change was fine. But actually putting this on the website, if my interpretation is correct, put us in an immediate danger. What you may not be aware of, is that there is a company watching very carefully, waiting for us to screw up with the trademark. The company is the same one that runs several of the malware OpenOffice clone sites. For example, when Oracle announced that they were getting out of OpenOffice, this company immediately submitted a trademark registration for OpenOffice. Not a month later, not a week later, but the ***very next business day***. It took some special effort and legal work to get that application rejected. I know about this. Others may not. But you can see the full record of it in TESS. So the belief that you can get trademarks wrong on the website for a 72 hour discussion is a dangerous form of ignorance. Again, I removed this and I would do it again, without hesitation, in similar circumstances. I should have your thanks, not your scorn, for doing this. Regards, -Rob These bullying in the lines of I reverted it .. and I will do it again is NOT acceptable. I say again, I would do exactly the same thing in similar circumstances. You are starting to sound like Anders Breivik. Your attitude is recurrent and I don't really have time to tell you how to behave in a community, I will only say that issues like this push me to spend more time on my *other* favorite software project. Pedro.
Re: Bugzilla -- Any interest in enabling categories?
On Feb 5, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Regina Henschel rb.hensc...@t-online.de wrote: Hi Rob, Rob Weir schrieb: You can see our current Bugzilla taxonomy here: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/describecomponents.cgi We have around 50 top-level products and within that each product has one or more components. Users, as well as new-volunteers, are confused by the 50 products. For example, it is not at all clear to them where cross-cutting concerns go, e.g., crashes that occur across applications, like the profile corruption issue. Also, some of the products are not really dealing with the code of the product, but are project related areas like qa, www, user-faq or education. Bugzilla has an option that we can enable that would add an additional level to the hierarchy, called categories. A category contains products, which contain components. Is there any interest in having categories enabled? No, I would like to go another way and reduce the product-list. For example, SDK has about 500 issues at all from the beginning from today about 128000. Compare it to Word Processor with about 770 issues in the last year. Products with low use does not need a division in components. There are more such low used products. I would put them together in two products: other source code issues and other non-source code issues and use their former product name as component. The other problem is, that some products are only understandable for insiders. Or do you know immediately what product oi or ucb is? I have no idea. So if we had categories, these might be put under an internals category. So keep only those products, which have got enough issues in the last two years to make a component list meaningful and which are understandable to end users. That's one approach, and it would be OK if the only audience for Bugzilla was end-users. But if developers want the finer-grained products at a code module level, then we can support that as well. So imagine top-level categories like: 1) OpenOffice Applications 2) Internal Modules 3) Cross-cutting Concerns (performance, accessibility, localization) 4) Project Infrastructure Then, to the end user, I hope it would be clear that they go immediately to OpenOffice Applications. In fact, where we give BZ links for end-users, we can point them directly there. Something like this could be done quickly, 30 minutes. We might be able to do simplification at the product level, as you suggest. But that is far more work, and I think having 20 top-level categories rather than 50 is still too many. Ideally I think we want 5-7 top-level choices. I agree with having a limited number of top choices. I think that the component level should be limited to a similar number and ought to default to something like unknown. If you make massive internal changes for this. It is my hope that you will turn off email notifications during that short interval. Regards, Dave -Rob Kind regards Regina
Re: Bugzilla -- Any interest in enabling categories?
On Feb 5, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Feb 5, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Regina Henschel rb.hensc...@t-online.de wrote: Hi Rob, Rob Weir schrieb: You can see our current Bugzilla taxonomy here: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/describecomponents.cgi We have around 50 top-level products and within that each product has one or more components. Users, as well as new-volunteers, are confused by the 50 products. For example, it is not at all clear to them where cross-cutting concerns go, e.g., crashes that occur across applications, like the profile corruption issue. Also, some of the products are not really dealing with the code of the product, but are project related areas like qa, www, user-faq or education. Bugzilla has an option that we can enable that would add an additional level to the hierarchy, called categories. A category contains products, which contain components. Is there any interest in having categories enabled? No, I would like to go another way and reduce the product-list. For example, SDK has about 500 issues at all from the beginning from today about 128000. Compare it to Word Processor with about 770 issues in the last year. Products with low use does not need a division in components. There are more such low used products. I would put them together in two products: other source code issues and other non-source code issues and use their former product name as component. The other problem is, that some products are only understandable for insiders. Or do you know immediately what product oi or ucb is? I have no idea. So if we had categories, these might be put under an internals category. So keep only those products, which have got enough issues in the last two years to make a component list meaningful and which are understandable to end users. That's one approach, and it would be OK if the only audience for Bugzilla was end-users. But if developers want the finer-grained products at a code module level, then we can support that as well. So imagine top-level categories like: 1) OpenOffice Applications 2) Internal Modules 3) Cross-cutting Concerns (performance, accessibility, localization) 4) Project Infrastructure Then, to the end user, I hope it would be clear that they go immediately to OpenOffice Applications. In fact, where we give BZ links for end-users, we can point them directly there. Something like this could be done quickly, 30 minutes. We might be able to do simplification at the product level, as you suggest. But that is far more work, and I think having 20 top-level categories rather than 50 is still too many. Ideally I think we want 5-7 top-level choices. I agree with having a limited number of top choices. I think that the component level should be limited to a similar number and ought to default to something like unknown. If you make massive internal changes for this. It is my hope that you will turn off email notifications during that short interval. I have no desire to make massive internal changes. I'm volunteering to hide the ugliness behind top-level categories, something that I could do in 10 minutes with no notification emails, and which will immediately make things easier for end-users. But if someone is interested in doing the massive cleanup, then they are welcome to do that. But I haven't heard anyone volunteer to do that. So giving objections to a proposal that a volunteer has actually made, the net result is we're deciding to remain with crap. I was NOT objecting, but since you have difficulty parsing my words I'll try again. (1) I AGREE with your idea. +1. The question is which components go to which categories, but I'm sure your initial choices will be almost completely correct and minor changes can be addressed in the future. (2) I was suggesting that the next level could use some work. Even if the component level gets minimal attention by your change. We should at a minimum think about the component default for each category so that the user is not required to make a change if they don't understand the options. (3) You missed the IF. I was expressing concern about getting thousands of emails since that happened in the past. I am glad that this will not be the case. Thank you for that. Shall I give you an extra +1? Done. Regards, Dave Regards, -Rob Regards, Dave -Rob Kind regards Regina
Re: $21 million per day
Hi Rob, This is great information. It makes me very proud to be a part of Apache OpenOffice. This is something that should be part of our next board report. It is probably worth discussing if this is press release material with Sally at press@ Thanks and Regards, Dave On Feb 6, 2013, at 5:43 AM, Rob Weir wrote: Yes, yes, we're a non-profit organization. We don't charge for Apache OpenOffice. We don't pay developers.But we still do produce something of value, and that value can be estimated. People need office productivity software. The main alternative to OpenOffice is Microsoft Office, perhaps the Home and Student edition. The latest version (2013) sells for $139.99 on Amazon. This is for the downloadable version. We have averaged 153K downloads per day of Apace OpenOffice over the last week. That is an average value to the public of $21.5 million per day. Or $7.833 billion (7.833 thousand million) per year. To put that in perspective, here are comparable annual sales figures for some familiar companies: -- Campbell Soup Company: $7.882 billion -- Royal Caribbean Cruises: $7.657 billion -- Mastercard, Inc:$7.391 billion -- OfficeMax:$7.094 billion So we're providing tremendous value to the public. We should be proud of what we've accomplished over the past decade. Note: We could certainly debate the exact value provided to users. Determining what a user would do if they did not get AOO for free is tricky. But the logic above is similar to how the BSA estimates losses to Microsoft from software piracy. They assume that the person who pirates Office would buy it if they did not pirate it. So it seems fair to use that same logic to estimate the value provided to users by a legal free alternative like Apache OpenOffice. Regards, -Rob
Re: $21 million per day
Hi Sally, Please see this message thread: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201302.mbox/%3CCAP-ksoiJx5QqRvAQpHTJJ2_VasPCji9gTi4R3PH8bg_ntwkJ9A%40mail.gmail.com%3E Rob is working on a blog post, but I think that this is something worthy of an ASF press release as it shows substantial value provided to the public. Thanks and Regards, Dave On Feb 6, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Yes, yes, we're a non-profit organization. We don't charge for Apache OpenOffice. We don't pay developers.But we still do produce something of value, and that value can be estimated. People need office productivity software. The main alternative to OpenOffice is Microsoft Office, perhaps the Home and Student edition. The latest version (2013) sells for $139.99 on Amazon. This is for the downloadable version. So I'm thinking more on this, and there is an assumption here that the price I pay for Office in the US is the same as anyone else pays around the world. But this is unlikely to be true. This is a classic example of where the fixed costs are in the development and are high, and the variable costs are in the media and distribution and are very low. So a global vendor's optimal strategy is to adjust the pricing country-by-country or region-by-region, to maximize their profits. They can drop the prince in some countries and raise it in others based on ability to pay. I'd love to have some help exploring the magnitude of these differences, to see if they are significant. Let's use the price Microsoft quotes for Home and Student 2013. We want the 1PC perpetual license, not the per-year subscription price. Start from here: http://office.microsoft.com. I had to then go to Products, For Home and Learn more. When I check the US price I get $139.99 When I check the German site (http://office.microsoft.com/de-de) I am quoted 139,00 €. That is $188.04 today. When I check the Australian website I am quoted $169.00 which is $174.42 USD. The Russian website quotes 3499.00 rubles, which is $116.30. So I'm seeing some higher and some lower. Does anyone see pricing that is outside of the range USD 116.30 - 188.04 ? This complicates the analysis, but I don't think it changes the story much. -Rob We have averaged 153K downloads per day of Apace OpenOffice over the last week. That is an average value to the public of $21.5 million per day. Or $7.833 billion (7.833 thousand million) per year. To put that in perspective, here are comparable annual sales figures for some familiar companies: -- Campbell Soup Company: $7.882 billion -- Royal Caribbean Cruises: $7.657 billion -- Mastercard, Inc:$7.391 billion -- OfficeMax:$7.094 billion So we're providing tremendous value to the public. We should be proud of what we've accomplished over the past decade. Note: We could certainly debate the exact value provided to users. Determining what a user would do if they did not get AOO for free is tricky. But the logic above is similar to how the BSA estimates losses to Microsoft from software piracy. They assume that the person who pirates Office would buy it if they did not pirate it. So it seems fair to use that same logic to estimate the value provided to users by a legal free alternative like Apache OpenOffice. Regards, -Rob
Re: Updating Java libraries
On Feb 5, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: Is there any recommendation/objection on this? After hsqldb I would like to move on to lucene. In this case, it would be nice to investigate if lucence can be replaced by clucene, this will reduce the need of installing Java for basic stuff, like the Online Help. Apache Lucy is a C version of Apache Lucene http://lucy.apache.org/ Regards, Dave
Re: Proposal: How we should handle committer vetos and reverts in the future
Rob, Please count how much of the emails in these inordinate threads are your emails. Please review the following: http://openoffice.apache.org/list-conduct.html Thank you. Regards, Dave On Feb 15, 2013, at 11:21 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:40 AM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On Feb 15, 2013 3:25 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 09:11:13AM -0500, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 05:31:43PM -0500, Rob Weir wrote: Obviously the changes to Calc's POWER() function did not go well. IMHO, we need to better respect the rare but powerful veto option that committers have: http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#Veto When a committ is vetoed, it should be reverted quickly. Remember, a No. This is flat out incorrect. A veto means you cannot *ship* with that change in there. It can stick around as long as necessary, but must eventually be pulled out when the code is shipped. If this is true then you have a Foundation document which is incorrect and needs to be changed, since it is totally out of synch with what you are saying: Not surprised. And Greg, just to be perfectly clear and to avoid any misunderstanding here, I'm not arguing against your interpretation. If that is the consensus view then I'm happy to adopt it as my own. I'm just pointing out that you have a prominent page on the website that, to the uninitiated, appears to say something entirely different. Phrases like forces it to be reverted and may not be overridden nor voted down are quite strong statements. Any change can be vetoed at any time. There is no statute of limitations, except for making a release. (http://s.apache.org/j4) Thus, bad code can sit around in version control for a very long time. The forces it to be reverted is in reference to making a release. Obviously, the community doesn't want to wait that long. Ripple effects can make it hard to revert the change later. This is why you start the discussion and come to consensus on how to proceed. In my experience, proceed usually means additional changes to address the concerns raised. The only time revert has ever been the solution is when somebody has added huge new chunks of code that the community doesn't agree with [in terms of direction]. There is quite a bit of history in the httpd project discussing what veto means, and how to handle them. I summarize all those years with the simple phrase, veto means a discussion is needed. thanks for putting some sense into this discussion. I totally agree with your point of view. and please remember accepting backwards compatibility as a technical argument is real killer which can be used to 99℅ of all commits. So Then I guess we're all darn fortunate that no one has used a backwards compatibility argument to veto 99% of all commits. Of course, in specific instances, where we are dealing with external interfaces that we have traditionally preserved constant, which users depend on, and where no discussion has occurred or consensus reached to break that compatibility, then this can be a valid technical reason for a veto. E.g., does anyone actually think that if I checked in code to reverse the SIN() and COS() functions, that this code could not be vetoed on technical grounds? -Rob starting a discussion makes sense whena committer has concern, but using a veto based on backwards compatibility to revert is pure anarchy. rgds jan i Cheers, -g
Re: The Great Bugzilla Taxonomy Cleanup
On Feb 16, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: Would someone please add my login to the editcomponents group so that I can follow the links on that page: w...@apache.org Done. Oh, and before anyone else asks -- there is nothing really there at those links that is relevant to the task of designing a new taxonomy. The links just came along because this was a cut paste from the BZ admin UI. So you are not missing anything if you cannot navigate to those links. I found the count to be the link to see what issues are present and that works great. I've contributed 3 ideas. One rename and two remove product w/ issue moves. The removes are on low count products. Tools - Builds External Prerequisites - Builds and Installation. App Dev - 11 - as makes sens. Regards, Dave -Rob -Rob Thanks! Regards, Dave On Feb 15, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Rob Weir wrote: No, no. Don't worry. I haven't changed anything ;-) But I have put up a wiki page with our current top level taxonomy, as well as the descriptions and defect counts: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Bugzilla+Taxonomy I also have a column for Proposed Action I wonder what we can do to make a taxonomy that is simpler and easier to use? Note: I figured out how to disable email notifications in BZ. So if we do need to make bulk changes, I can do it without filling your inboxes. -Rob
Re: Branding Refresh For AOO 4.0 [Closing in 72hrs]
On Feb 20, 2013, at 8:13 AM, Samer Mansour wrote: Hello AOO Dev and Marketing Community, The main subject of this e-mail is to call for an end date to proposals. In 72hrs (saturday) we will be closing branding proposals. - - - - - I am heading up the branding effort for the AOO 4.0 release and we can unanimously agree the 4.0 release will be a milestone for our community and users. For this special release the marketing team is taking on the effort to giving us a fresh look. The marketing team is starting to plot deadlines at the same time as the dev team, the marketing team can't keep proposing ideas forever, we actually need to do the work to get us there. Specially because some dev efforts require assets from our designers. What does that mean? - We're picking and choosing. Late submissions might not be considered (just the nature of just do it sorry). - Eliminating designs we don't like and smoothing and integrating ones we do like. - In a week from Saturday we will have a master proposal to present for lazy consensus. (at least that's the plan) I do not think that this can operate as lazy consensus,. it is a process that is more opinion based than most. It is possible that the Marketing team can make some discussions, but the community may have other preferences. I don't think that we need to be afraid of having a VOTE. Rules can be generated and this dev list can tolerate the extra traffic. I participated in a two round vote for Apache Flex. There were over 50 entries. Each ballot had 5 votes which allowed people with strong opinions to vote for one logo and others who liked many designs could split their vote. (Note this discussion is going to be difficult because we are posting between two lists.) How can you help? - - - - - - I have design skills! (or I think!) - Check out some guidelines and placements of the branding, see children of this cwiki page: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.0+Brand+Refresh+Project - Go to our wiki and sketch out some ideas here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.x+-+Logo+Explorations - They don't have to be complete or polished ideas, ie. you only have ideas for icons and only have 2 hours to create the proposal, capture the main idea but don't worry about detail. - Join the marketing mailing list to help us with implementing the final design: https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/call_for_marketing_volunteers - I don't have design skills?! - Go to our wiki and help us by commenting on designs, DO NOT reply with comments about design in these mailing lists. - There is about 10 pages and they all could use some feedback in the comments: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.0+Brand+Refresh+Project - I will call for any final discussion on Saturday once the deadline has passed. I have added comments including the volunteer and organization hurdles to make certain branding changes. Regards, Dave If you have any concerns about this process reply here. Do not reply to this e-mail to talk about designs! Go to the wiki and add design comments there!
Re: Branding Refresh For AOO 4.0 [Closing in 72hrs]
(Note this discussion is going to be difficult because we are posting between two lists.) Adding back marketing, who are doing wonderful work. On Feb 21, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Feb 20, 2013, at 8:13 AM, Samer Mansour wrote: Hello AOO Dev and Marketing Community, The main subject of this e-mail is to call for an end date to proposals. In 72hrs (saturday) we will be closing branding proposals. - - - - - I am heading up the branding effort for the AOO 4.0 release and we can unanimously agree the 4.0 release will be a milestone for our community and users. For this special release the marketing team is taking on the effort to giving us a fresh look. The marketing team is starting to plot deadlines at the same time as the dev team, the marketing team can't keep proposing ideas forever, we actually need to do the work to get us there. Specially because some dev efforts require assets from our designers. What does that mean? - We're picking and choosing. Late submissions might not be considered (just the nature of just do it sorry). - Eliminating designs we don't like and smoothing and integrating ones we do like. - In a week from Saturday we will have a master proposal to present for lazy consensus. (at least that's the plan) I do not think that this can operate as lazy consensus,. it is a process that is more opinion based than most. It is possible that the Marketing team can make some discussions, but the community may have other preferences. Indeed I assume there would be many opinions. But in the discussion that had lead up to this has noted that there are well-established design and marketing best practices for logo desgin, and giving some trust to those volunteers with knowledge of these disciplines might yield a better result that throwing it out to a general vote of 400 subscribers to the dev list and their individual non-expert opinions. Now you could argue that opinions of non-experts is useful, and what the general public thinks is important. True, but that is better done with an expertly-designed survey of the general public, not by bikeshedding on the dev list. The opinions of non-experts are useful and that is a fact. This is not general public opinion it is the AOO community. An expertly designed survey is often called a BALLOT. Please design one to either validate a single decision, or to choose between a few of the designs so that the result is not a fait accompli. Validation is good. We've kicked the can down the road with regards to a grand contest for almost a year now. We're no closer to than we were when we started. Do we want to ship 4.0 with a half-assed logo attempt done at the last minute? Or do we want to let the marketing experts push this forward. Straw man. One year ago we had maybe 2 or 3 logo proposals. Now there are several logos and designs proposed and only a few are IMO half-assed. Many IMO are excellent! And remember, if someone really doesn't like the output of this process, they can object and offer an alternative at any time. But I don't think we can force a volunteer, or group of volunteers, to pursue a contest versus an approach based on best practices and working with a small set of already-active volunteers. Three points. (1) There is a public solicitation for proposals. These submissions must be fairly treated. (2) No force is involved. Just a suggestion and a reminder that LAZY CONSENSUS should not be assumed. If necessary we can design a ballot on the dev list. (3) The only legitimate VETO here is if the Logo and Design selected infringed or nearly infringed on another's mark (like one subtly does), or if it were somehow foul and offensive in some culture. In that case the technical alternative is to choose one of the non-infringing or insulting logos or designs. A VETO is a let's discuss this it must not be a your work is awful take it back. This argues that the sooner the community agrees the better. The Apache Way is about the flattest hierarchy possible. Decisions are to made (validated) on the dev list. Thanks and Regards, Dave Regards, -Rob I don't think that we need to be afraid of having a VOTE. Rules can be generated and this dev list can tolerate the extra traffic. I participated in a two round vote for Apache Flex. There were over 50 entries. Each ballot had 5 votes which allowed people with strong opinions to vote for one logo and others who liked many designs could split their vote. (Note this discussion is going to be difficult because we are posting between two lists.) How can you help? - - - - - - I have design skills! (or I think!) - Check out some guidelines and placements of the branding, see children of this cwiki page: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.0+Brand+Refresh+Project
Re: Branding Refresh For AOO 4.0 [Closing in 72hrs]
On Feb 21, 2013, at 4:02 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: (Note this discussion is going to be difficult because we are posting between two lists.) Adding back marketing, who are doing wonderful work. Look at http://flex.apache.org/. It might be an inspiration for someone. Regards, Dave On Feb 21, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Feb 20, 2013, at 8:13 AM, Samer Mansour wrote: Hello AOO Dev and Marketing Community, The main subject of this e-mail is to call for an end date to proposals. In 72hrs (saturday) we will be closing branding proposals. - - - - - I am heading up the branding effort for the AOO 4.0 release and we can unanimously agree the 4.0 release will be a milestone for our community and users. For this special release the marketing team is taking on the effort to giving us a fresh look. The marketing team is starting to plot deadlines at the same time as the dev team, the marketing team can't keep proposing ideas forever, we actually need to do the work to get us there. Specially because some dev efforts require assets from our designers. What does that mean? - We're picking and choosing. Late submissions might not be considered (just the nature of just do it sorry). - Eliminating designs we don't like and smoothing and integrating ones we do like. - In a week from Saturday we will have a master proposal to present for lazy consensus. (at least that's the plan) I do not think that this can operate as lazy consensus,. it is a process that is more opinion based than most. It is possible that the Marketing team can make some discussions, but the community may have other preferences. Indeed I assume there would be many opinions. But in the discussion that had lead up to this has noted that there are well-established design and marketing best practices for logo desgin, and giving some trust to those volunteers with knowledge of these disciplines might yield a better result that throwing it out to a general vote of 400 subscribers to the dev list and their individual non-expert opinions. Now you could argue that opinions of non-experts is useful, and what the general public thinks is important. True, but that is better done with an expertly-designed survey of the general public, not by bikeshedding on the dev list. The opinions of non-experts are useful and that is a fact. This is not general public opinion it is the AOO community. An expertly designed survey is often called a BALLOT. Please design one to either validate a single decision, or to choose between a few of the designs so that the result is not a fait accompli. Validation is good. We've kicked the can down the road with regards to a grand contest for almost a year now. We're no closer to than we were when we started. Do we want to ship 4.0 with a half-assed logo attempt done at the last minute? Or do we want to let the marketing experts push this forward. Straw man. One year ago we had maybe 2 or 3 logo proposals. Now there are several logos and designs proposed and only a few are IMO half-assed. Many IMO are excellent! And remember, if someone really doesn't like the output of this process, they can object and offer an alternative at any time. But I don't think we can force a volunteer, or group of volunteers, to pursue a contest versus an approach based on best practices and working with a small set of already-active volunteers. Three points. (1) There is a public solicitation for proposals. These submissions must be fairly treated. (2) No force is involved. Just a suggestion and a reminder that LAZY CONSENSUS should not be assumed. If necessary we can design a ballot on the dev list. (3) The only legitimate VETO here is if the Logo and Design selected infringed or nearly infringed on another's mark (like one subtly does), or if it were somehow foul and offensive in some culture. In that case the technical alternative is to choose one of the non-infringing or insulting logos or designs. A VETO is a let's discuss this it must not be a your work is awful take it back. This argues that the sooner the community agrees the better. The Apache Way is about the flattest hierarchy possible. Decisions are to made (validated) on the dev list. Thanks and Regards, Dave Regards, -Rob I don't think that we need to be afraid of having a VOTE. Rules can be generated and this dev list can tolerate the extra traffic. I participated in a two round vote for Apache Flex. There were over 50 entries. Each ballot had 5 votes which allowed people with strong opinions to vote for one logo and others who liked many designs could split their vote. (Note this discussion is going to be difficult because we are posting between two lists.) How can you help? - - - - - - I have design skills! (or I think
Re: Interesting blog post on Crowd-funding of open source development
On Feb 22, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Looking at how these sites are actually being used, it looks more like: 1) Users offering monetary rewards to fix specific bugs or make specific enhancements. The rewards are on the order of 10-100 USD, not large enough to actually fund a developer's time (at prevailing rates) but more of a token reward, a way of drawing attention to the bug, giving recognition to the developer. 2) Developers describing more significant features that they would develop for a given amount is pledged. These are more significant amounts, 7000 USD I saw in one case. The interesting aspect of it is that the funds do not need to come from one user. Typically several (many) users pledge a small amount, and if the total amount reaches the target then the developer promises to develop the feature. IMHO this is good for users and developers. We already have the means for customers with heavy needs to buy the support they need. They either employ an engineer directly, or hire a consultant. But this is out of reach for individual users, or many small businesses who might just need something small done, but can't do it themselves. -Rob A couple things... First of all, wasn't this along the lines of TeamOpenOffice's business model? I have no idea. Their business model was obscure to me and I never saw any code come out from it. One difference here is there would not be an implied affiliation. That, not the business model, was what was problematic with Team OpenOffice. Their business model was We are OpenOffice, give us money to Save OpenOffice or it will die. They did produce a 3.3 version of OpenOffice - the so-called White Label. Second, people pledge money to kickstarters to accomplish certain things. As in, the money generally comes either before or while things are getting done. But, AOO being the volunteer-driven project that it is, what if some bug's resolution is being kickstart-funded but some volunteer wakes up at 3 am with an itch and solves the bug independently? What would happen with the pledged money? That would be for the sponsor and the programmer to work out, per the rules of that crowdfunding site. We would not be involved in resolving disputes. Exactly, and many developers here are funded by their employers. Others may be funded by contracts and bounties, etc. We just need to make sure that our decisions are based on the work performed and what's best for the project and not for our employers and funders. It must be clear that there is no affiliation with nor endorsement by the AOO project and the ASF. Otherwise this is a fantastic idea. Regards, Dave -Rob Don
Re: Draft blog post: Call for Documentation Volunteers
On Feb 25, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=call_for_documentation_volunteers Looks good. Did you want to say something about testing the new release by writing documentation with it? The actual writing for the new User Guides will be using the wiki. But perhaps the detailed walk-through of the product needed to document every dialog, etc., helps with the test coverage? Nice post. One question for clarification. Which Wiki? I think we all probably agree that it is the MWiki, and I think we can describe why to choose one vs the other. MWiki is for documentation that is permanent while CWiki is for planning that is transitory - we'll plan an action but it is not really documentation. Regards, Dave -Rob Don
Re: Review Board
Only if we are going to become a Review Then Commit project. Otherwise I think it becomes yet another system to learn how to use. On Mar 8, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Rob Weir wrote: https://reviews.apache.org I didn't know that this existed at Apache. Should we be using it? -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Review Board
On Mar 8, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 4:21 PM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 8 March 2013 22:16, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: Only if we are going to become a Review Then Commit project. I was thinking more of whether it would be useful for working with patch contributions from contributors. Just be careful not to set level too high for volunteers, in my opinion the mailing list is more than enough, no need for extra layers to complicate matters. That's exactly the issue. The mailing list is so busy that new volunteers get lost, and their patches as well. And if they toss their patches to bugzilla, the patches can easily be lost there was well. So the question is whether a dedicated place for patches, with no distracting complications, would be preferred. If there are volunteers who will do RTC work for new code contributors then this might be an improvement to bug tracking. Regards, Dave -Rob rgds Jan I. -Rob Otherwise I think it becomes yet another system to learn how to use. On Mar 8, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Rob Weir wrote: https://reviews.apache.org I didn't know that this existed at Apache. Should we be using it? -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: suggestion for another cwiki change..new
I am personally fine with whatever you do along the lines of surfacing current planning efforts and archiving old efforts. For cwiki articles that should be moved to Mwiki then perhaps a For MWiki category would make sense. If you need someone with full confluence admin rights let me know, I'm happy to help. Regards, Dave On Mar 9, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: Right now, for top level categories on cwiki, we have the following: - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-Translate-Plan?moved=true# Project Planninghttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Planning - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-Translate-Plan?moved=true# User Documentation Planhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Documentation+Plan - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-Translate-Plan?moved=true# Marketing Planninghttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Marketing+Planning - Development Snapshot Buildshttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-Translate-Plan?moved=true# Project Reportinghttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Reporting - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-Translate-Plan?moved=true# Localization Planninghttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Localization+Planning - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-Translate-Plan?moved=true# QA Planninghttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/QA+Planning - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-Translate-Plan?moved=true# AOO4 Brainstorminghttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO4+Brainstorming - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-Translate-Plan?moved=true# Board Reportshttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Board+Reports - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-Translate-Plan?moved=true# Directory of Volunteershttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Directory+of+Volunteers - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-Translate-Plan?moved=true# Archive https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Archive - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-Translate-Plan?moved=true# Strategic Planshttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Strategic+Plans Now for releases, release planning, we have the AOO 3.4 Release Plan is its own subcategory under Project Planning. However, other Release Plans are under a sub-category called Releases. Are there any objections to promoting Releases to a top-level category and put the various version release plans under that (including 3.4)? I must be in a spring cleaning mood! :} -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A question about existing practices
Sent from my iPhone On Mar 18, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: From my perspective, Jörg's concern is very simple. There are actions and arrangements that have been made that encourage certain expectations in the mind of persons who participate and contribute in various ways. And when those expectations are unsatisfied, that leads to assessments and opinions about the project. The Apache OpenOffice project could take responsibility for the fact that some aspects of our structures do encourage such expectations. A possible approach is to remove something that establishes expectations that there is no desire to see as creating any commitment on the part of the project. Having voting buttons is an example. Another possibility would be to add more transparency and visibility to the stuck issues that have received many votes and that are not going anywhere (and the rationale for that). Oh, no. Buttons are very useful, even if they do nothing. This has been experimentally verified. In fact, some towns now have buttons at crosswalks that do absolutely nothing. But the people waiting for the light to change are happier having a button to press, thinking that it actually makes the light change faster. So expectations are important. I don't doubt that. In California you will wait along time to cross at some intersections if you fail to press the button. Some of these are dummies or are broken, but a lot work. In other situations, there is immediate action and sometimes abrupt action taken to clarify a mistaken expectation. Someone who wants telephone contact from a support person, or who has some other demand is usually straightened-out immediately, even though bouncing someone to the Forums or users @o.a.o for support is sometimes rather circumspect. Folks who think posts to lists are private communications are dissuaded of that. Of course, participants and observers take away whatever impressions of the AOO project that they do. In some case, it is important to accept that our arrangements contribute to some of those and that it is in our hands to find a responsible adjustment. I am not lobbying for a particular resolution (no guessing, please). I do think that the situation deserves recognition and not deflection. - Dennis PS: My all-time favorite unreconcilable voted-for issue is the request for Reveal Codes in the manner of WordPerfect. -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 06:13 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: A question about existing practices On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Jörg Schmidt joe...@j-m-schmidt.de wrote: From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] A promise to do what? The opinion of the user to be taken seriously because you have asked him to speak his mind. But a feature request? This is an opinion of our users. It should be important to us. [ ... ] It's about respect for what we bring to our users, because it is a fundamental difference between what we need to do and what we should do so voluntarily. The title of the tread is A question about existing practices. I think the facts are quite clear. If we have many 10 year old untouched BZ issues then fixing these issues is not part of our existing practice, whether you define that as mandatory, voluntary or whatever. Practice is what we do, not what we talk about doing. If you want to argue that we talk a lot about fixing old issues, and say many solemn things about how important they are, then I would agree with you 100%. But we don't actually do anything about them. [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A question about existing practices
Top post. There is no consensus here to eliminate or reset the votes. Some who are more in touch with users have stated that it would be harmful. I trust their judgement. Issues that are recent that get votes should be discernible by developers looking at BZ. Any issue with a lot of votes might be interesting for a new developer. Reveal codes could become reveal ODF someone with a C++ programming dog and a java programming cat might do it someday. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 18, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/18/13 5:34 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:32 AM, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/3/18 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:11 AM, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/3/18 Jörg Schmidt joe...@j-m-schmidt.de -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] I'd say, Thanks for the suggestion. We take all suggestions seriously, and user suggestions are often the source of ideas that make it into the product. Thank you for using AOO. Sounds fine for me. The title of the tread is A question about existing practices. I think the facts are quite clear. If we have many 10 year old untouched BZ issues then fixing these issues is not part of our existing practice, whether you define that as mandatory, voluntary or whatever. No problem. Practice is what we do, not what we talk about doing. Yes, but what we must be as clearly defined this user can foresee it. Why? If I as a user know any bug in the program, it may be important for me to know _approximately_ when this will be fixed. you want to argue that we talk a lot about fixing old issues, and say many solemn things about how important they are, then I would agree with you 100%. But we don't actually do anything about them. I do not know how to define something should, but I know that you have to make it transparent. For example, a road map for developing the program is important because it clarifies what new features AOO will have in the future. That's right, that's a good thing. But it is also important to clarify how to deal with bugs and feature wishes of users. There was the suggestion to delete all old votes, only we must still clarify how we handle new votes. I think. +1. There is an old joke: I'm only responsible for what I say not for what you understand, but the fact is that being AOO an end user application what our users understand IS important for us. And what will people understand if they know all those votes are being deleted? IMO, users will take this as they do not care about our votes, why should I vote again? Why should I fill a bug report that nobody reads? and that's a really bad thing. They'll believe what we tell them. If we say that we're resetting the vote counts in order to determine what is most relevant to users today, starting with an unbiased and fresh view of today's users priorities, and not to over-advantage the dead hand of decade-old votes from users who may or may not even still be using OpenOffice today, then this will be seen as a good thing. If you want to know how relevant old issues are, once we have a working survey system we can start a series of surveys about most wanted features requests. IMO, the only valid way to delete votes, the only way that show respect to our users is to close the corresponding issues. The fact that there are decade old issues demonstrates that they are not relevant at all. The fact that there are decade old issues only demonstrate they are still unresolved: nothing more, nothing less. Are you saying the request to provide support for opentype features is obsolete only because nobody solved it since the issue was filled on 2003, and that we need to trash the more than 200 votes for it? Sorry, but that makes no sense... Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. If you want to argue the contrary you would need to explain what the relevance is of issues that are 10-years old and have not been touched and probably never will be. I might as well keep in a box my letters to Santa Claus from when I was a child, in hopes that they may be someday delivered. If something has not been touched for 10 years this is an extremely strong indication that it is irrelevant. Things that are important tend to be done. Things that are not important do not get done. I know of no other measure for determining this. I don't think that it help us forward if we nitpicking further about different understanding if something is still relevant or obsolete. The point is that Rob is correct to assume that if a 10 year old issue/RFE is not yet addressed it will be likely not addressed in the next 10 years if not a huge bunch of developers fall down of heaven. The question is if we want to use the voting feature in the future if it is useful to reset the current votes or
Re: Forums down (SQL error: Too many connections [1040])
In these situations it is best to get on irc #asfinfra and ask in general about it. Imacat might be there but there is usually at least one infra person on line. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 20, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Hagar Delest wrote: It has worked fine the 5 previous years. So there must be somthing that has been done on the hosting part. Someone must have taken action here (imacat again, maybe?) since both yesterday and today we had outages and then the normal functioning was restored. I was probably just lucky, but I never saw the forum offline these days. Who has shell access to that virtual machine? Can someone check the MySQL max_connections parameter as asked on this list? As for the Nagios monitoring http://status.apache.org/ ; indeed the current checks are probably not accurate enough to ensure that the forums are reachable. They are checking that a URL is active (probably, from my reverse engineering, http://user.services.openoffice.org/ , which is the only one that returns HTTP code 301 as reported by Nagios) so no alerts are sent out if this redirect is active. If we give them a better URL, which should likely be something under http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/ , and a patch to the Nagios config they can apply it. Remember that this service is officially unsupported, but Infra tries to be helpful nevertheless. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Forums down (SQL error: Too many connections [1040])
The community still needs a LAMP / MySQL sysadmin to check the tuning so that connection leaks don't take it down later (or sooner) If someone in the project did the work we should be informed. Thanks, Dave On Mar 21, 2013, at 10:14 AM, FR web forum wrote: Well, the forums are fluids now (seems to be good since 01:00pm UTC+1). Who is the pixie or the little fairy? Congratulations to this mysterious wizard. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [CODE][PROPOSAL]: AOO 4.0 getting rid of the 3 layer office, part 1
This has win, win, win all over it! Does this allow 4.0 to co-exist with 3.4.1 or LO? Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone On Mar 22, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org wrote: Great work Jürgen, I am impressed. -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Conversation: Pick A Logo
On Mar 29, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Robin Fowler robin.fow...@outlook.comwrote: Due to the opinions I've seen so far I've decided to make a new design: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/27846912/OO_4_final_design_Robin-Fowler.jpg?version=1modificationDate=1364582663662 Overall it has a flat look and yet still some depth to make it stand out from the microsoft brand. I think it is also important to think about the form itself, the silhouette should ideally be recognisable on its own, which is one reason using the apache feather is a good idea. I like this one too in addition to the other flat designs. My tendency would be give APACHE a bit more emphasis maybe with a more blocky/heavier font. Size-wize it seems about right. I know this is not a good explanation. And, I like the feather but think maybe it needs to be a bit smaller from top to bottom in relation to the orb, and perhaps a slightly different color unless that causes clashes/concerns. Really I like this one quite a bit! And I have enjoyed your other work also. Really I amazed at the amount of creativity and quality in these designs! Agreed and the wiki has some very nice progressions. I think that there is room for a large version Orb w/subtly shaded landmasses that would work well in large format versions of the logo. Some other thoughts: One of the problems i see with a lot of the proposals is the lack of thought given to typography. It seems the text is just slapped on as an afterthought, in many cases the 'apache' is floating somewhere randomly above 'openoffice'. Think of what you want the logo to imply, it should not look disorganised. Another thing worth pointing out is the kerning (spacing between letters) which could be optimised on some of the proposals. As I shrink the Logo image to smaller sizes. I think that the LogoType gets too small too quickly. But one of the beauties of this kind of logo design is that you can set a minimum size for the type and have that be larger than the minimum size for the orb/feather combination. I also like Chris R's logos - #13. Regards, Dave This is an extremely important aspect of the whole logo design and should be considered when choosing a design. After all, many logos consist of nothing other than text. I also want to say i really like Vasilis Xenofontos design. It might be too different from the current, but it's a very good logo imo. Robin On 28 Mar 2013, at 12:38, Samer Mansour samer...@gmail.com wrote: Robin brought up a good point that we should pick a logo before we start work on the application artifacts or the website as it will influence those. I initially was excited that we could have a new logo, an opportunity to change the face of OpenOffice. But after I saw Chris R. proposal I convinced myself refreshing rather than re-branding was the better path. So I would like to start a conversation that will hopefully give us strong arguments to picking a logo. I already mentioned I liked the flat logo. Here are reasons: - It is very similar to the current logo and that logo has a history of being recognized. - Flat is 'in', easily recognizable on and works well on social platforms, screens and print media. (Think corporate and product logos of today, recently Pepsi, Domino's, Microsoft, Skype, Twitter) - This logo can be severed from the word mark to make it fit in a square and still carry the branding image. Icons, site, etc. - A middle ground for community members who like the current logo. Who want to achieve a new image of 4.0 without tossing history. Looking back, we had lots of ideas but it only took me a moment when i saw Chris r.'s proposal to realize the logo didn't need to be complex and completely new. That simple was actually beautiful. Thoughts? Agree? Disagree (and your solution is)? Samer Mansour - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Conversation: Pick A Logo
True. What we come up with should be reviewed by trademarks@ I doubt it will be a problem. Several projects have versions of the feather in their logos. Here is a very stylized one: http://directory.apache.org/ Here is a whimsical version with The Feather: http://forrest.apache.org/ Regards, Dave On Mar 29, 2013, at 2:13 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: If you go with a stylized feather, please check with trademarks@ a.o. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 13:52 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Conversation: Pick A Logo On Mar 29, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Robin Fowler robin.fow...@outlook.comwrote: Due to the opinions I've seen so far I've decided to make a new design: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/27846912/OO_4_final_design_Robin-Fowler.jpg?version=1modificationDate=1364582663662 Overall it has a flat look and yet still some depth to make it stand out from the microsoft brand. I think it is also important to think about the form itself, the silhouette should ideally be recognisable on its own, which is one reason using the apache feather is a good idea. I like this one too in addition to the other flat designs. My tendency would be give APACHE a bit more emphasis maybe with a more blocky/heavier font. Size-wize it seems about right. I know this is not a good explanation. And, I like the feather but think maybe it needs to be a bit smaller from top to bottom in relation to the orb, and perhaps a slightly different color unless that causes clashes/concerns. Really I like this one quite a bit! And I have enjoyed your other work also. Really I amazed at the amount of creativity and quality in these designs! Agreed and the wiki has some very nice progressions. I think that there is room for a large version Orb w/subtly shaded landmasses that would work well in large format versions of the logo. Some other thoughts: One of the problems i see with a lot of the proposals is the lack of thought given to typography. It seems the text is just slapped on as an afterthought, in many cases the 'apache' is floating somewhere randomly above 'openoffice'. Think of what you want the logo to imply, it should not look disorganised. Another thing worth pointing out is the kerning (spacing between letters) which could be optimised on some of the proposals. As I shrink the Logo image to smaller sizes. I think that the LogoType gets too small too quickly. But one of the beauties of this kind of logo design is that you can set a minimum size for the type and have that be larger than the minimum size for the orb/feather combination. I also like Chris R's logos - #13. Regards, Dave This is an extremely important aspect of the whole logo design and should be considered when choosing a design. After all, many logos consist of nothing other than text. I also want to say i really like Vasilis Xenofontos design. It might be too different from the current, but it's a very good logo imo. Robin On 28 Mar 2013, at 12:38, Samer Mansour samer...@gmail.com wrote: Robin brought up a good point that we should pick a logo before we start work on the application artifacts or the website as it will influence those. I initially was excited that we could have a new logo, an opportunity to change the face of OpenOffice. But after I saw Chris R. proposal I convinced myself refreshing rather than re-branding was the better path. So I would like to start a conversation that will hopefully give us strong arguments to picking a logo. I already mentioned I liked the flat logo. Here are reasons: - It is very similar to the current logo and that logo has a history of being recognized. - Flat is 'in', easily recognizable on and works well on social platforms, screens and print media. (Think corporate and product logos of today, recently Pepsi, Domino's, Microsoft, Skype, Twitter) - This logo can be severed from the word mark to make it fit in a square and still carry the branding image. Icons, site, etc. - A middle ground for community members who like the current logo. Who want to achieve a new image of 4.0 without tossing history. Looking back, we had lots of ideas but it only took me a moment when i saw Chris r.'s proposal to realize the logo didn't need to be complex and completely new. That simple was actually beautiful. Thoughts? Agree? Disagree (and your solution is)? Samer Mansour - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right
Re: [Website] Re-locate images from download/images/ to images/
Hi Marcus,
On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:12 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
Hi Rob,
I want to cleanup the structure and remove 1 of the 2 directories for images.
Therefore I've added the images from download/images also to images/ and
updated the download/index.html to point to the new location.
Please tell me, is it save to remove the download/images/ directory? If not
what else has to be updated?
The following pages still refer to download/images.
David-Fishers-MacBook-Air:ooo-site dave$ find . -name *.html -exec grep -li
download/images {} \;
./trunk/content/ja/download/3.2.0/index.html
./trunk/content/ja/download/3.2.0/index_test.html
./trunk/content/ja/download/index.html
./trunk/content/ja/download/index_testing.html
./trunk/content/promotions/dfd.html
./trunk/content/sk/download/index.html
./trunk/content/zh-cn/download/index.html
Regards,
Dave
Thanks
Marcus
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal: Improve security by limiting committer access in SVN
I'm going to top-post. I agree that this is a good idea, but I want to define it expansively as a positive. (1) The current authz that defines all of the AOO committers must be preserved. This is used to generate foundation information like: http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#openoffice (2) Let's focus only on adding one new authz list for the code tree. Call it openoffice-coders and populate it with those who HAVE any commit activity in the current code tree. With ta coders authz everyone knows who is on the list by checking: http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#openoffice-coders People can then really know who to bug to get their patch committed. (3) Andrea as PMC Chair or any Apache Member has karma to add or remove people on the coders authz. We can debate the rules, but those don't effect the structure implied. Let's look for Consensus on the structure first. Once that is out of the way we can easily describe how this new structure is a significant improvement and that it is a win all around without a real downside. (Some will spin a downside and parrying that is a different discussion.) Regards, Dave On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Jürgen Schmidt wrote: [...] On 3 April 2013 14:39, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: one change to our current process that will, I think, greatly increase security. This would be to restrict SVN authorization for the code I don't think this would greatly increase security, since the current review model would still be the better defense. But surely this doesn't decrease security and doesn't impact on people who are not using it. Good to think in layers of security. An account that is not authorized is an account we don't need to worry about at all. Note: we have people currently authorized for our source code, who have *never* checked in code and who have *never* posted on the mailing list. I have a heard time believing that they are following best practices to avoid losing control of their Apache login credentials. I see also no problem if we handle it more careful and give svn access to the code on demand only. Nobody should take it personal Before we manage again to make simple discussions complex, let's see: - All committers have the right to have write access to the source code Yes, though the right is a de jure right, not exactly equivalent to the technical authorization. But one should lead to the other on demand. - By default 3 subtrees (trunk, tags, branches) are read-only - Any committer can receive write access to the 3 subtrees immediately, by sending an e-mail here This could be fine for me, provided that: 1) We have the right way to manage this (another LDAP group does not look like the right solution: people who don't want to understand correctly will invent that this is a multi-level hierarchy while it would simply be a permission that we enable on demand) 2) Enabling write access is extremely simple, especially if this is something that I must take care of! Something like the current modify_unix_group.pl scripts currently used for the committers group. I'd do it like this: 0) Call it active and dormant statuses. This doesn't change status as a committer, just status of SVN authorization. 1) By default the active list includes only those who have made commits to those trees in the last 12 months (or some other suitable time period). Ever would be a fine time period as well. 2) Everyone else has authorization for /site, /ooo-site and /devtools 3) Any committer can be added to the active list on demand. 4) New committers are explained this when they are voted in and asked if they want to be on the active list for Subversion. Regards, -Rob Regards, Andrea. --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal: Improve security by limiting committer access in SVN
that in the name of an active committer it would be *immediately* detected. WTF!? I didn't check that in! But when done in the name of an unactive committer it would be less likely to be noticed for what it is. We might check twice, but that doesn't mean we'd catch all or even most deliberate attacks. But whatever detection rate we would have there it would be far less than the presentation rate for not having authorization enabled at all. The prevention rate there is 100% Regards, -Rob Cheers, -g On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 05:59:31PM +, Greg Stein wrote: Speaking as one of those old-hands, Dennis is absolutely spot-on. Partitions, barriers, sub-groups... I call those divisive mechanisms which serve to divide the community. Such divisions are rarely needed. As Andrea points out, in Subversion's 13 year history, we have only *requested* people observe certain fences. We have never had a problem. We have never had to take sanctions. A stray commit here and there? Sure, it has happened, with the best intent, so we just point out that they need a bit more caution. No harm done. Back to Dennis' point: the solution here is proper review of the commits that occur. (IMO) NOT a way to *exclude* or to *limit* the potential contributions of others. Cheers, -g On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:23:39AM -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: In previous generations of this kind of discussion, the ASF old-hands will point out that the social process works quite well, folks don't do commits unless they feel qualified to do so, and it is often the case that committers will request RTC (i.e., submit patches rather than update the SVN) in contributing where they are not experienced or don't consider themselves expert. At the ASF this appears to be one of those, if it is not broken, don't fix it. There is still the concern about stolen credentials used to perform undetected malicious acts. If the oversight that the project naturally brings to bear on visible changes to the code base is insufficient, I think the problem is greater than there being a possible exploit of that inattention. Mechanical solutions may be part of the disease, not the cure [;). - Dennis -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 08:57 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Proposal: Improve security by limiting committer access in SVN Dave Fisher wrote: Let's focus only on adding one new authz list for the code tree. Call it openoffice-coders and populate it with those who HAVE any commit activity in the current code tree. I checked feasibility with Infra. Summary: 1) LDAP is not the solution. Rule it out. 2) The only possible solution would be an authz rule like suggested by Dave here; however, Infra quite discourages it, mainly for maintenance reasons. This leads me to think we would need some good justifications for implementing this. 3) If the justification is security, then there are other privileges to monitor. Namely, every committer has shell access to people.apache.org , authenticated access to the Apache SMTP server and CMS privileges for the openoffice.org website, including publish operations. For the record, the Subversion project has complex rules like Rob pointed out; but it's only a social enforcement, i.e., all committers respect those limitations by their own choice; if you look at the technical level, every committer (all Apache committers) can commit code to the Subversion subtree. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Proposal]: Call for donations
We can easily copy the Donate button from the footer to the topnav. We can request that l10n teams add a translated donate button for their language. If they haven't translated their brand and topnav now would a time to do so. We would want to translate the fundraising page, too. Is this a vehicle for incrementally starting the new web hierarchy? Some variation on the plans that many of us have kicked around? On Apr 4, 2013, at 4:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: You might want to talk to fundraising@ before you do anything --- not as much for permission as for ideas on how to frame the Please donate request. (fundraising@ is privately-archived) Joseph Schaefer wrote on Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 18:38:18 -0400: FWIW last time I checked there was a huge increase in paypal donations once OpenOffice adjusted it's contribution page accordingly. On Apr 4, 2013, at 6:21 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Raphael Bircher wrote: Am 04.04.13 14:22, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: And opinions or further ideas how we can improve this? It shouldn't be a big problem for us to collect the money we need. I disagree. Yes, we can help with foundings for ASF, but please do this on ASF Level. Founding money is not the task of a ASF project, It's the task for the foundation. The Foundation is made by its projects, so OpenOffice should definitely help with fundraising. Consider that OpenOffice (downloads excluded!) generates as much web traffic as all the other Apache projects put together, or something reasonably close to that. Also, the OpenOffice infrastructure requirements (buildbots, management) generates additional expenses for the Foundation that only benefit the OpenOffice project. In short: if OpenOffice can use its web traffic and popularity to drive more donations to the Foundation, it will surely directly benefit from most of them. So I agree with Juergen that we should solicit donations. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Website] Re-locate images from download/images/ to images/
All image directories and img links can be discovered and converted in an offline checkout of the site. It could be automated. Different image files of the same name can be diffed. It is all discoverable. Doing it manually is a mess. I discovered this during the ooo-site port from Oracle's Kenai which was actually a recent port from CollabraNet that was rather broken. The point is that OOo is a mess different project sites did different things. There are some beautiful yurts on the Mongolian site: http://www.openoffice.org/mn/ Regards, Dave On Apr 4, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 04/05/2013 12:18 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 04/01/2013 03:12 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Hi Rob, I want to cleanup the structure and remove 1 of the 2 directories for images. Therefore I've added the images from download/images also to images/ and updated the download/index.html to point to the new location. Please tell me, is it save to remove the download/images/ directory? If not what else has to be updated? I'm not sure I like the idea of having a global images directory rather than having images scoped to the subtree where they are actually used. Having a single global directory increases the changes of having accidental conflicts. But if you want to make this change, That's not what I want. Please read again. I just want to get rid of 1 of the 2 images directories in the download/ sub-dir. Of course it doesn't make sense to have a single images dir for the entire website. ;-) Actually I don't think a single images directory for the whole site is such a bad idea. We could subdivide it by area -- e.e. images/download. Maybe worth discussing at some point? What advantage do you see to that? I could see that for common images that were essentially global this might make sense. But otherwise having images contained in the subtree that uses them gives more isolation, prevents name collisions, accidental side effects, etc. Of course from an information standpoint foo/bar and bar/foo are equally expressive. But I think we're more likely to copy, move, translate, etc., subsites as a whole, so having, e.g., /download be self-contained is a nice property. be sure to test each of the Help spread the word links for Twitter/Facebook/Google+ to make sure those applications are finding the right images. I don't mean the image on our page. I mean the image on the post once it is on Facebook, etc. Since hundreds of such posts have already been made, we probably don't want to break any of those links. You mean Twitter/Facebook/Google+ articles are referring to .../download/images/* files? That's bad, then we won't never be able to move such kind of files in the future. I don't know this. I'm just suggesting that it is something we should check. We have over 7 million external links into www.openoffice.org. So it is hard to make any significant changes without breaking something. But that shouldn't prevent us from making improvements. But if we make any big changes we'll want to go back and see if any critical external sites need to be notified/updated. When I see this correct, then the files that you have checked-in into www.oo.org/download/images/ are not that old - much more recent than the files in www.oo.org/download/cachedimages/. IMHO not enough to get wide-spreaded like other data on our website. Do you remember where you have used the image files? Then I (or you) could change the links to the new files in www.oo.org/images/. And any more broken links can be changed then. So, can you help me with this? Thanks Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Conversation: Pick A Logo
On Apr 5, 2013, at 8:02 AM, janI wrote: On 5 April 2013 16:52, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:37 AM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 5 April 2013 14:50, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/5/13 6:01 AM, Samer Mansour wrote: Hello Everyone, Can I propose we move forward with this logo: http://imagebin.org/252847 I kept the current official blue for both the logo and word 'Open' in the wordmark because the word 'Open' gets less emphasis with the lighter blue. I also gave the text Apache a placement inside the valley made by the two O's as many people's designs had suggested. The font is Roboto Condensed which is Apache 2.0 Licensed. mmh, I don't think that it would be a good approach if we simply move forward with this one. We collected several proposals over weeks now and it is still not easy to pick the serious ones. We should summarize what we have, maybe drop the obvious bad ones and start a first vote. the 3 best voted proposals will be reviewed in more detail if they fulfill our requirements and if we can appropriate further brand elements like icons, app icon, etc. Maybe call the initial thing a poll rather than a vote. It is a form of testing, really, gathering feedback in a structured way. But it is not a decision-making process. We could put the top 3 into a blog post and gather feedback and preferences on blog, mailing list, facebook, etc. We'll also get 'expert opinion' from those who understand logos well. This all gives the PMC some solid information, from community members, users, experts, etc., to make a final decision. Ideally these sources concur on their preferences. But there might be divergent views. But the PMC decides in the end. I have lost the overview of how many logos are in competition, since it do not follow this theme intensively. I have seen at least one I really liked, but to fair I think we should make one page (mwiki/cwiki or something else) where everybody can see the competing logos side by side. The logos should each be structured as Web-logo, software-logo and favicon (many seems to forget this important part). With such a page the community can give their opinion (I agree with rob, no vote just a poll), and the 3 best, go in a second round, and of course pmc officially decide, but I am pretty sure they will follow the opinion of the community. I personally would not take the 3 best to a blog/facebook etcthis is our product, and we the community decide how to present it to the end-users. I think of the Facebook thing would be more a poll then a decision making process. It is another source of info. As a PMC member, the more data I have to help make decisions the better. I'd weigh heavily community opinion on our mailing lists, but I'd also be interesting in taking the pulse of ordinary users who are seeing these things for the first time with a fresh perspecitve, as well as the opinions of experts. It is all data. It is all good. It is our product, yes, but the logo is not for our private adoration. It is functional, in the sense that its distinctiveness and recognizably is as important as its aesthetics. Personally, to make up my mind, I need to have feedback on how outsiders see and mentally process the logo, and not just how project insiders see it. I think it needs to work well for all. Point taken, now I understand your view better and agree with it. But I would still like to see all logos on a single page in the 3 variants, that would help me and others make up our minds, and give you as PMC better input. All logos on a new wiki page. If a designer wants to remove some of their designs from consideration now would be the time. I agree with having a poll. Keep track of the source of each set of results. Interpret the poll here on the list. If there is no consensus on the best choice then we have a vote. If there are more than 2 possible best choices we can use a ranked choice voting method. Seems like a plan. Would be something to start next week. Maybe Tuesday? Regards, Dave rgds jan I. -Rob Rgds Jan I. -Rob Then start the final vote. Just my opinion Juergen The source file is an SVG created in Inkscape. The above is a png export. Samer On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Samer Mansour samer...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I will wait a few more days but it sounds like the group will be able to come to a consensus on refreshing the orb in some way or another. We can proceed with finalizing this logo proposal if no one objectifies. Samer On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Kadal Amutham vka...@gmail.com wrote: A flat logo may be good for Pepsi, Domino's, Microsoft, Skype, Twitter since they have money power to promote. What AOO needs is a good looking
Re: wiki, forum, www performance upgrade.
On Apr 6, 2013, at 2:51 AM, janI wrote: Hi. Now that our wiki (mwiki) runs smoothly and performs quite well, it is slowly time to take a look at our other services. In order to determine what should/can be done, I need some figures. Can anybody help me with traffic figures for wiki.o.o, forum.o.o (total for the vm not per language) and www.o.o Does end-users download directly from www.o.o or from a secondary site ? I need the following numbers (if possible): - daily number of clicks (average) - peak number of clicks within a short period like 1 hour I would like to tune at least forum before we release 4.0 to prepare for a higher load. Tuning of www depend on a discussion with infra, because it is a shared service. The website is as tuned as can be. All that is served is static content with server side includes. It is served along with www.apache.org and all the other TLPs. Everyone publishes using staging and svnpubsub. It is a standard. I think we should focus on our unique environments and conform to Infra for www. An exception would be is the project wanted some type of CRUD service. In that case we are where we are with the MWiki and Forum. Likely building a custom LAMP or Java/Tomcat stack on a VM. Regards, Dave Translate-vm also needs tunings, but that is in progress, and infra has been very kind and prepared an extra vm, so we/I install/tune without affecting the active system. thx in advance for figures. rgds jan I. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Draft blog post: Welcome GSoC Students!
On Apr 9, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 04/09/2013 11:46 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: https://blogs.apache.org/**preview/OOo/?previewEntry=** welcome_to_gsoc_students https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=welcome_to_gsoc_students Nice short text. And always a well-fitting picture. :-) Actually I would comment on the picture, having an all women picture could be misconstrude. Something similar happened to me when we assign a hreoin character as the face of a tech event saying it was somewhat sexist, specially since most of our atendees are male. The character stayed but it did remind me that picture to the issue we had. It does need some proof reading. s/Foundation is mentoring/Foundation is a mentoring/ s/. So w/. W/ s/. So t/.T/ s/Mentors/GoSC mentors/ Otherwise great. Regards, Dave Marcus --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor http://es.openoffice.org I like the post, and I LOVE the picture, but I understand Alexandro's point as well. A gender mix might be better, but, well I wouldn't spend too much time worrying over this. This one is really great as far as I'm concerned. -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Official survey service? (Was: Re: Conversation: Pick A Logo)
On Apr 19, 2013, at 5:37 AM, janI wrote: On 19 April 2013 13:48, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:39 AM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 19 April 2013 13:29, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:20 AM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 18 April 2013 21:58, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: janI wrote: On 18 April 2013 13:13, Rob Weir wrote: If we want I can put a poll up on http://openofficesurvey.org. Where would like survey.openoffice.org to point to ? Indeed, let's avoid using unofficial domains when we can redirect an official subdomain. Redirecting the DNS won't pose a big burden on Infra and just requires (lazy) consensus here. Regards, Andrea. 23 hours, not bad for month-long wrestling match with Infra to get something like this set up !!! The patch I made for dns is up and running. you can open survey.openoffice.org. BUT something is not working in the other end, reply comes from hostmonster, with a possibilities to buy cars erc. The DNS stuff had to happen first, and only then I can get it working on my end. and yes I am a direct person, I like to tell people when they do something good and visa versa, but I dont like assuming ill behaivourbut that is just my way, and I am sorry if my direct way offended someonebut look infra got their part done, without wrestling. I'm not assuming bad behavior. I was just stating that I don't have the time to guess whether this is an occasion where we get a fast response or a slow one. The response time from Infra, IMHO, is entirely unpredictable. I have another DNS-related Infra request that are no more complicated and have waited almost a year. It looks like we were fortunate this time. or we have a better connection now :-) think about the other infra things that have happened lately (wiki, new translate, proxy setup), the ones I know off have all had resonable response time I was not trying to shoot at you, I just have another impression of infra...but of course, I am not neutral. Our need to pick a logo design is very predictable and the time line for that must go forward. So I was happy to move forward with this either way. If I can avoid a dependency on Infra that is a good thing, not a bad one. completely correct, but if the price is to have a non openoffice.orgsite, it is at least a high price to pay. Using a non-openoffice.org site is a non-issue. We've gathered user opinions on Google Moderator and Facebook, without problems. Other groups in the ASF have used Google Docs-based surveys. No one has ever raised concerns about using 3rd party services for this. This is not a high price to pay. In any case, my practice remains -- and I'm sure most in Infra would agree with me here -- if you can do something without having a dependency on Apache Infra it is a good thing. Let them focus on things that only they can do. Self-service is a good thing. No problem, everybody is entitled to have their opinion...I just try to help. You wrote earlier I have another DNS-related Infra request that are no more complicated and have waited almost a year I had a look in jira to find the issue, to see if I could solve it, but I cannot find any open issues with you as requestor, and when I search for DNS there are no really old issues. If you give me the jira number I will have a look at it, and maybe ask why it has waited so long. Exactly. There are five unordered principles to dealing with infrastructure. (1) Politeness. (2) Patience. (3) Persistence. (4) Be Willing to Help. The more you help, the more you understand, the more you can help, ... several project committers have done this. (5) Put the request in JIRA. Infra looks there when they have cycles. Regards, Dave rgds Jan I. -Rob @rob: can you please have a look at your end, you need problaly to add it as a vhost. Yes. I am not sure what the survey actually is, some kind of py/perl/js, I can get an idea, I can think about how we can move it to our own site. It is a PHP app, LimeSurvey. Pre-reqs are listed here: http://manual.limesurvey.org/wiki/Installation#1._Make_sure_you_can_use_LimeSurvey_on_your_website thx for the link, I will have a look at it. rgds jan I. Regards, -Rob rgds Jan I. --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: HTML5 animation module for impress
On Apr 22, 2013, at 2:13 AM, Andre Fischer wrote: On 22.04.2013 09:03, Alexandro Colorado wrote: Idea is pretty simple, with impress you can generate swf files with the slides from Impress. The animation code was broken for several ages. However, swf format has been somewhat fall on obsolecense. However HTML5 fileformat is gaining popularity. I think HTML5 to use for showing Impress animations is a good idea. Animations are encoded in SMIL (the animation part of SVG) anyway. The biggest problem is probably to get a good representation of the shapes (ie not bitmaps). If done right the result could be better then what Impress does today. I agree SVG is a nice subset of HTML5. Rendering to SVG is the path towards ODF on any browser. I think that the combination of Apache Flex, OpenOffice, POI, and PDFBox would be incredible. Any document on any device. The Apache Flex project is working on compiling Flex / ActionScript to HTML5 / Javascript. Regards, DAve -Andre JS has some vectorial dominance on Canvas and SVG, having a JS engine that can interprete the OpenOffice animation instruction into an JS animation. Here is a Canvas animation stress test example: http://www.html5canvastutorials.com/labs/html5-canvas-kineticjs-animation-stress-test/ On 4/22/13, Galileo Teco Juárez genital...@gmail.com wrote: how? a module, functioning in Impress, developed in HTML5? i did not understand the idea :D 2013/4/21 Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org Hi I wonder if an animation module for impress on HTML5 would be a good idea for GSoC. Something similar to Prezi, but on a more traditional Impress style. There is the CSS2 'screen' or presentation style which can get regular presentations and slide from one to the next. However a JS powered animation would be powerful enough to rebind the most standard animations like the typing, floating text, and even 3D transitioning. -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor http://es.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- *Galileo Teco Juarez* *Web:* http://80bits.wordpress.com *Twitter:* @genitalico http://twitter.com/genitalico *Linkedin:* http://mx.linkedin.com/pub/galileo-teco-ju%C3%A1rez/30/690/797 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Translation for AOO 4.0
Guys, http://openoffice.apache.org/list-conduct.html And if you are posting so many times in a single thread then I wonder if the purpose is immolation or what? The oxygen is certainly sucked out of what is an important decision - the community decision about releasing and when. We should go with what we have when we are ready and certain things as in ANY software release - corporate, commercial, or whatever - will need to go to the backlog. Tomorrow is another day and there will always be another thread. Thanks JanI - your many efforts and enthusiasm are appreciated, but when times are brittle take a break. I've there myself on many occasions. Thanks Rob your position is well moderated and intelligent, no need to have the last word. Sometimes it is good to let others articulate your position for you. Peace and enjoy your weekends! Best Regards, Dave On Apr 26, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 3:39 PM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 26 April 2013 20:42, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:10 PM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 26 April 2013 18:52, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Claudio Filho filh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Em 26/04/2013 12:13, janI j...@apache.org escreveu: for the record, this was not what I saidI simply believe that a feature without help (and documentation) is not complete and if released should be highlighted because our average user depend on help in many situations. Only to give an out perspective, this highlighted can return against we, as a incomplete or immature development. Imho, an important feature of aoo project is its concern in bring and deliver a product with high quality. So, the PoV of Ariel and Jan are solid. Then all the more reason for someone who cares to enter an issue into BZ for this. Don't you agree? I have not seen BZ yet for problems/shortcomming with new features in development (e.g. where are the detailed outstandings of IA2, jsc 3 layer change etc). The help/documentation issue is part of the general sidebar development, but of course we can make one big extra BZ for the 4.0 release just to please the administrative overhead. Actually, we just completed a test pass of the Sidebar, a new feature, and 65 new defects reports are in BZ. We use Bugzilla for tracking these things, even for new features. Once the developers have integrated the code into the trunk, posted a build and asked for testing to begin, then we use BZ for tracking issues. making BZ for problems/missing with ongoing development is highly problematic, I could f.x. make about 10 BZ for genLang, and I am pretty sure the sidebar developers/documenters/testers could make about at least 100 BZ if they wanted to. It would simply flood BZ, make real problems harder to spot, and put an extra burden on the people doing the work. I f.x. have a simply list with my outstandings,which is quite normal during the development/initial test phase. genLang isn't checked into the trunk, a build posted and a call for testing started, right? See the difference? making a special BZ for this issue, is in my opinion just an administrativ trix, it does not change 1 millimeter about the fact, that we have both a challenge. And also I dont understand why you separate this issue from all the other open issues with sidebar. I don''t see why you are separating this issue from all the other sidebar issues, which are, as I indicate, in BZ already. We should be focussing a lot more on solving our challenges !! And one way you can help is to enter issues with integrated features into Bugzilla. Though obviously you are just refusing, for stubbornness sake to do this. At this point I'm pretty sure if I suggested you should drink water you would rather go thirsty than do something that I suggested. So be it... may I politely suggest we keep a moderate tone on this list...I hope I did not write anything personal against anybody ! I you want to be personal, it should be kept off-listbut I surdenly understand when I am unwanted. I will take proper action. Jan, I intended no personal attack. I'm just making the observation that IMHO (and I'm entitled to opinions as well, yes?) the discussion is going nowhere, that to me it appears that you are entrenched in your views, and that I believe the easiest way to move this ahead is for me to just enter your issue into BZ myself, which I have now done: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122175 -Rob rgds. Jan I. Discussing whether or not help is integrated after both developers and documenters have told it is not, or whether or not a BZ should be filled out are not positive for the process or for our community. I agree that discussing it is silly. You should just enter the issue and BZ and stop talking about it. -Rob
Re: tech support
This query was moderated into the list. I've included Martin in the response. On Apr 27, 2013, at 12:36 AM, Rory O'Farrell wrote: On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 00:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Martin Obrien pingjock...@ameritech.net wrote: I am trying to get help with a sudden aberration I am experiencing with Open Office. Can you please send me in the right direction? The Forum at http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/ offers good support for Users dealing with OpenOffice problems. You will need to give full details of your Operating System, OpenOffice version and the problem. -- Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal: Improve security by limiting committer access in SVN -- KEYS Compromise Exposure
On Apr 29, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: @Daniel, Right, this is about poisoning the committer keys but not touching the SVN, instead, counterfeiting a binary release downstream, but faking the asc, md5, and sha1 too. (These would not be at dist, and depend on folks not noticing because the instructions for how to check correctly are so obscure. It is very far-fetched, since there are easier exploits that rely on user's not being equipped to verify what they are getting and not relying on the authentic download location. Another way would be to attack the release candidate in the release manager's ASF FreeBSD account, although someone who checks the signature might notice that it is by an unexpected committer. Again, reasonably far-fetched. Two committers would have to be compromised, or the Release Manager would have to be compromised and not notice that there is a new fingerprint in the RM's profile. I like that last one. It has a certain movie-plot plausibility. Who ever looks for funny business in their profile, or odd materials in their keys entry? (Note that it is the binaries that are compromised, there is no messing with the source tarballs.) When I vote on a release I am looking at the fingerprint. This is where looking for a fingerprint that is on the Web of Trust is important. http://people.apache.org/~henkp/trust/ I like Henk's opinion here: what can I trust, ultimately ? The short answer is nothing. For the ultra sceptics there is no hope. • you can't trust the things you did yesterday, because you can't trust your memory • you can't trust software you didn't write or hardware you didn't build • you can't overlook the possibility that apache.org is a fake, set up especialy to lure you into using bad software Regards, Dave - Dennis -Original Message- From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:danie...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 15:58 To: Dennis E. Hamilton Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org; pesce...@apache.org Subject: Re: Proposal: Improve security by limiting committer access in SVN -- KEYS Compromise Exposure Dennis E. Hamilton wrote on Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:31:14 -0700: 5. This is sufficient to poison a download mirror site with a counterfeit download so long as the ASC, SHA1, and MD5 locations can also be spoofed without the user noticing. Right. The normal answer here is They will have to commit to the dist/ repository which will cause a post-commit mail which someone will notice. I'd be interested in hearing (on infra-dev@) how you break this without assuming a mirror gets compromised (if _that_ happens, it's game over for users who don't verify PGP sigs). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: restricted by GSA ADP Schedule Contract with IBM Corp.
Hi, I have confirmed that this particular header does not occur anywhere else in the active codebase. Regards, Dave On Apr 30, 2013, at 6:07 AM, Marc Rabell wrote: Thanks for clarifying Andre. Regards, Marc Marc Rabell twitter https://twitter.com/mrabell | linkedInhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/marcrabell On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Andre Fischer awf@gmail.com wrote: On 30.04.2013 13:30, Andre Fischer wrote: On 30.04.2013 12:27, Marc Rabell wrote: Dear All, Why this file restricted rights ? http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/**openoffice/trunk/main/sfx2/** inc/sfx2/sidebar/**propertypanel.hrc?view=markuphttp://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/sfx2/inc/sfx2/sidebar/propertypanel.hrc?view=markup This license header was just overlooked by the one who migrated it. But this is a good opportunity to rename this file to something that better describes its current function: just a bag of defines (sizes, distances, offsets) used in various sidebar resource files. Is it fixable ? Yes, easily. Thanks for finding this. Created issue 122194 for this. -Andre Best regards, Marc Rabell twitter https://twitter.com/mrabell | linkedInhttp://www.linkedin.**com/in/marcrabellhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/marcrabell --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Crowdfunding revisited
A caution and something to keep in mind and I am speaking from experience. Payment to a developer for working on a feature must not be tied or made contingent on that feature becoming part of the product. The developer ultimately has no control over the inclusion of a feature in a release. Including a feature in a release is something that only the PMC decides and we do it on our own schedule without regards to anyone else's plans. Regards, Dave On May 1, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: We can take it from both directions...mention BountySource in the context of people offering money for changes, and Catincan for people asking for money for changes. As examples of business models, along with VAR and consulting. On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote: The answer from Catincan is, a developer is someone who can commit changes to the project. The person listing the project has to be able to have it merged into the main branch or have the approve of a developer that can. Our goal is to have all users be able to benefit from whatever features are crowdfunded opposed to unsupported forks. The tricky thing for us is that no committer's work is inviolable. Every committer has the ability to cast a technical veto. So one would need to be careful how one expresses expectations. Extreme hypothetical: Someone offers to pay a committer $10,000 if they add an advertisement to the splash screen of OpenOffice for www.OnlinePoker.com. There is nothing we (Apache) can do to stop that work from being contracted. But we can and would veto it from being included in a release. But the committer could certainly provide a private build of that change to their customer, modulo any trademark issue that might occur. So one should not promise (in a contractual sense) to add a feature or a bug fix to the official AOO release, since the contents of a release is determined by the PMC via their release votes, and not any one committer. And the funding can go to either the individual or the project. So someone can kick off a fundraiser for himself to submit a change, or the AOO PMC could perhaps kick off a fundraiser that'd be paid to the ASF. Was there ever a page made about possible AOO-related business models? I thought there was a discussion about it. It was an idea for a blog post I had. It is still on my list. But if we decide to do something with Catincan it could prompt an even earlier post. Regards, -Rob Don On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote: Working my way down the crowdfunding list found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_crowd_funding_services ...I find Catincan (catincan.com). Catincan lets people start fundraising efforts for opensource software feature development, but only existing developers on existing projects. You can't use Catincan to start a new project, and they won't accept your fundraising drive unless you're an existing developer. Not sure how this would apply to AOO...whether being a committer on the project would be considered being a developer, and whether said committer could accept funds on his own behalf to do coding as opposed to it having to go to the ASF. That would take an inquiry. Don On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:34 AM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 25 April 2013 13:38, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all... We talked a couple months ago about a Kickstarter-like scheme for paying for bug fixes and enhancements. Actually, it seems this sort of thing exists in the other direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bountysource https://www.bountysource.com/ Bountysource is a site for people to put up funded requests for changes. People put up issues to fix, along with amounts pledged to the fixing of them (I've seen $0 pledges, so I guess the pledge is optional), and a person receives the bounty if a fix is checked in and accepted. The site is for any open source project with a public homepage. There's entries for LibreOffice, VLC, PhoneGap plugins and others (none for OpenOffice so far). They also, yes, have fundraising efforts for really big changes/features. Essentially anyone can say they fulfilled the bounty request. Then there's two weeks for the bounty poster to say, Oh no you didn't!, otherwise the bounty gets paid. This from a ten-minute read of their FAQ. There's a little bit more to it than that, but that's the gist. Think we'll be seeing OpenOffice bounties? The problem is this requires that both the person(s) funding and the person doing the work know about that website. But even those heavily involved with the project, or even power users, are unlikely to stumble
Re: Results from AOO 4.0 Logo Poll
On May 6, 2013, at 10:44 AM, Donald Whytock wrote: On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com wrote: I personally wouldn't lose any time redesigning the visual identity UNLESS the new design is clearly superior with the old one, and there's concensus that there's SOMETHING WRONG with the old one to begin with. Well, a woman did say a bit back that the seagulls were similar to what's used on a feminine hygeine product... The same was said about the iPad. Regards, Dave Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Request for Blog Access
Hi Don, You should have received your invitation. Regards, Dave On May 15, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: Hi Marcus/Dave... I have a Roller account now, and my proposal went through for blog access. Please grant blog access to dwhytock. Thanks... Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Official code signing certificate
Hi Rob, This is a very well written summary of the situation with Code Signing. The main concern that the ASF has with digitally signing with a singular apache.org certificate for the whole foundation is keeping it in strict control. For some this means physical machines. This is a high bar. I wonder if the ASF would allow AOO to experiment with an OpenOffice.org codesigning certificate? We never thought we would get the wildcard certificate, but hey who knows? Regards, Dave On May 24, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Rob Weir wrote: And I should mention that pushing the code signing side is probably premature until we have the build side more solidly automated. Every discussion we have had code signing led to the conclusion that if something is signed it must come from a trusted build traceable to an SVN revision. So the pre-req for code signing would be to get the Windows and MacOS builds, in full release form, with all languages, built via buildbots. So moving this forward means moving forward things like: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4902 Then it would be possible to introduce daily builds signed with a self-signed test certificate. And then, once this is working end-to-end, we would use a real certificate. Code signing is well-understood. It has been part of Windows development for nearly 20 years. The technology is not novel, hard to understand or difficult to implement. The main issues are more procedural than technical. ASF projects have a release procedure that is decentralized, whereas code signing works most cleanly in a centralized/controlled release environment. That is why the initial focus should be on getting the releases spun directly from the buildbots, traceable to approved source revisions. -Rob On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:01 PM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 24 May 2013 22:30, Juergen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: Am Freitag, 24. Mai 2013 um 19:50 schrieb janI: Hi. we are not alone in ASF wishing code signing, but we might get run over (as I did today on IRC) if we do not formulate our requirements very clearly. decisions are made on mailing lists, correct? That is what I learned at Apache, what not happened on a mailing list, is not relevant ;-) Well it seems that infra is always special. I tried several times to discuss it on the infra mailing list and I believe I have described very clearly what we need and how it works today for OpenOffice if we would have a cert. I also proposed a solution that can work from my point of view and I started to collect the info on a wiki page as suggested. There might be other solutions to do it but I have no in place and nobody convinced me that my proposed approach can not work. I agree that it's not easy and I simply have no energy to discuss further at the moment. I have enough other things to do. Juergen rgds jan I. -- Forwarded message -- From: Scott Deboy scott.de...@gmail.com Date: 24 May 2013 18:59 Subject: Re: Official code signing certificate To: infrastructure-...@apache.org Logging Services has a simple requirement: Have the Chainsaw build artifacts signed by a Java code signing cert that is signed by a trusted/root CA so the jars can be downloaded via WebStart without the user receiving a warning that the signed jars aren't trusted. The Chainsaw maven script supports signing jars - infra just needs to point it to the cert. I don't know whether or not an ASF-wide Java code signing cert makes sense or a Logging Services-specific Java code signing cert makes sense. I don't even know if it is possible to have TLP-specific Java code signing certs. I defer to infra on that decision. I believe the code signing service WRowe described will meet our requirements. Hopefully infra can spend some time looking at the service and see how it can meet their requirements. Logging Services would like to be a guinea pig for the Java code signing service WRowe described above. If there are additional details needed by infra, we are happy to provide them. Thanks, Scott On 4/12/13, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: You are now in http://wiki.apache.org/general/ContributorsGroup On 12 April 2013 17:32, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:47:29 -0500 William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:56:06 +0200 Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name wrote: Can you write this all down somewhere? A wiki page maybe http://wiki.apache.org/general/ASFCodeSigning Could one of the page editors please grant WilliamARoweJr some karma? I'll document the first-draft approach and the Symantec service-based approach. I am truly sorry that I tried to helpwith those 2 replies, I only forwarded a mail for your information, I will for sure forget all about
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed further schedule towards AOO 4.0
On May 27, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:58 PM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 27 May 2013 17:17, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I would like to discuss our further schedule towards AOO 4.0 and the problems I see. And I would like to discuss a proposal how to address these problems. We are behind our schedule a little bit and we have identified some problems regarding the 64bit port on MacOS that I will try to explain below (hopefully without too many technical details that everybody can understand it). Proposal - Move MacOS 64 bit version to 4.1 and merge stlport relevant changes (all platforms) asap into trunk and include them in AOO 4.0. - Move into showstopper mode next week, beginning with June 3th. Means we integrate only showstopper flagged issues and new translations. And potentially new art work if we get a new logo and icons in time. Deadline for new art work should be June 10th. I understand your motivation and will not be the showstopper. but my honest opion is that the reasons for calling it 4.0 get very thin. You might want to put your negative quotes into their own threads to make it easier for those opposed to the project to find it and put it into Wikipedia or an article. Getting a 64 bit release for mac (and possible in linux) is something (as you write) for a major version and not a minor version like 4.1. We already have Linux 64 bit. I am against (but will vote -0) of making a release just to hold the deadline, I would very much prefer to see what a realistic deadline would be. Fortunately publishing a release at Apache requires only three +1 PMC votes and there are no vetos. The process is biased toward making it easy to release. The main process is mechanical. My check list: (1) Is the packaging complete? (2) Are the signatures and checksums on the packages correct? (3) Is the signature that of the Release Manager? (4) Are the LICENSE and NOTICE file included and correct? (5) Does the source release match a checkout of the release tag from svn? (6) Is the RAT report on the source package clean? If not, are only a few files incorrect? If any of the above is a definitive NO then I am -1 for good technical reasons. An answer of NO to (6) becomes a judgement call on the meaning of few. If all are YES then I am +1. Following the above protects our users by assuring that the IP is properly licensed and that released packages can be authenticated by them. (Leaving out the fact that this authentication is hard and non-standard. Leaving out any discussion about digital signatures.) Given the large number of packages in our releases I would like to discuss how we can automate performing our checks. A good starting point would be configuration that is used to support the download page. Regards, Dave -Rob rgds jan I. Ps. You do a great job as release manager, but someone has to be devils advocate. - Intensive QA with the stlport changes to detect potential problems - Create a AOO 4.0 branch 1 week later, June 10th, where we hopefully have integrated already returned translations. - Translation deadline will be set to June 14th to have some time for the integration and further testing. Further translations can we release at a later time as a special language update release (TBD) I would still like to keep the end of June date because everything else looks quite nice and we should give our users the new sidebar. A shifted release date won't really help us because we will move in the vacation time and I think it is better to bring the 4.0 version out before. Once we have solved the mozilla problem for the 64bit version we can decide if we want release a 4.1 immediately or later together with further improvements, fixes and further languages. Background Explanation == Herbert did a great job with his ongoing work to port AOO to 64bit on the MacOS platform. This work is mainly triggered and motivated by the deprecation of some system abi's and the drop of 32 bit Java. In short we switched to the clang compiler, a new platform SDK, XCode4, replaced for example atsui API with CoreText, get rid of stlport (on all platforms) and did many more cleanup that work that were necessary because of better and/or different compiler/linker behaviour or error messages etc. Everything looked quite well until we focused on the still used precompiled older Mozilla libraries. We currently struggle with porting this stuff to 64 bit and evaluating if we can get rid of them completely. A complete drop of the mozilla libs would be a further huge improvement but it is of course a lot of work to understand the code first and all dependencies and to replace it with some new code... At the moment we see this on risk for AOO 4.0 and plan to postpone this to 4.1. But the drop of the stlport lib is relevant
Re: Next steps for AOO 4.0 Logo Selection
On May 27, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: [This was cross-posted, so I'm not clear what list was intended. Makes tracking the discussion difficult.] I'll bite: I prefer Chris's latest. The weight of the lettering is more powerful. I think the Apache should not be so thin. The form used by Samer works better. I also think down-scaling will work better in this case. As far as the orb goes, Chris's could be a tad larger, but not by much. I prefer the orientation of the foreground bird to Kevin's, which has a more threatening feel in my subjective experience. These are good observations. I would like to see it with an ffi ligature. I think we should leave the 4 out. Others have mentioned that 4 is an unlucky number is some cultures. Perhaps we have compromise and have both versioned and un-versioned logo designs. If so then I think a treatment like Version 4.0 in grey and blue might work. Regards, Dave - Dennis PS: Interesting that we've come around to a close variant of the current logo. -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 03:22 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; market...@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Next steps for AOO 4.0 Logo Selection What we've done so far: 1) Called for logo submissions from the community 2) Many designers responded and we received 40 submissions. There was a lot of cross-fertilization of ideas, as designers saw what others had come up with, what worked, and borrowed ideas. 3) We did a survey of user responses to the 40 logo submissions. Over 5000 users offered their ratings and written comments. 4) Publish report and blog post on the results of the logo survey. 5) Invited the designers of the top-rated logos to read over the survey comments and refine their designs and submit an updated version. That's where we are now. The updated logos (three of them) are on the wiki now: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Stage+2+Logo+Refinement As you can see there is quite a bit of convergence on a design occurring. So what next? I'd like to propose some next steps. A) Let's discuss the three designs on the mailing list for the next week. The discussion might lead to further refinement. B) If at the end of the week there is consensus on a single design we'll go with that one. C) If at the end of the week there is not consensus on a single design, and the discussion is not leading us closer toward consensus, then we'll have a 72-hour vote of PMC members to pick the logo. Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Naming and Trademark Concerns
Hi - I just now reviewed Jürgen's latest snapshot build and I have some trademark concerns. The current UI and Help file seem to be out of Apache Branding policy[1][2] in two ways. (1) The most prominent use of the brand in many place is OpenOffice when it ought to be Apache OpenOffice. This is the case in many places throughout the UI and Help files. (2) There is no trademark attribution in the application UI. I'm willing to help mitigate these issues if someone wants to point me towards the correct action. Regards, Dave [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility.html [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Next steps for AOO 4.0 Logo Selection
Hi, Kevin's book birds use perspective drawing techniques and converge on the horizon. They are going somewhere. The standard gulls are more like two birds in the standard wingman formation. OpenOffice is your wingman to take you where you want to go. Regards, Dave On May 28, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: @Kevin, It never occurred to me that those were flying books. Taking another look, it still doesn't work. If made more obviously as books, I'm not sure how that will occur as indicative of an office productivity suite. (I have no idea how birds in flight do that either, but it is probably better to avoid trying for a literal connection.) - Dennis Looking Closer: The first visual distraction for me is the difference in orientation. The foreground (larger) object is angled differently and it has a very different feel. I don't know why. (One might be that your large foreground object seems viewed from above, especially if it is supposed to be a book, whereas in the other forms, it is easier to see them as viewed from below -- I get it is totally an optical illusion that there is a particular viewpoint orientation, but that is how they occur to me on first glance.) The only way I can visualize the book notion is that I am seeing an unfolded piece of paper. If this is two facing pages of an open book, the problem is there is nothing to suggest the rest of the book. I think this goes to show that seeing a book at the abstracted level of this symbol is a definite stretch. Your ideas taking flight is a great catch-phrase though. That works with any of them. In that regard, the symbol Chris used has the advantage of the foreground wing extending beyond the edge of the orb. I tend to see that as being in front of the orb, although one can also consider that we are seeing them on the outside of a round aperture. My immediate subjective response is to see the flyers in front of the orb. I have no idea how consistent that is with the initial perception of others, if there is any consistency at all. As far as this kind of imagery goes, the flat symbol is an improvement on the orb in the current logo, which has the appearance of a button or globe standing on a surface. -Original Message- From: Kevin Grignon [mailto:kevingrignon...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 05:44 AM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: marketing; dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Next steps for AOO 4.0 Logo Selection Hello all, I wanted to share some design rationale for the gull/book pages enhancement in my logo. In my design I wanted to make the gulls into flying books. I made them broader and more active. I was going for the whole, OpenOffice helps give my thoughts and ideas wings, versus gills at sunset. Thoughts? Kevin [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: marketing-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: marketing-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Naming and Trademark Concerns
On May 28, 2013, at 3:03 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 5/28/13 4:12 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On May 27, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: Hi - I just now reviewed Jürgen's latest snapshot build and I have some trademark concerns. The current UI and Help file seem to be out of Apache Branding policy[1][2] in two ways. (1) The most prominent use of the brand in many place is OpenOffice when it ought to be Apache OpenOffice. This is the case in many places throughout the UI and Help files. Can you give some examples? I agree we need concrete examples. We discussed the usage of OpenOffice instead of Apache OpenOffice her eon the list weeks/month ago. I am wondering why this pops up now. Understood. I took some time to search for uses of productname and there are a large number. Let's just say that I am bringing it up now so that we can start on it early for 4.1. We can add a shortproductname and choose when we say Apache OpenOffice and OpenOffice. We need to do this in a way that helps the ASF and the AOO PMC defend the brand. Since this is large let's let this happen immediately after the 4.0 release. Let it be a branding effort, call it 4.1. The intro and about clearly state Apache OpenOffice. Many other occurrences are simply OpenOffice, the term that all use normally. Let's pay attention to these screens as we update to the new logo and the below: (2) There is no trademark attribution in the application UI. What exactly do you have in mind? We can add or change the intro image to ## Apache, the Apache feather logo, and OpenOffice are trademarks of The Apache Software Foundation. OpenOffice.org and the seagull logo are registered trademarks of The Apache Software Foundation. Other names appearing on the site may be trademarks of their respective owners. ## maybe we can add a short form to the start center but I am not sure. I have never seen it in a prominent place in an application. Yes it can be something like this maybe a fourth tab. Trademarks on the dialog with Readme, License, and Notices. Since it is is legalese it can always be in English. Is this what you mean? If so, good. We also should write TM and Copyright on the About. But we can for sure add an untranslated version in the about box and the intro How can I help? Regards, Dave Juergen I'm willing to help mitigate these issues if someone wants to point me towards the correct action. Regards, Dave [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility.html [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: New BZ Component: General/Legal
Hi Rob, On May 29, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Description is: Issues related to NOTICE, LICENSE files, trademarks or similar legal or policy requirements. Is this specifically issues internal to AOO? As opposed to reports of trademark abuse or requests for approval of trademark use? For issues related to the product itself. So on the trademark side that would be quite narrow, e.g., a trademark statement in the About box, and maybe recognition of 3rd party trademarks in printed materials, e.g., Microsoft Windows. I know where to go. :-) For permission on using trademarks and logos the process is to send the request to the private mailing list: http://openoffice.apache.org/trademarks.html Good. Thank you. We're not currently tracking such requests in BZ. Nor should we. These are usually private matters. Regards, Dave -Rob Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: updates.openoffice.org
On Jun 5, 2013, at 12:37 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 8:50 AM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 5 June 2013 17:43, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 5 June 2013 16:48, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 5 June 2013 11:05, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi, sorry for top-posting, but I think it makes sense to clean up some things. Some facts and my opinions: (1) Fact: In communication with infra, infra had proposed https://updates.openoffice.**org/ https://updates.openoffice.org/ ( https://ooo-updates.**openoffice.org/ https://ooo-updates.openoffice.org/as the backup) as the URL for the resources accessed by the update functionality by AOO 4.0 and later. Nobody objects. My opinion: I think we should go for it. +1, I will check dns, add whats missing, and when the cert arrives update erebus-ssl (the https: proxy) (2) Fact: In communication with infra, infra had proposed ^/openoffice/updates-site/**trunk as the SVN location for the resources needed for the update functionality by AOO 4.0 and later. My opinion: I believe it would be good to have the update resources separated from the website resources. It would mean to move ^/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/**content/projects/aoo40/check.**Update to ^/openoffice/updates-site/**trunk/aoo40/check.Update +1 No problem, I can create the path in svn and add an alias (link) in the httpd server. Btw this is easy to change later, it is a simple one line, in the configuration. (3) My understanding: I think infra had in mind to map https://updates.openoffice.org (resp. https://ooo-updates.** openoffice.org/ https://ooo-updates.openoffice.org/) to ^/openoffice/updates-site/**trunk Please correct me, if my understanding is not correct. it was correct, but changed to (2) (4) Fact: The update resources for AOO 3.4.1, AOO 3.4, OOo 3.3, OOo 3.2.1 and OOo 3.2 will remain at their current SVN location and will be accessed by the current UpdateURLs. My opinion: Thus, I believe there will be no change to the SVN locations, to the URLs and to the URL mapping/forwarding (sorry, I do not know the correct term here) for the update resources used by already released versions. mapping is the correct term. There will be no changes apart from (1) and (2) My proposal: I propose to follow infra's proposal mentioned above in (1) and (2). I have added it to infra tasks. We are currently waiting for the cert to be sent, then the first step will be to get https: working for wiki and forums, second step is updates.o.o Best regards, Oliver. thx for a very clear mail, if nobody objects within the next 72 hours, it will be implemented as you propose. An extra step will be needed. Presumably we want the Apache CMS enabled so it publishes files from the SVN dir to the website dir. This doesn't happen automatically. that is not only an extra step, that can turn out to be a bigger challenge. Having CMS enabled is a very valid request, but then please choose a location inside the web-site where CMS is already enabled. We already have two separate CMS publish targets from our SVN: /site (openoffice.apache.org) and /ooo-site (www.openoffice.org). Having a third one should not be a problem. I'd like to avoid the complexity that would occur if we had the same SVN dir connected to two different CMS targets. of course it can be done its software, its just more work and more admin afterward. You would not have one svn dir connected to two different cms targets if target dir is inside www.openoffice.org (which is what I suggested). updates.openoffice.org is logically just a pointer, and would normally point inside the www domain (that is the simple solution), but can point outside the www domain (which requires changes to httpd.conf, and an extra cms setup). from Oliver's commmunication [1], it seems that updates.openoffice.org has been suggested to be *outside* the current web site domain, and followed by his comments -- My opinion: I believe it would be good to have the update resources separated from the website resources. It would mean to move ^/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/projects/aoo40/check.Update to ^/openoffice/updates-site/trunk/aoo40/check.Update I feel we should NOT point the new update to any area within the existing www domain (we had some BIG problems initially trying to enable updates through the web server), so a new CMS would be needed. Hopefully, this is not a horrendous task. Infra will likely svnpubsub the new part of svn that has the update logic as bare files. Projects are not required to use CMS, but are required to use svnpubsub, I see no reason this needs to be pushed through CMS. None, it's too much extra work.
Re: Draft blog post: When will OpenOffice version X be released?
On Jun 8, 2013, at 5:34 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 06/06/2013 Rob Weir wrote: https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=when_will_openoffice_version_x Since we get this question frequently, I thought it would be good to have a canonical response we can point people to. It's good but I'd add pointers so that people who want to get involved can do so. It is time to give more visibility to development snapshots, for example: a link to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshotfullsets would help in getting more feedback. Or a link to any QA resource leading to it. We don't want to make them too visible since they are unofficial, but hiding them too much does not help either, especially when the release comes closer. We can discuss developer snapshots on list, but I think it is outside of ASF policy to publish URLs elsewhere - like in Blog posts. We should point those interested in development to the dev ML and then on the ML point them to development resources ad hoc. Same for translations. It would be good to include a link to http://openoffice.apache.org/translate.html Definitely. Regards, Dave Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Location for logo source?
Sent from my iPhone On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/ I like this area more. Maybe the images/AOO_logos is better for the concrete website PNG image, and the marketing/art/galleries area could be for the source, etc.? We can then set expectations/permissible uses, etc., on the existing web pages. Seems good. Actually, we could even shorten it to http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/logos/ for better reachability in SVN (art would still be meaningful, but galleries seems misleading). This is just a minor preference of course. I checked it in earlier just so those who are interested in helping with it can access it: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/marketing/art/galleries/logos/aoo-working/ I'd like to clean up the /marketing tree in general, to move the old logo(s) to a history page, etc. This whole area of the website is in need of a cleanup. Or maybe migration into the wiki? Most of the project-facing marketing work is probably better done on the wiki than in static pages. In the end I'd only want things like logos, where we do not want to give public write-access, to be in SVN. Make sense? Yes +1. Thanks for your leadership on this. Regards, Dave Regards, -Rob Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Certified DEVs
On Jun 9, 2013, at 7:36 AM, janI wrote: On 9 June 2013 16:04, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: I noticed that LibreO has 26 Certified Developers. http://www.documentfoundation.org/certification/developers/ While we have the concept of a committer here at AOO is there something specific for active code developers? Would it be worth considering such a thing? The LO page is more about the people who are certified coders. This is a functional equivalent to an svn auth list on the codebase - those AOO committers who work on the codebase as opposed to QA, Infra, Marketing and most importantly Translation. Apache is a flat organization. We don't make this distinction. Do we want to start playing a marketing game of numbers, or do we want to put our energy into writing the best code? [4] I think the committer status, covers much of the certification, if we do such a thing for developers, we should also do it for QA, documenters etc. Exactly. If anything we should highlight our differences. We are an organization where active contribution and engagement of all kinds is important. It is community over code. [1] . I do like the lo page, as such, because it clearly shows who (and from where) are paid, and who are volunteers. Such a list would be nice to have for newcommers, especially if it included a line or two about the interest of each. We have built similar information. Committers just need to maintain it. It is currently in the CWiki here [2] Originally it was here [3] We could add more here, or we could describe that the project is a community of volunteers, etc. We could remind committers to update their details on the wiki or request help with doing so. Regards, Dave [1] http://communityovercode.com/ [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Directory+of+Volunteers [3] http://openoffice.apache.org/people.html [4] I don't want to restart this discussion, but this is one reason why I am against having a different svn auth list for the codebase unless there is a demonstrated problem. This may be done in private. If I have inexplicably changed my mind later then it will be because a real security threat to the AOO codebase is manifest. rgds jan I. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Certified DEVs
On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: My main thought was market confidence. If LO can say they have 26 developers working on code it would be interesting to have a comparison on a similar like for like basis. Before we can make a like for like comparison we need to understand the TDF process: From the page you cite: Certified Developers are present TDF members, were nominated by the Certification Committee, and subsequently peer-reviewed by the Engineering Steering Committee. But there is also a disclaimer (with a grammatical error of translation): Notes on the aforementioned entries: our list of certified developers is for your information, alphabetically sorted, and not necessarily complete nor up-to-date. Specifically does TDF not recommend nor endorse any of the listed companies. Interested parties are asked to individually assess if the listed companies are suitable for their respective requirements. If you notice mistakes or inaccuracies, please inform us ati...@documentfoundation.org. Unless we can replicate this process I am afraid that any like for like comparison may be fodder for press FUD. We would need to use a publicly measurable approach like more than X commits to the code base. It is likely that X would need to be supported by examining the commit logs of LO and comparing with their list finding the person with the least commits who is on their list. If someone can provide this comparison then I would support a blog post. This could also point to our full committer count to show that the project values all contributions. We can also emphasize that at the ASF it is individuals and not companies that are contributing. Regards, Dave On 9 June 2013 17:24, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Jun 9, 2013, at 7:36 AM, janI wrote: On 9 June 2013 16:04, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: I noticed that LibreO has 26 Certified Developers. http://www.documentfoundation.org/certification/developers/ While we have the concept of a committer here at AOO is there something specific for active code developers? Would it be worth considering such a thing? The LO page is more about the people who are certified coders. This is a functional equivalent to an svn auth list on the codebase - those AOO committers who work on the codebase as opposed to QA, Infra, Marketing and most importantly Translation. Apache is a flat organization. We don't make this distinction. Do we want to start playing a marketing game of numbers, or do we want to put our energy into writing the best code? [4] I think the committer status, covers much of the certification, if we do such a thing for developers, we should also do it for QA, documenters etc. Exactly. If anything we should highlight our differences. We are an organization where active contribution and engagement of all kinds is important. It is community over code. [1] . I do like the lo page, as such, because it clearly shows who (and from where) are paid, and who are volunteers. Such a list would be nice to have for newcommers, especially if it included a line or two about the interest of each. We have built similar information. Committers just need to maintain it. It is currently in the CWiki here [2] Originally it was here [3] We could add more here, or we could describe that the project is a community of volunteers, etc. We could remind committers to update their details on the wiki or request help with doing so. Regards, Dave [1] http://communityovercode.com/ [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Directory+of+Volunteers [3] http://openoffice.apache.org/people.html [4] I don't want to restart this discussion, but this is one reason why I am against having a different svn auth list for the codebase unless there is a demonstrated problem. This may be done in private. If I have inexplicably changed my mind later then it will be because a real security threat to the AOO codebase is manifest. rgds jan I. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36
Re: Congratulations to Andrea and Andrew!
On Jun 11, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:06 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Both Andrea Pescetti and Andrew Rist were among those elected as new ASF Members. Congratulations for the well-deserved recognition! -Rob YES! Congratulations indeed... https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the_apache_software_foundation_welcomes2 Yes, congratulations indeed! Welcome to ASF Membership! Best Regards, Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- MzK You can't believe one thing and do another. What you believe and what you do are the same thing. -- Leonard Peltier - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Article on the Register
On Jun 11, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: RGB ES wrote: 2013/6/11 Rob Weir On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote: On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Andre Fischer wrote: It is sad that it has the usual misinformation: I was quite surprised to read it. At least, if a journalist had to pick a recent blog post from the OpenOffice blog, the one about release schedules is definitely less interesting than other recent ones... You should find the email of the publication's news editor and write a polite yet firm complaint Or just post a comment. Andre, did you try doing so? Maybe they will rectify some clear factual errors in the article. I strongly recommend that you post your comments there and not only here on the list. So the best strategy is to ignore the the FUD and push accurate and useful information onto our website. That approach reaches more users, and is under our control. +1. Talking about sites like El Reg means promoting them, and promotion means more weight on search engines for those lies +1, yes, it's untrue and insulting but our actions DO speak louder than these words. Note that the highly visible site is http://www.openoffice.org and not the blog; the site is linked to the blog only through a link that is at the bottom of the page and, moreover, is hidden under a JavaScript layer. So something that we should do immediately is to create a simple block with the titles of our latest three blog posts (from the official blog) and put it on the homepage. And keep it updated manually, at least when it's worth doing so. A good idea! I too feel the blogs are a bit too submerged. Let's see what we can come up with for this. How about adding it to the top-nav, where we currently have: Product Download Support Extend Develop Focus Areas Native Language Put a new entry there for News or Blog and have that link to the blog. I went ahead and did this. Easily reversible if we don't like it. http://www.openoffice.org/ -Rob Well...I would have preferred calling it something else besides News because now I think it's confused/associated with the left News items. Oh, good point. When Andrea brought this up, I guess I was thinking he wanted actual Blog headlines listed/highlighted, but maybe the top nav bar is good if we come up with something a bit more catchy. But...I got nothin. :/ The problem we have (and maybe this is not a problem but just a different form of success) is that the blog is now updated quite frequently, but the stories on the home page never seem to change. So if you want news then the best place to go is the blog. I wonder what would happen if we moved to a single column design with no stories on the right, but just the current menu items, but centered on the screen? That might work better on small devices as well. Small boxes push the new div below the buttons div. Or, figure out how to get the news column to trigger off of the RSS feed of the blog, like the ASF homepage does. We discussed this once, but never completely figured it out. The way to figure this out is to study how www.apache.org does this and emulate it. We then setup the main page to republish itself every hour. We need Infra's help for that. But short term, calling it Blog would be OK? Yes - and I would not have it be the leftmost topnav element. I would make it third or fourth - on either side of Support. Regards, Dave -Rob Putting it in the nav will give it visibility on most website (non-wiki) pages. -Rob That will give more visibility to the blog articles, for both users and journalists. Both categories are important. And some journalists will hopefully share my (personal, but probably not so personal) taste on which are the posts to be featured! Regards, Andrea. --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- MzK You can't believe one thing and do another. What you believe and what you do are the same thing. -- Leonard Peltier - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:
Re: AOO 4.0 Logo: We're not done yet!
On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Rob Weir wrote: In case you are not following the discussion on the dev list, Juergen, the 4.0 Release Manager, has proposed an endgame schedule for the AOO 4.0 release: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201306.mbox/%3C51C16876.402%40gmail.com%3E The date relevant to the logo is Monday July 1th. That is the deadline for getting the logo changes integrated into Subversion for the OpenOffice product. Changes on the website and social networking don't have a hard deadline and can come later, perhaps synched up with the actual release of AOO 4.0, which is planned for later in July. So what needs to be done? 1) Kevin said he wanted to make some fine tuning of the text kerning in the logo. 2) Alexandro said something about adjusting the colors. But I'm not certain I understood that correctly. 3) We need to update the graphics in the product. And there are a lot of them, around 25 of them, which I've laboriously transcribed onto the wiki: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Product+Logo+Use Most of them will be simple. It is just a matter of replacing one logo with another, and preserving the right formats, dimensions, color depths, etc. A few exceptions, of placements which will require some more thought: a) The splash screen is here: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/default_images/introabout/intro.png It has integrated text and graphics and the text is rather ugly. Can we do better here? This is a place where some wow is appropriate. Consider (1) Take the logo SVG (2) Add 4 (3) Scale to the 550 x 365 px size. (4) Add updated and well written text in the same font. (5) Add quality Apache Feather. (6) Include trademark. (7) Cool contextual graphics? (8) Create a PNG from the SVG. Regards, Dave b) Some of the placements have high contrast versions, needed for when this mode is enabled in the operating system. This improves visibility for users with low vision. For example: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/default_images/framework/res/backing_hc.png I think we need to consult with someone with expertise in this to know exactly what we should be doing here. c) This is from the SDK install: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/inc_sdkoo/windows/msi_templates/Binary/Image.bmp As you can see it is a more elaborate, 3D image showing OpenOffice.org in the title bar. This will require someone skilled with their graphics editor to replace that text and make it look natural. Or redo the image. So plenty of work to do here for anyone who is good with a graphics editor and wants to help. But first we need Kevin and Alexandro to make their changes to the master SVG. After that we can work in parallel on the remaining pieces. The master SVG, from Chris, is here: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/marketing/art/galleries/logos/aoo-working/ We have a little more than a week to do this, so can I strongly suggest that Kevin and Alexandro make their changes ASAP, and by Monday June 24th at the latest? Thanks! -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Can somebody please commit the update of the de-websites
On Jun 21, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote: Am 21.06.2013 17:06, schrieb Rob Weir: On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, RA Stehmann anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de wrote: Hi Rob, I can understand your concerns, but they aren't drasticly. I'm with you, that we have to make clear, the Box isn't a product of the ASF but distributed by the Verein Freies Office Deutschland e.V... But on the other hand the Verein Freies Office Deutschland e.V.. isn't any old third party. We need to be fair. Treating one 3rd party special is not fair. Treating equal things unequal isn't fair, but it's also unfair treating unequal things equal. You have to make the decision, what's equal and whd what's unequa and in what aspect. That's the sense of suum cuique tribuere. My recollection of the discussion was. (1) Have a 3rd party page. (2) Each language may have their own 3rd party page. (3) Each language can have their own news feed. (4) Each news item may link to a 3rd party page. Conclusion. DE page can have news about PrOOo and point to a link on the 3rd party page. Do we all agree? Regards, Dave It's a charitable german entity supporting Free office software. It's still supporting Apache OpenOffice. The computer an the monitor at our Fosdem stand were provided by Verein Freies Office Deutschland e.V... Disclaimer: I'm no member of that club, but know persons who are. So IMO it's ok to put that news in the news line of the homepage, making clear, who's the distributor of that product. I'd be much happier if the German community listened to what I am saying and took steps to address the full issue. IMHO you need to add a page that gives equal access to all 3rd party ports and distributions, and not just favor a single one with a news announcement. see above. IMO you like to treat uneqal things equal. Making a page presenting third party products makes sense. But it don't makes sense, presenting all third party products in the news. And it makes IMO sense presenting the box there. If you then give announcements of updates to these distributions, whenever they occur, and do such announcements fairly, not for just a single 3rd party, then this might be OK. So if you really want to move this forward I'd highly recommend creating and maintaining a German version of the porting page: http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ Doing one thing doesn't mean to drop another. Regards Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[PROPOSAL] Language Specific Third Party Pages
Hi - To make it official and so that we are all clear. The following rules apply to links to third party products and related new announcements only. (1) Have a project wide 3rd party page in English. (2) Each language community may choose to have a separate 3rd party page. (For example a Germanophone third party page.) (3) Each language may choose to maintain their own news feed to make language community specific announcements. (4) A news item may link to any 3rd party page in openoffice.org. (5) 3rd party pages may link to 3rd parties. Who the 3rd party is should be clear on 3rd party page. It should be clear that the 3rd party is not the ASF and is not the Apache OpenOffice Project. Conclusion. DE page can have news about PrOOo and point to a Germanophone 3rd party page. Regards, Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Can somebody please commit the update of the de-websites
On Jun 22, 2013, at 9:09 AM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Jun 21, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote: Am 21.06.2013 17:06, schrieb Rob Weir: On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, RA Stehmann anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de wrote: Hi Rob, I can understand your concerns, but they aren't drasticly. I'm with you, that we have to make clear, the Box isn't a product of the ASF but distributed by the Verein Freies Office Deutschland e.V... But on the other hand the Verein Freies Office Deutschland e.V.. isn't any old third party. We need to be fair. Treating one 3rd party special is not fair. Treating equal things unequal isn't fair, but it's also unfair treating unequal things equal. You have to make the decision, what's equal and whd what's unequa and in what aspect. That's the sense of suum cuique tribuere. My recollection of the discussion was. (1) Have a 3rd party page. (2) Each language may have their own 3rd party page. (3) Each language can have their own news feed. (4) Each news item may link to a 3rd party page. Conclusion. DE page can have news about PrOOo and point to a link on the 3rd party page. Do we all agree? Regards, Dave Could these points be placed in their own [PROPOSAL] thread so they could be discussed on their own? If we could do that and either vote, or at least have a consensus, I think it would be a good idea to further clarify this topic by adding a new Web guidelines page to the project site -- http://openoffice.apache.org/ Done. I certainly want to separate this ... let's move forward. Saying less can be saying more. (A paraphrase of Mies van der Rohe's Less is More) Regards, Dave It's a charitable german entity supporting Free office software. It's still supporting Apache OpenOffice. The computer an the monitor at our Fosdem stand were provided by Verein Freies Office Deutschland e.V... Disclaimer: I'm no member of that club, but know persons who are. So IMO it's ok to put that news in the news line of the homepage, making clear, who's the distributor of that product. I'd be much happier if the German community listened to what I am saying and took steps to address the full issue. IMHO you need to add a page that gives equal access to all 3rd party ports and distributions, and not just favor a single one with a news announcement. see above. IMO you like to treat uneqal things equal. Making a page presenting third party products makes sense. But it don't makes sense, presenting all third party products in the news. And it makes IMO sense presenting the box there. If you then give announcements of updates to these distributions, whenever they occur, and do such announcements fairly, not for just a single 3rd party, then this might be OK. So if you really want to move this forward I'd highly recommend creating and maintaining a German version of the porting page: http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ Doing one thing doesn't mean to drop another. Regards Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- - MzK If you stick with a vision, it might not all work, but some of it will be absolute genius. -- Kim Cattrall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[DISCUSS] Contributing Existing Works [Was: Re: Can somebody please commit the update of the de-websites]
On Jun 21, 2013, at 7:21 AM, Peter Junge wrote: On 6/21/2013 9:59 PM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: Hello, From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] What is the problem? The CD is not from the Apache OpenOffice project. It was not reviewed and approved for release by the project. It is a 3rd party product. The website says it is from Verein Freies Office Deutschland e.V..: No, this is absolutely *not* true! The Verein Freies Office Deutschland e.V.. is NOT the creator of the PrOOo-box, but that's us (Detlef, Jan and I) three members of the AOO-Community in Germany. You can see my entry here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Directory+of+Volunteers and I can gladly Jan and Detlef ask to register there. The Verein Freies Office Deutschland e.V. is the *only* one who pays us the hosting of the Box (850 euros per year). *We would be pleased if the Apache paid. Apache wants to do that?* As far as I understand the Apache way: Apache products must be hosted by Apache infrastructure(*), but as the PrOOo-Box certainly contains also non-Apache products it cannot be hosted at Apache. Seems a Catch-22 to me. Does someone has any good idea how to fix this? It would certainly be a good thing to continue the PrOOo-Box within the AOO community. (*) Apache strictly requires to avoid community fragmentation like it had happened with OOo. I would like to continue this discussion with a different approach. Let's discuss the process for PrOOo-Box to become part of the Apache OpenOffice product. There are several steps and it is worth exploring. Of course I must preface this with I am not a lawyer. The following would need to be considered: (1) License / IP Clearance. A review of the non-Apache products included in PrOOo-Box is necessary. If these are compatible then it is possible to include them in a release. If not then they are other considerations which would depend on packaging and all kinds of legal and technical challenges. (2) Copyright. If the three of you own the unique aspects then you may need to re-license these to AL2.0 - the Apache LIcense. (3) Individual Contributor License Agreements (ICLA) help. If there is a large amount of unique IP then a Software Grant may be requested. (4) The AOO PMC would have to accept the donation through a VOTE or LAZY CONSENSUS. We can all learn something from the PrOOo-box team. Regards, Dave Best regards Peter But these are still 3rd party distributions. No, this is the Box of german Members of the AOO-Community! But that is not the problem, because the question is a Others, namely how we can make local work on AOO when we can not even provide information users need? A notice in a news-teaser is anyway only a temporary entry. What is the problem? Rob, you have, tell me here on the list, the following: * it's okay to get involved locally for AOO and Apache welcomes such activities * I should self make a choice However, I live in Germany, and here I know the OpenOffice users for more than 8 years, and I know what users need for assistance. And we all have to do something otherwise AOO lost in Germany. Sorry, but that *is* the truth. So we are fair and we don't give special prominence to any single 3rd party distribution. But that is *not* what is needed. There shall be *no* permanent link, but only a *temporary* news-teaser. This teaser is automatically replaced by someone else, as soon as there are new news. What is the problem? Greetings, Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Mercurial repository at hg.services.openoffice.org
On Jul 1, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Andrew Rist wrote: On 6/27/2013 9:00 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: The Mercurial repository at http://hg.services.openoffice.org/ is no longer current but it is still useful since it contains important historical information. It is still hosted by Oracle and it is now down. Any plans to restore it? It will not be restored. (but there are copies in the wild, the https://bitbucket.org/mst/ooo340 one mentioned in this thread, for instance) Two years was a long time. Thanks. Regards, Dave Andrew We might also want to store it (read-only) somewhere at Apache, but that resource should remain available. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Problem accessing web site
On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:18 AM, Pedro Marquez wrote: Dear Sir: I´ve been trying to download the OpenOffice software from: http://www.openoffice.org/es/descargar/ However, it always respond with: http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/localized/es/3.4. 1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_Win_x86_install_es.exe/download Server not found I´ve asked to my systems administrator about, and he tells me that the security system “Fortinet” we use blocks it. What can I do? (1) You can download from here: http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/es/3.4.1/ But you don't get the mirror system offered by sourceforge.net to our project (and many other non-Apache.) (2) Ask Fortinet or your admin to whitelist sourceforge.net. Marcus/Kay - Have we thought more about offering downloads from the Apache Mirror system for these exceptional cases? Regards, Dave Thank you in advance, -Pedro Marquez, Prof. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Hello - new volunteer
Hi Dave, Welcome! The first step in volunteering is to subscribe to this dev list. If you would like to help us with building installation packages for WIndows platforms then you should start by learning how to build from here: http://openoffice.apache.org/source.html This may be a difficult place to start, but it would be a prerequisite to building an installation package. Please ask questions on the list as you explore. One of the big areas we need help is with secure digital signatures of installation artifacts. Anything that you could add to how we can make this happen in very few steps would be helpful. The ASF has strict standards which no one has met your expertise may prove helpful. Regards, Dave On Jul 6, 2013, at 8:16 AM, Dave Ashelman wrote: Hello Open Office Developers: Good morning: I hope this eMail finds you well. My name is David Ashelman and I have bachelor degrees in computer information systems and mathematics. I really believe your software is very robust and extremely reliable. I have a lot of experience writing MSI database application setups also teaching computer theory to new MSI crafters. If I can help, then let me know how I can improve your already remarkable software. Since 1996, I've been a network administrator, a software design support engineer, an InstallShield technical trainer, a software Release/Build technician, a Windows migration consultant, and an application packaging engineer. I have good technical skills and experience with people and software engineering. * Two (2) Technical College Degrees (Computer Information Systems + Math) * Four (4) years of experience employed by the corporation Flexera, who made AdminStudio. I was responsible for supporting and training users of that software (Flexera Admin Studio) * I worked at InstallShield from 1999 - 2003 the time when software packaging began From 2000-2003, I taught software application packaging, software design Best Practices, and Windows migration around the United States, Canada, Great Brittan while working for Flexera, Macro Vision, or InstallShield. During that time, I saw how very difficult understanding software builds, releasing, and installs was for certain software application developers. So, instead of simply reciting the InstallShield product examples, I wrote a book illuminating and shedding light on hard to grasp concepts and how to best handle those concepts in computer data transfer. Multiple illustrations and mathematical proofs and equations explain everything you need to know to make great software and application installations. * Fourteen (14) years software build/release, software installation authoring, application packaging engineering, Windows migrations From 2003-13 I have been around the United States meeting great people, solving complex Windows migrations, solving software application packaging projects, creating software build releases, and authored multi-platform software installations. With a little luck, hopefully we can work together. I’d like to help you improve your software solutions. Your future is bright. Kind regards David W. Ashelman - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
