Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
> > Silverstripe site is that they don't understand the CMS and are not really > interested in learning it. > It is true, once you use Drupal, you will never install another CMS. > That seems to me an important consideration long term. If there is likely to be more and longer term committed developer resource with Drupal it is the most logical route and the decision should be how to rather than if. Over the coming couple of weeks, I will put together a proposal for > the Steering Committee to consider an implementation plan. > > Again, > Thanks for clarifying this point. > > Michael Wheatland > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** > -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
Hello Michael, 2011/1/4 Michael Wheatland > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Charles-H. Schulz > wrote: > > Hello Michael, > > > > Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 01:26:09 +0930, > > Michael Wheatland a écrit : > > > >> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Charles-H. Schulz > >> wrote: > >> > "to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org" does not seem to > >> > mean anything to me. "With a view to go with Drupal" was rather: > >> > with the possible option of Drupal in the long term. > >> > >> Sorry, I meant to write libreoffice.org not drupal.org > > > > ah, okay. > > > >> > >> > "a little bit of misinformation", Michael, is perhaps your > >> > enthusiasm leading to understand things the way you would like them > >> > to be :-). At this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans > >> > to move to Drupal; there seems indeed to have been some early > >> > misunderstanding, but if you wish the SC will clarify its position > >> > (again) . But given that I'm a member of the said SC, it might be > >> > useful to you to take my words into account. > >> > >> To make this clear in my mind I have listened and read the decision > >> statement from the Steering Committee decision. > >> > >> The conversation on the conference call: > >> "I would ask the people working on Drupal to do a more detailed > >> planning in the next month regarding additional services..." > > > > right. > > > >> There were some bits that I didn't quite understand (poor quality > >> sound), but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider > >> Drupal as the long term solution. > > > > I might repeat Cor's statements here, but "many people voiced their > > opinion that we should consider Drupal as the long term solution" > > means: many people "think we should decide whether Drupal would be a > > long term solution" . It's hardly a Steering Committee decision > > requesting the use of Drupal. > >> > >> > >> The statement to the website list from the SC is as follows: > >> "the CMS decision was taken: it will be Silverstripe as a starter, > >> with plans to migrate to Drupal later on." > >> > >> > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/592 > > > > "plans... later on". Not "now let's rush towards creating the > > definitive Drupal website"... > > > >> > >> I would have thought that this official statement is very clear in the > >> outcome > > > > Obviously it is conditional, and makes clear that it's an option for > > the long term. > > > >> and the website team has had a large group of people (larger > >> than that working on the current site) working towards this end, whom > >> might I say have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time. > >> Clearly the implementation is still a few months off as we start to > >> involve Native Language teams and other functional teams. > > > > And to our great dismay, calls for help for the current website, which > > has all the top priority, went lost in a sea of mails about the Drupal > > project, and despite several mails of people explaining Drupal was just > > an option. > > > >> > >> I hope this clarifies my point, and makes it quite clear that I am not > >> just hearing what I want to. This was the official decision statement > >> as communicated back to the website mailing list. > >> > > Well you now see that the official decision was not a definitive > > statement about Drupal, and that it was *considered* as an option. > > Thanks for the clarification Charles, > This makes a lot more sense than a couple of other abrupt, emotional > statements made by others regarding the CMS decision that we have seen > on the mailing lists. > If everyone was as clear and concise as you there would be no > confusion about any issues. > > As you can see, there is a lot of enthusiasm around the Drupal > development which has been put to good use and we should not waste. > From my conversations the only reason a lot of people have not been > working on the Silverstripe site is that they don't understand the CMS > and are not really interested in learning it. > It is true, once you use Drupal, you will never install another CMS. > I really -for what's worth I'd be mentioning that- don't care what we choose, but I only want results and a tool that adapts to its community and not the other way around. Definitive statements such as the one above do not make me look forward Drupal. I could perhaps just say: "how about we design several html pages and stick them together with cgi, add some javascript and you have a website?" and that would keep things very, very simple ;) > > Over the coming couple of weeks, I will put together a proposal for > the Steering Committee to consider an implementation plan. > Although you wrote it on a different mailing list, I would like to thank you for willing to help out on the Silverstripe now. Implementation plan for future drupal site will not be considered until several months, so really, there's no rush. Best, Charles. > > A
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > Hello Michael, > > Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 01:26:09 +0930, > Michael Wheatland a écrit : > >> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Charles-H. Schulz >> wrote: >> > "to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org" does not seem to >> > mean anything to me. "With a view to go with Drupal" was rather: >> > with the possible option of Drupal in the long term. >> >> Sorry, I meant to write libreoffice.org not drupal.org > > ah, okay. > >> >> > "a little bit of misinformation", Michael, is perhaps your >> > enthusiasm leading to understand things the way you would like them >> > to be :-). At this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans >> > to move to Drupal; there seems indeed to have been some early >> > misunderstanding, but if you wish the SC will clarify its position >> > (again) . But given that I'm a member of the said SC, it might be >> > useful to you to take my words into account. >> >> To make this clear in my mind I have listened and read the decision >> statement from the Steering Committee decision. >> >> The conversation on the conference call: >> "I would ask the people working on Drupal to do a more detailed >> planning in the next month regarding additional services..." > > right. > >> There were some bits that I didn't quite understand (poor quality >> sound), but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider >> Drupal as the long term solution. > > I might repeat Cor's statements here, but "many people voiced their > opinion that we should consider Drupal as the long term solution" > means: many people "think we should decide whether Drupal would be a > long term solution" . It's hardly a Steering Committee decision > requesting the use of Drupal. >> >> >> The statement to the website list from the SC is as follows: >> "the CMS decision was taken: it will be Silverstripe as a starter, >> with plans to migrate to Drupal later on." >> >> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/592 > > "plans... later on". Not "now let's rush towards creating the > definitive Drupal website"... > >> >> I would have thought that this official statement is very clear in the >> outcome > > Obviously it is conditional, and makes clear that it's an option for > the long term. > >> and the website team has had a large group of people (larger >> than that working on the current site) working towards this end, whom >> might I say have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time. >> Clearly the implementation is still a few months off as we start to >> involve Native Language teams and other functional teams. > > And to our great dismay, calls for help for the current website, which > has all the top priority, went lost in a sea of mails about the Drupal > project, and despite several mails of people explaining Drupal was just > an option. > >> >> I hope this clarifies my point, and makes it quite clear that I am not >> just hearing what I want to. This was the official decision statement >> as communicated back to the website mailing list. >> > Well you now see that the official decision was not a definitive > statement about Drupal, and that it was *considered* as an option. Thanks for the clarification Charles, This makes a lot more sense than a couple of other abrupt, emotional statements made by others regarding the CMS decision that we have seen on the mailing lists. If everyone was as clear and concise as you there would be no confusion about any issues. As you can see, there is a lot of enthusiasm around the Drupal development which has been put to good use and we should not waste. From my conversations the only reason a lot of people have not been working on the Silverstripe site is that they don't understand the CMS and are not really interested in learning it. It is true, once you use Drupal, you will never install another CMS. Over the coming couple of weeks, I will put together a proposal for the Steering Committee to consider an implementation plan. Again, Thanks for clarifying this point. Michael Wheatland -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
Hello Michael, Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 01:26:09 +0930, Michael Wheatland a écrit : > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Charles-H. Schulz > wrote: > > "to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org" does not seem to > > mean anything to me. "With a view to go with Drupal" was rather: > > with the possible option of Drupal in the long term. > > Sorry, I meant to write libreoffice.org not drupal.org ah, okay. > > > "a little bit of misinformation", Michael, is perhaps your > > enthusiasm leading to understand things the way you would like them > > to be :-). At this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans > > to move to Drupal; there seems indeed to have been some early > > misunderstanding, but if you wish the SC will clarify its position > > (again) . But given that I'm a member of the said SC, it might be > > useful to you to take my words into account. > > To make this clear in my mind I have listened and read the decision > statement from the Steering Committee decision. > > The conversation on the conference call: > "I would ask the people working on Drupal to do a more detailed > planning in the next month regarding additional services..." right. > There were some bits that I didn't quite understand (poor quality > sound), but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider > Drupal as the long term solution. I might repeat Cor's statements here, but "many people voiced their opinion that we should consider Drupal as the long term solution" means: many people "think we should decide whether Drupal would be a long term solution" . It's hardly a Steering Committee decision requesting the use of Drupal. > > > The statement to the website list from the SC is as follows: > "the CMS decision was taken: it will be Silverstripe as a starter, > with plans to migrate to Drupal later on." > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/592 "plans... later on". Not "now let's rush towards creating the definitive Drupal website"... > > I would have thought that this official statement is very clear in the > outcome Obviously it is conditional, and makes clear that it's an option for the long term. > and the website team has had a large group of people (larger > than that working on the current site) working towards this end, whom > might I say have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time. > Clearly the implementation is still a few months off as we start to > involve Native Language teams and other functional teams. And to our great dismay, calls for help for the current website, which has all the top priority, went lost in a sea of mails about the Drupal project, and despite several mails of people explaining Drupal was just an option. > > I hope this clarifies my point, and makes it quite clear that I am not > just hearing what I want to. This was the official decision statement > as communicated back to the website mailing list. > Well you now see that the official decision was not a definitive statement about Drupal, and that it was *considered* as an option. Best, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > "to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org" does not seem to mean > anything to me. "With a view to go with Drupal" was rather: with the > possible option of Drupal in the long term. Sorry, I meant to write libreoffice.org not drupal.org > "a little bit of misinformation", Michael, is perhaps your enthusiasm > leading to understand things the way you would like them to be :-). At > this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans to move to Drupal; > there seems indeed to have been some early misunderstanding, but if you > wish the SC will clarify its position (again) . But given that I'm a > member of the said SC, it might be useful to you to take my words into > account. To make this clear in my mind I have listened and read the decision statement from the Steering Committee decision. The conversation on the conference call: "I would ask the people working on Drupal to do a more detailed planning in the next month regarding additional services..." There were some bits that I didn't quite understand (poor quality sound), but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider Drupal as the long term solution. The statement to the website list from the SC is as follows: "the CMS decision was taken: it will be Silverstripe as a starter, with plans to migrate to Drupal later on." http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/592 I would have thought that this official statement is very clear in the outcome and the website team has had a large group of people (larger than that working on the current site) working towards this end, whom might I say have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time. Clearly the implementation is still a few months off as we start to involve Native Language teams and other functional teams. I hope this clarifies my point, and makes it quite clear that I am not just hearing what I want to. This was the official decision statement as communicated back to the website mailing list. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
Michael, Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 00:28:58 +0930, Michael Wheatland a écrit : > On 03/01/2011 8:46 PM, "Charles-H. Schulz" < > charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:58:18 -, > > Zaphod Feeblejocks a écrit : > > > > > On 3 Jan 2011 at 17:29, Michael Wheatland wrote: > > > > > > > > Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page? > > > > > > > > > > Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they > > > > > know functionality can be extended? > > > > > > > > > > Could addons be clearly posted in the menus? > > > > > > > > > > Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a > > > > > pack of the most popular ones be compiled? Could the > > > > > most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional extra included > > > > > with the download? > > > > > > > > Zaphod, > > > > I have some good news for you. The website team is already > > > > tackling this with the Drupal implementation. > > > > > > > > In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is > > > > earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice). > > > > The website team has been busy building the site over at a > > > > temporary domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org > > > > > > Great work! > > > > While I do thank Michael for its great work I believe there's a > > slight misunderstanding here: Michael's own exploratory work might > > be used one day for the LibreOffice website, but it is at this > > stage not considered for an "upgrade". > > > > best, > > Charles. > > > > > > > > zf > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Charles-H. Schulz > > Membre du Comité exécutif > > The Document Foundation. > > Charles, > Far from being 'my' exploration work, the majority of the website > team has contributed towards this project after the Steering > Committee discussion and the outcome of which, I am paraphrasing, to > implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org with a view to go with > Drupal long term. "to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org" does not seem to mean anything to me. "With a view to go with Drupal" was rather: with the possible option of Drupal in the long term. > > The progress made by many of the contributing members has been > fantastic, and although I have been the most vocal of the website > development team regarding the implementation of a community building > and tooling site there are many other people who have done fantastic > work. > > I will be applying to the Steering Committee soon to set a target > date for implementation in order to focus the website team on a > tangible goal. Well there will be no target, I'm afraid. > > There does seem to be a little bit of misinformation out there > regarding this SC decision, but it is quite clear if you listen to > the decision outcome statement on the recording of the SC meeting. > > I am sure this will be clarified when the website team applies for a > further decision on implementation. "a little bit of misinformation", Michael, is perhaps your enthusiasm leading to understand things the way you would like them to be :-). At this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans to move to Drupal; there seems indeed to have been some early misunderstanding, but if you wish the SC will clarify its position (again) . But given that I'm a member of the said SC, it might be useful to you to take my words into account. Best, Charles. > > Michael Wheatland > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
Todd, Le Mon, 3 Jan 2011 09:50:36 -0500, todd rme a écrit : > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Michael Wheatland > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Zaphod Feeblejocks > > wrote: > >> On 2 Jan 2011 at 9:59, Craig A. Eddy wrote: > >> > >>> I also agree that ANY write-to docx should be an add-on, and not > >>> part of the vanilla release. > >> > >> Hi Craig, > >> > >> I have a concern about the Addons. In my 10+ years of using > >> OpenOffice/StarOffice, the inclusion of addons was a great idea. > >> However, the marketing of addons was not so good - hidden away in > >> a place that you can find once, but not so easily find again. > >> > >> Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page? > >> > >> Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know > >> functionality can be extended? > >> > >> Could addons be clearly posted in the menus? > >> > >> Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack of > >> the most popular ones be compiled? Could the most-frequent-addons > >> pack even be an optional extra included with the download? > > > > Zaphod, > > I have some good news for you. The website team is already tackling > > this with the Drupal implementation. > > > > In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is > > earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice). > > The website team has been busy building the site over at a temporary > > domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org > > > > Although the site theme is only temporary, you can see most of the > > site sections operating. The site will include an 'Extensions > > Library' designed similar to the Firefox addins site. > > > > It is not finished but you can see our progress here: > > http://www.libreofficeaustralia.org/download/extensions > > The implementation of categories will be the next step, followed by > > making the layout of the displays a little more beautiful. > > > > The development site is almost ready for beta testers, so if you > > wish to have a look and suggest any changes please feel free to let > > us know over on the website mailing list. > > > > Michael Wheatland > > So libreoffice is not planning on using the already-established > opendesktop.org websites for distributing its extensions? > At this stage no change has been planned, we are using the opendesktop infrastructure but for the extensions web site no plans of any sort has been made. (We should, though!) Best -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
On 03/01/2011 8:46 PM, "Charles-H. Schulz" < charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:58:18 -, > Zaphod Feeblejocks a écrit : > > > On 3 Jan 2011 at 17:29, Michael Wheatland wrote: > > > > > > Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page? > > > > > > > > Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know > > > > functionality can be extended? > > > > > > > > Could addons be clearly posted in the menus? > > > > > > > > Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack > > > > of the most popular ones be compiled? Could the > > > > most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional extra included with > > > > the download? > > > > > > Zaphod, > > > I have some good news for you. The website team is already tackling > > > this with the Drupal implementation. > > > > > > In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is > > > earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice). > > > The website team has been busy building the site over at a temporary > > > domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org > > > > Great work! > > While I do thank Michael for its great work I believe there's a slight > misunderstanding here: Michael's own exploratory work might be used one > day for the LibreOffice website, but it is at this stage not considered > for an "upgrade". > > best, > Charles. > > > > > zf > > > > > > -- > Charles-H. Schulz > Membre du Comité exécutif > The Document Foundation. Charles, Far from being 'my' exploration work, the majority of the website team has contributed towards this project after the Steering Committee discussion and the outcome of which, I am paraphrasing, to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org with a view to go with Drupal long term. The progress made by many of the contributing members has been fantastic, and although I have been the most vocal of the website development team regarding the implementation of a community building and tooling site there are many other people who have done fantastic work. I will be applying to the Steering Committee soon to set a target date for implementation in order to focus the website team on a tangible goal. There does seem to be a little bit of misinformation out there regarding this SC decision, but it is quite clear if you listen to the decision outcome statement on the recording of the SC meeting. I am sure this will be clarified when the website team applies for a further decision on implementation. Michael Wheatland -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Michael Wheatland wrote: > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote: >> On 2 Jan 2011 at 9:59, Craig A. Eddy wrote: >> >>> I also agree that ANY write-to docx should be an add-on, and not part of >>> the vanilla release. >> >> Hi Craig, >> >> I have a concern about the Addons. In my 10+ years of using >> OpenOffice/StarOffice, the >> inclusion of addons was a great idea. However, the marketing of addons was >> not so good - >> hidden away in a place that you can find once, but not so easily find again. >> >> Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page? >> >> Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know >> functionality can be >> extended? >> >> Could addons be clearly posted in the menus? >> >> Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack of the most >> popular >> ones be compiled? Could the most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional >> extra >> included with the download? > > Zaphod, > I have some good news for you. The website team is already tackling > this with the Drupal implementation. > > In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is > earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice). > The website team has been busy building the site over at a temporary > domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org > > Although the site theme is only temporary, you can see most of the > site sections operating. The site will include an 'Extensions Library' > designed similar to the Firefox addins site. > > It is not finished but you can see our progress here: > http://www.libreofficeaustralia.org/download/extensions > The implementation of categories will be the next step, followed by > making the layout of the displays a little more beautiful. > > The development site is almost ready for beta testers, so if you wish > to have a look and suggest any changes please feel free to let us know > over on the website mailing list. > > Michael Wheatland So libreoffice is not planning on using the already-established opendesktop.org websites for distributing its extensions? -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
Hello everyone, Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:58:18 -, Zaphod Feeblejocks a écrit : > On 3 Jan 2011 at 17:29, Michael Wheatland wrote: > > > > Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page? > > > > > > Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know > > > functionality can be extended? > > > > > > Could addons be clearly posted in the menus? > > > > > > Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack > > > of the most popular ones be compiled? Could the > > > most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional extra included with > > > the download? > > > > Zaphod, > > I have some good news for you. The website team is already tackling > > this with the Drupal implementation. > > > > In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is > > earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice). > > The website team has been busy building the site over at a temporary > > domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org > > Great work! While I do thank Michael for its great work I believe there's a slight misunderstanding here: Michael's own exploratory work might be used one day for the LibreOffice website, but it is at this stage not considered for an "upgrade". best, Charles. > > zf > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
On 3 Jan 2011 at 17:29, Michael Wheatland wrote: > > Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page? > > > > Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know > > functionality can be > > extended? > > > > Could addons be clearly posted in the menus? > > > > Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack of the most > > popular > > ones be compiled? Could the most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional > > extra > > included with the download? > > Zaphod, > I have some good news for you. The website team is already tackling > this with the Drupal implementation. > > In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is > earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice). > The website team has been busy building the site over at a temporary > domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org Great work! zf -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote: > On 2 Jan 2011 at 9:59, Craig A. Eddy wrote: > >> I also agree that ANY write-to docx should be an add-on, and not part of >> the vanilla release. > > Hi Craig, > > I have a concern about the Addons. In my 10+ years of using > OpenOffice/StarOffice, the > inclusion of addons was a great idea. However, the marketing of addons was > not so good - > hidden away in a place that you can find once, but not so easily find again. > > Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page? > > Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know > functionality can be > extended? > > Could addons be clearly posted in the menus? > > Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack of the most > popular > ones be compiled? Could the most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional > extra > included with the download? Zaphod, I have some good news for you. The website team is already tackling this with the Drupal implementation. In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice). The website team has been busy building the site over at a temporary domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org Although the site theme is only temporary, you can see most of the site sections operating. The site will include an 'Extensions Library' designed similar to the Firefox addins site. It is not finished but you can see our progress here: http://www.libreofficeaustralia.org/download/extensions The implementation of categories will be the next step, followed by making the layout of the displays a little more beautiful. The development site is almost ready for beta testers, so if you wish to have a look and suggest any changes please feel free to let us know over on the website mailing list. Michael Wheatland -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
On 2 Jan 2011 at 9:59, Craig A. Eddy wrote: > I also agree that ANY write-to docx should be an add-on, and not part of > the vanilla release. Hi Craig, I have a concern about the Addons. In my 10+ years of using OpenOffice/StarOffice, the inclusion of addons was a great idea. However, the marketing of addons was not so good - hidden away in a place that you can find once, but not so easily find again. Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page? Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know functionality can be extended? Could addons be clearly posted in the menus? Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack of the most popular ones be compiled? Could the most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional extra included with the download? There could even be the 'vanilla' install and the 'bumper-pack' install. Last summer, as part of the MSO to OOo migration, I hacked a batch file to install OOo with various settings and then various addons I had chosen (why was 'clipart' an addon, I wonder?). Simplifying this for downloaders wil help - I know several people who think OOo is not very good, because it has no clipart. Personally, I don't care about clipart but it's all down to user perceptions! zf -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
