You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> on 2011/07/31 00:28:22 UTC
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 07/30/2011 11:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> On another list, I saw a comment from Roy Fielding that resonated
>> with me. Others have mentioned it, but not here on ooo-dev.
>>
>> My interpretation is that we could have Apache ooo as the identifier
>> of the core Apache project built on what we factor out of the Oracle
>> grant, leaving OpenOffice.org as a web site and a family of
>> distributions and support for end-user and adopter/integrator
>> activities that reach out beyond the development of a buildable
>> open-source code base.
>
> This seems like a GREAT idea to me assuming it can be "done" vis a vis
> current conditions -- the Apache way, etc. Also see below
>
That has been the plan since the start. We eventually have an
openoffice.apache.org web site that has the project-facing website and
services, like source repositories, dev lists, work by translators,
documentation, etc. This is the web site where those who make OOo
work, the project community.
Then we have http:///www.openoffice.org, which remains the end-user
facing portal, the entry way to downloads, to support, to templates
and extensions, etc.
There are some services that have dual personalities, like bugzilla,
which is used by users as well as those on the project development
side.
This would not be an attempt to create an artificial division between
the project community and the users. I'm very sensitive to that. But
in this space, we really need an extremely easy-to-use, slee, sexy,
consumer-friendly portal for end users. This is the face of the
project to millions of current and potential users. We should have
hooks to draw them into the project community, for those with further
interest. But we can't scare them initially with the bare-bones
standard Apache look and feel project site.
>>
>> I think we should consider that attempting to put OpenOffice.org atop
>> all of it is over-constraining and also confusing, even though the
>> result may be unrecognizably different at the end-user level.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> MORE THOUGHTS BELOW THE QUOTATION
>>
>> [Disclaimer. This inspired my thinking but any misunderstanding of
>> what Roy was thinking is mine and mine alone.]
>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Roy T. Fielding
>>> [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 09:51 [
>>> ... quoted by permission ] Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org branding
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>> BTW, my personal preference is to call our product Apache OOo and
>>> leave the OpenOffice.org website as a joint forum and
>>> redistribution site for all variations of the suite, docs,
>>> tutorials, etc. However, such decisions are typically made by the
>>> people doing the work.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>
> yes... +1
>
>>>
>>> ....Roy T. Fielding, Director, The Apache Software Foundation
>>> (fielding@apache.org)<http://www.apache.org/>
>>> (fielding@gbiv.com)<http://roy.gbiv.com/>
>>>
>>
>> MORE THOUGHTS
>>
>> I am not invested in the history or passion around OpenOffice.org as
>> an ongoing development. My perspective is as someone who works from
>> the open standards and architectural perspective. So I beg your
>> forbearance if I have been insensitive to the history and the
>> familiarity that there is in how things have been done over the
>> years. It is not my intention to offend but to see what we can see
>> by thinking outside of the box.
>>
>> I trust it is clear to all of us that it will be unlikely that we can
>> somehow revive OpenOffice.org to a place where it is a
>> business-as-usual continuation of the now-stalled effort.
>>
Not business as usual. Business better than usual. But this is not
something for arguing. It is for doing.
>> Furthermore, my attention is on the suitability of Apache ooo as a
>> reference implementation with respect to ODF, with less emphasis on
>> what it takes to continue OpenOffice.org a desirable and thriving
>> software distribution. I'm in favor of that. It is not what my
>> attention is on. So this is not a balanced perspective.
>>
And why can't we do both? Is there some reason why an application
cannot both be a good implementation of ODF and also be a thriving
product? There are not mutually exclusive outcomes.
>> Here are some loosely-conceived thoughts. I don't have a clear or
>> specific picture. But I think the conceptual separation of ooo and
>> OpenOffice.org is an opportunity that might unfreeze us from trying
>> to move ahead under one giant lump.
>
> I agree...but...
>
>>
>> I favor the idea of separating the "pure Apache-way" project effort
>> and from the OpenOffice.org identity and "brand" as a broader
>> umbrella for all of the variations that go into making end-user
>> distributions, providing documentation materials, end-user support,
>> and especially the various native-language efforts that are part of
>> the OpenOffice.org ecosystem.
>
I've heard this idea put forward by LibreOffice supports as well. The
brand name of OpenOffice.org is very strong. The web site gets a lot
of traffic. Far more than libreoffice.org. Far more than
symphony.lotus.com. I think we'd all love a link from that website.
Who wouldn't? If you look at other Apache projects you see that they
are quite liberal about providing links to distributions of downstream
consumers, including other ports, distros and derived applications.
This comes with a disclaimed that these are not official Apache
releases, but it does help give these other projects some greater
visibility and "link love". See, for example, this Subversion page:
http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html
As you can see, there is also some degree of co-branding. So there is
TortoiseSVN, uberSVN, visualSVN, etc
I've always assumed we'd do something similar for Apache OpenOffice,
provide links to other releases. And if someone wants to call their
release "SuperDuper OpenOffice" or whatever, then we'd handle that
request via the normal process for Apache branding discussions.
> HOW to do this? I mean from a practical, pragmatic perspective. How will
> continued existence of what we might see as the "end user" OpenOffice.org
> architecture (servers, administration architecture) be carried out? What
> will we use, where will it be housed, how will it be administered it and who
> will finance it? I am QUITE concerned about the existence of the current
> site (on kenai). Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen a "drop dead" for
> removal of OpenOffice.org from this platform.
>
We've had discussions on the list on migration, some details here
(look at the website transfer row of the table):
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Planning
>>
>> I also see separation as rather easy because at the moment we are
>> using "ooo" for these lists, for the podling's SVN repository branch,
>> for the two wikis, for the Apache Extras (although that has forked
>> already [;<), etc.
>
> um....see my last comments. Easy from a philosophical standpoint, but not
> necessarily from a practical one.
>
>>
>> I favor the idea of a cleaner separation of the development of the
>> core ODF reference-implementation aspects from wider variations that
>> are typical and appropriate for a production-usable productivity
>> suite. A distribution will have incidental and discretionary
>> provisions that aren't particularly indicative of the "reference"
>> aspects and have not been the subject of standardization.
>>
>> Important Context: There is wide latitude for discretion in the ODF
>> specifications and even wider latitude for user-interface,
>> non-UI-based processors, etc., that are not the subject matter of the
>> ODF specification at all. It would be good to remove confusion
>> around that. Also, a reference implementation, to the extent it is
>> usable in practice, should not be taken as being in any sense
>> compelling with regard to anything but its conformant support for the
>> file format itself. A reference implementation that can be operated
>> needs to do something in discretionary areas. The incidental and
>> discretionary choices should be soundly done and well-narrated. But
>> there must be no suggestion that the approach to such incidental and
>> discretionary cases reflect requirements of ODF. The user interface
>> and its functionality is not subject matter for the ODF specification
>> as it now exists. One wants ways to produce features of the format.
>> One wants ways to deal with provisions of the format in any input
>> that is processed. But the gap from input to user presentation and
>> interaction and from there to output is not prescribed in the ODF
>> specification, nor are mappings between different formats and the
>> treatment of different formats as defaults.
>>
>> I'm not sure how much the technology transfer/deployment would work
>> from Apache ooo to OpenOffice.org and that is something we need to
>> figure out.
>
> Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I'm confused.
>
> When we have the code and the collateral artifacts in
>>
>> hand, our inspection may provide insight into how we can get rolling
>> and also understand how the development can be modularized in a
>> productive way.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>>
>
> good discussion...
>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "If you can keep your head when all others around you
> are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand
> the situation!"
> -- Unknown
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 08/01/2011 01:10 AM, Andre Schnabel wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
>> Von: Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
> ...
>>>
>>> Right, OK, but again, where will this and many other ancillary
>>> openoffice.org sites (like the forums etc.) actually live?
>>>
>>
>> The goal would be to have then continue at www.openoffice.org.
>>
> ...
>>>
>>> Yes, I know about this and have contributed to this but it doesn't
>> really
>>> answer my question...where do we go?
>>>
>>
>> If my answer still doesn't make sense, maybe you can try restating
>> your question. I might be answering a different question than you are
>> asking.
>>
>
>
> I think, Kay is asking for the "physical" solution. Means:
> - who will be the owner of the website
> - who will pay for the servers and bandwith
> - who will be the admin of the servers
>
> What seems to be unclear is, if Apache foundation will host content
> which is not directly under a *.apache.org domain.
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm a (now retired) enterprise IT person. Details, details, details! :)
>
> André
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"If you can keep your head when all others around you
are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand
the situation!"
-- Unknown
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> I think, Kay is asking for the "physical" solution. Means:
> - who will be the owner of the website
> - who will pay for the servers and bandwith
> - who will be the admin of the servers
>
> What seems to be unclear is, if Apache foundation will host content
> which is not directly under a *.apache.org domain.
>
Just to follow up on this, since this question has come up more than
once. There are Apache projects that have websites at domains other
than apache.org. This is rare at Apache, but has occurred in some
cases for historical reasons. Three examples:
-- http://myfaces.org/
-- http://www.openejb.org
-- http://www.spamassassin.org
As you will notice, in these cases the domain names redirect to the
corresponding Apache project.
-Rob
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <hi...@orcmid.com>.
+1
just re-host it, do whatever verification/adjustment is needed before the DNS switcheroo happens, then continue with clean up and any further migration afterwards. I see no reason to have all of it on Apache SVN or convert the PHPBB or MediaWiki to anything else in the short term.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Rist [mailto:andrew.rist@oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 18:18
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Oracle Email Signature Logo
Andrew Rist | Interoperability Architect
Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
Redwood Shores, CA | 650.506.9847
On 8/1/2011 1:53 AM, Gavin McDonald wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andre Schnabel [mailto:Andre.Schnabel@gmx.net]
>> Sent: Monday, 1 August 2011 6:11 PM
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
>> re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>>> Von: Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
>> ...
>>>> Right, OK, but again, where will this and many other ancillary
>>>> openoffice.org sites (like the forums etc.) actually live?
>>>>
>>> The goal would be to have then continue at www.openoffice.org.
>>>
>> ...
>>>> Yes, I know about this and have contributed to this but it doesn't
>>> really
>>>> answer my question...where do we go?
>>>>
>>> If my answer still doesn't make sense, maybe you can try restating
>>> your question. I might be answering a different question than you are
>>> asking.
>>>
>>
>> I think, Kay is asking for the "physical" solution. Means:
>> - who will be the owner of the website
>> - who will pay for the servers and bandwith
>> - who will be the admin of the servers
>>
>> What seems to be unclear is, if Apache foundation will host content which is
>> not directly under a *.apache.org domain.
> We are expecting to move most of this as possible over to ASF Hardware.
>
> The forums, the mediawiki wiki, the websites (most of the kenai stuff) we should
> start moving over soon.
>
> I think we are just waiting perhaps on someone at Oracle to say to ASF that yes you can
> take all of our forums and wiki and get on with hosting it.
I'm working on getting to that exact statement. There is certainly
nothing stopping us from staging the servers and setting up the transition.
Once that infrastructure is in place for the Forums and Wiki - I think
we can do the transfer at the DNS level pretty quickly.
I'm still waiting on a response, in terms of guidance on where Oracle
stands in terms of ownership/transfer of the content.
That said, a transfer of the hosting of the services in their current
form looks like the best viable option at this point.
Andrew
>
> Gav...
>
>> André
>>
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Wolf Halton <wo...@gmail.com>.
+1 on transferring the existing wiki &c as is. It would make little sense to
delete years of contributions. IMO it passes the message that user
contributions are merely tolerated, rather than welcomed and appreciated.
The latter being central to open-source software, it would have a cooling
effect to take the former path. Along the same tack, deleting users who
have not contributed to the wiki for a few years would also have a chilling
effect. Deleting users who never contributed or whose contributions would be
considered spam by any hundred reasonable people is a different situation.
Wolf
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 19:11 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I thought Terry had some numbers, and also wants to be able to bring up replicas on machines he has so he can confirm, verify staging, etc.
He did, but I don't think he actually touched on disc space - 50 gig, I
believe, is adequate for each from what I heard from Terry a couple
weeks back. The wiki IIRC was a bit over 16 gig of content and the
forums a good bit less - anyway, Clayton and/or Terry would correct, but
I think you are sounding, good to go for what is needed to get a staging
setup running.
I also think this makes the most sense also for right now - discussions
on wiki content and documentation licensing not withstanding, this gets
a safety net under that content while those decisions are being worked
out.
//drew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin McDonald [mailto:gavin@16degrees.com.au]
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 18:24
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
> [ ... ]
>
> I never got a reply on what the VM requirements are.
>
> I'd like to get going so am going to create 2 x VMs of 50GB space and 2GB RAM each, both
> with Ubuntu 10.04.3. One for the mediawiki and one for the forums.
>
> We can then get started on getting a working copy going on these, ready for final sync once
> the go ahead is given.
>
> Thanks
>
> Gav...
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I thought Terry had some numbers, and also wants to be able to bring up replicas on machines he has so he can confirm, verify staging, etc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gavin McDonald [mailto:gavin@16degrees.com.au]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 18:24
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
[ ... ]
I never got a reply on what the VM requirements are.
I'd like to get going so am going to create 2 x VMs of 50GB space and 2GB RAM each, both
with Ubuntu 10.04.3. One for the mediawiki and one for the forums.
We can then get started on getting a working copy going on these, ready for final sync once
the go ahead is given.
Thanks
Gav...
[ ... ]
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Aug 1, 2011, at 8:02 PM, TerryE wrote:
> <snip>
>> Excellent,
>>
>> I never got a reply on what the VM requirements are.
>>
>> I'd like to get going so am going to create 2 x VMs of 50GB space and 2GB RAM each, both
>> with Ubuntu 10.04.3. One for the mediawiki and one for the forums.
>>
>> We can then get started on getting a working copy going on these, ready for final sync once
>> the go ahead is given.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Gav...
>>
> Gavin,
>
> The forums will comfortably run in this. The wiki might struggle without tuning, since the current config isn't and the MediaWiki engine is a D/B hog unless you stick a cache such as Squid or Varnish in front of it.
>
> If you are building the VMs then that's fine, but I'll want to mirror them exactly for my dev, so can you mail me the dpkg -l listing together with the etc tarball and details of any not debian installs.
>
> I'll shout if there's anything missing. We'll need a PHP accelerator -- Xcache or APC, and php5-cli.
Full steam ahead! Thanks Gavin!
Regards,
Dave
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by TerryE <oo...@ellisons.org.uk>.
<snip>
> Excellent,
>
> I never got a reply on what the VM requirements are.
>
> I'd like to get going so am going to create 2 x VMs of 50GB space and 2GB RAM each, both
> with Ubuntu 10.04.3. One for the mediawiki and one for the forums.
>
> We can then get started on getting a working copy going on these, ready for final sync once
> the go ahead is given.
>
> Thanks
>
> Gav...
>
Gavin,
The forums will comfortably run in this. The wiki might struggle
without tuning, since the current config isn't and the MediaWiki engine
is a D/B hog unless you stick a cache such as Squid or Varnish in front
of it.
If you are building the VMs then that's fine, but I'll want to mirror
them exactly for my dev, so can you mail me the dpkg -l listing together
with the etc tarball and details of any not debian installs.
I'll shout if there's anything missing. We'll need a PHP accelerator --
Xcache or APC, and php5-cli.
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Rist [mailto:andrew.rist@oracle.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 August 2011 11:18 AM
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
> re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
>
>
>
> Oracle Email Signature Logo
> Andrew Rist | Interoperability Architect Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
> Redwood Shores, CA | 650.506.9847
>
> On 8/1/2011 1:53 AM, Gavin McDonald wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Andre Schnabel [mailto:Andre.Schnabel@gmx.net]
> >> Sent: Monday, 1 August 2011 6:11 PM
> >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
> >> re:OpenOffice.org branding)
> >>
> >> Hi Rob,
> >>
> >>> Von: Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
> >> ...
> >>>> Right, OK, but again, where will this and many other ancillary
> >>>> openoffice.org sites (like the forums etc.) actually live?
> >>>>
> >>> The goal would be to have then continue at www.openoffice.org.
> >>>
> >> ...
> >>>> Yes, I know about this and have contributed to this but it doesn't
> >>> really
> >>>> answer my question...where do we go?
> >>>>
> >>> If my answer still doesn't make sense, maybe you can try restating
> >>> your question. I might be answering a different question than you
> >>> are asking.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think, Kay is asking for the "physical" solution. Means:
> >> - who will be the owner of the website
> >> - who will pay for the servers and bandwith
> >> - who will be the admin of the servers
> >>
> >> What seems to be unclear is, if Apache foundation will host content
> >> which is not directly under a *.apache.org domain.
> > We are expecting to move most of this as possible over to ASF Hardware.
> >
> > The forums, the mediawiki wiki, the websites (most of the kenai stuff)
> > we should start moving over soon.
> >
> > I think we are just waiting perhaps on someone at Oracle to say to ASF
> > that yes you can take all of our forums and wiki and get on with hosting it.
> I'm working on getting to that exact statement. There is certainly nothing
> stopping us from staging the servers and setting up the transition.
> Once that infrastructure is in place for the Forums and Wiki - I think we can
> do the transfer at the DNS level pretty quickly.
> I'm still waiting on a response, in terms of guidance on where Oracle stands in
> terms of ownership/transfer of the content.
> That said, a transfer of the hosting of the services in their current form looks
> like the best viable option at this point.
Excellent,
I never got a reply on what the VM requirements are.
I'd like to get going so am going to create 2 x VMs of 50GB space and 2GB RAM each, both
with Ubuntu 10.04.3. One for the mediawiki and one for the forums.
We can then get started on getting a working copy going on these, ready for final sync once
the go ahead is given.
Thanks
Gav...
>
> Andrew
> >
> > Gav...
> >
> >> André
> >>
> >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.
Oracle Email Signature Logo
Andrew Rist | Interoperability Architect
Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
Redwood Shores, CA | 650.506.9847
On 8/1/2011 1:53 AM, Gavin McDonald wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andre Schnabel [mailto:Andre.Schnabel@gmx.net]
>> Sent: Monday, 1 August 2011 6:11 PM
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
>> re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>>> Von: Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
>> ...
>>>> Right, OK, but again, where will this and many other ancillary
>>>> openoffice.org sites (like the forums etc.) actually live?
>>>>
>>> The goal would be to have then continue at www.openoffice.org.
>>>
>> ...
>>>> Yes, I know about this and have contributed to this but it doesn't
>>> really
>>>> answer my question...where do we go?
>>>>
>>> If my answer still doesn't make sense, maybe you can try restating
>>> your question. I might be answering a different question than you are
>>> asking.
>>>
>>
>> I think, Kay is asking for the "physical" solution. Means:
>> - who will be the owner of the website
>> - who will pay for the servers and bandwith
>> - who will be the admin of the servers
>>
>> What seems to be unclear is, if Apache foundation will host content which is
>> not directly under a *.apache.org domain.
> We are expecting to move most of this as possible over to ASF Hardware.
>
> The forums, the mediawiki wiki, the websites (most of the kenai stuff) we should
> start moving over soon.
>
> I think we are just waiting perhaps on someone at Oracle to say to ASF that yes you can
> take all of our forums and wiki and get on with hosting it.
I'm working on getting to that exact statement. There is certainly
nothing stopping us from staging the servers and setting up the transition.
Once that infrastructure is in place for the Forums and Wiki - I think
we can do the transfer at the DNS level pretty quickly.
I'm still waiting on a response, in terms of guidance on where Oracle
stands in terms of ownership/transfer of the content.
That said, a transfer of the hosting of the services in their current
form looks like the best viable option at this point.
Andrew
>
> Gav...
>
>> André
>>
>
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andre Schnabel [mailto:Andre.Schnabel@gmx.net]
> Sent: Monday, 1 August 2011 6:11 PM
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
> re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> > Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
> ...
> > >
> > > Right, OK, but again, where will this and many other ancillary
> > > openoffice.org sites (like the forums etc.) actually live?
> > >
> >
> > The goal would be to have then continue at www.openoffice.org.
> >
> ...
> > >
> > > Yes, I know about this and have contributed to this but it doesn't
> > really
> > > answer my question...where do we go?
> > >
> >
> > If my answer still doesn't make sense, maybe you can try restating
> > your question. I might be answering a different question than you are
> > asking.
> >
>
>
> I think, Kay is asking for the "physical" solution. Means:
> - who will be the owner of the website
> - who will pay for the servers and bandwith
> - who will be the admin of the servers
>
> What seems to be unclear is, if Apache foundation will host content which is
> not directly under a *.apache.org domain.
We are expecting to move most of this as possible over to ASF Hardware.
The forums, the mediawiki wiki, the websites (most of the kenai stuff) we should
start moving over soon.
I think we are just waiting perhaps on someone at Oracle to say to ASF that yes you can
take all of our forums and wiki and get on with hosting it.
Gav...
>
> André
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch>.
Am 01.08.11 10:10, schrieb Andre Schnabel:
> Hi Rob,
>
>> Von: Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
> ...
>>> Right, OK, but again, where will this and many other ancillary
>>> openoffice.org sites (like the forums etc.) actually live?
>>>
>> The goal would be to have then continue at www.openoffice.org.
>>
> ...
>>> Yes, I know about this and have contributed to this but it doesn't
>> really
>>> answer my question...where do we go?
>>>
>> If my answer still doesn't make sense, maybe you can try restating
>> your question. I might be answering a different question than you are
>> asking.
>>
>
> I think, Kay is asking for the "physical" solution. Means:
> - who will be the owner of the website
> - who will pay for the servers and bandwith
> - who will be the admin of the servers
>
> What seems to be unclear is, if Apache foundation will host content
> which is not directly under a *.apache.org domain.
In my understanding apache do this. The discoussion was more about the
used software, because e.g. MediaWiki and PHPBB is not in the Apache
portfolio. But here we are close to a solution I think.
Greetings Raphael
--
My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
A few comments and suggestions from a mentor.
On 8/1/2011 9:48 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> <snip>
>
> <sigh>
>
> There are so many points and counterpoints about new/old and
> easy/hard.
>
> I think we need guidance about the migration. We need to state what
> we want to do given the strong and understandable push to preserve
> the Wiki, forums, and user downloads of the legacy code.
Personally, I'd suggest that a few of the committers who can actually do
the work here start taking chunks of it, making more concrete
[PROPOSAL]s, and start working with infra@ and this list on how to do
those specific tasks. Break some of the bits off into manageable chunks
and make progress on them.
A key point with meritocracies is that the people *doing* the work
(effectively) get to decide. It feels like a number of threads recently
are either discussing various details without having more concrete
proposals, or are being driven by non-committers who are discussing ways
that the project *won't* work.
This community - in general, everyone on ooo-dev@, but more specifically
the committers and PPMC - need to focus on specific ways that the
project *will* work.
> WIth the goal of preserving the existing community knowledge base, we
> need to know that it is OK for us to consider doing the following
> with the openoffice.org domain site on Foundation hardware.
>
> (1) Make sure that we are addressing any concerns about hosting the
> user forums on an openoffice.org domain - hosted on an Apache Jail.
Simply hosting it mostly staticly: just figure out the IP issues of
hosting (what seems to be a significant amount of) content that is not
under the AL (Apache License).
The whole concept of this large amount of community-driven wiki content
(i.e. from people not likely to sign iCLAs) really deserves it's own
separate thread. In particular, figuring out how the community will
plan to manage new updates to the community wiki (i.e., either ensuring
that we have iCLAs or equivalent on all new contributions, or not).
Note: has anyone investigated other Apache wikis and how they manage
contributions from non-committers? There are plenty that do that already.
>
> (2) Allow the MediaWiki to exist as much as possible under its
> current terms for existing content, and under Apache terms for new
> content - hosted on an Apache Jail.
A question for this list and for infra@ (in terms of what the Apache
infrastructure team is able and willing to physically host). The best
approach is to figure out more concretely what the ooo podling wants,
and then work with infra@ to get it.
>
> (3) Host the old Oracle and Sun releases on download.openoffice.org
> through the Apache Mirror system even though they are not AL 2.0.
>
> Are these good questions to ask the Board in our report? Or should we
> be looking for guidance on legal-discuss.
Heh, sorry, no, these are not questions to ask the board! These are
things for *this* project to figure out - first step 1) what you want to
do, and then step 2) how you can do it. Step 2) presumably requires
talking with legal-discuss@ and infrastructure@ to get specific advice.
If there are significant IP risks with what you're publishing on Apache
servers today, or if there are unresolvable conflicts within the PPMC,
then include things like that as "issues for the board".
The board is here to provide the oversight to ensure the Foundation as a
whole is running smoothly. The board has appointed a number of specific
officers or committees who can help with all of these questions - like
VP, Legal, the Infrastructure team, Branding, and even just the
Incubator PMC (and your mentors) that can provide guidance on who to ask
for help on different issues.
>
> We would certainly be very sure that it would very difficult for
> misunderstanding that these are NOT Apache releases.
>
> Regards, Dave
Good questions though!
- Shane
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
<snip>
<sigh>
There are so many points and counterpoints about new/old and easy/hard.
I think we need guidance about the migration. We need to state what we want to do given the strong and understandable push to preserve the Wiki, forums, and user downloads of the legacy code.
WIth the goal of preserving the existing community knowledge base, we need to know that it is OK for us to consider doing the following with the openoffice.org domain site on Foundation hardware.
(1) Make sure that we are addressing any concerns about hosting the user forums on an openoffice.org domain - hosted on an Apache Jail.
(2) Allow the MediaWiki to exist as much as possible under its current terms for existing content, and under Apache terms for new content - hosted on an Apache Jail.
(3) Host the old Oracle and Sun releases on download.openoffice.org through the Apache Mirror system even though they are not AL 2.0.
Are these good questions to ask the Board in our report? Or should we be looking for guidance on legal-discuss.
We would certainly be very sure that it would very difficult for misunderstanding that these are NOT Apache releases.
Regards,
Dave
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote on Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 20:45:09 -0400:
>> Apache OpenOffice is a new Apache project. That's why we're in the
>> Incubator. That's why we have Mentors. That's why, if we do not
>> demonstrate reasonable progress in acting like an Apache project, we
>> can be shut down at our Quarterly Review. The next one is in 3 weeks.
>
> No one has quarterly reviews every four weeks.
>
Our next quarterly review is in 3 weeks. We just got a note request
that we submit the report yesterday. I thought it was odd as well,
but was told that new Podlings submit reports every month for the
first three months.
> Suggesting that the Incubator PMC will reject your July report with the
> message "Sorry, rejected, podling closed" is FUD.
>
No, not in July. But we need to start making progress. Digging in
and saying "we've always done it this way" rather than giving Apache a
try is not a healthy sign, IMHO. Or maybe this is just the case of a
couple who decides to get married and then finds out, much to their
sudden distress, that they now must share closet space.
-Rob
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Rob Weir wrote on Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 20:45:09 -0400:
> Apache OpenOffice is a new Apache project. That's why we're in the
> Incubator. That's why we have Mentors. That's why, if we do not
> demonstrate reasonable progress in acting like an Apache project, we
> can be shut down at our Quarterly Review. The next one is in 3 weeks.
No one has quarterly reviews every four weeks.
Suggesting that the Incubator PMC will reject your July report with the
message "Sorry, rejected, podling closed" is FUD.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
I'm sure other responses will follow but I just wanted to address a few
of these comments vis a vis past history....
On 08/01/2011 08:35 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> As for admin resources, there is not a large admin staff employed by
> Apache. It is almost entirely volunteers. So for those resources,
> this is certainly an issue.
Conceptually, many of the OO.o resources had what I will called
decentralized administration, for specific projects and other services.
I don't see that Apache has this and well, I am again not certain how
the omission of this will affect "moving forward".
>
> I'm not assuming that everything gets moved over by default.
There's already been discussion on this both pro and con. From my
perspective, NOT moving everything somewhere en masse, and then editing
afterward will severely slow down the migration process. Yes, there's a
LOT out there that's old and useless, but I don't see that we have the
time or resources to deal with this BEFORE migration. It would be better
from and end user standpoint as well.
That's
> certainly the easiest thing for project members to think about, that
> we'll just continue everything as it was before, but do it at Apache.
> But was everything working well before? I'm looking now at dozens of
> Kenai projects that have seen zero activity in a long, long time, or
> only have spam in them.
OK, some reasons here. OO.o moved to kenai in Feb of this year. I too
looked at some of the cvs logs on some projects. The problem is I don't
even think some of the existing, well formerly existing,
contributors/project managers have even had time to figure out the new
environment if you want to know the truth. jsut my .02 observation on this.
Personally I'm not interested in creating an
> OpenOffice.org museum. I want a living, growing project, with no dead
> wood.
>
> There is a natural tendency to segregate the project into dozens of
> little boxes and to give every box and every person a title and create
> a multi-tiered bureaucracy of steering committees and leads and
> deputies to manage these dozens of boxes. That is a very easy thing
> to do. Too easy. But Apache is not like that. Within a project
> anyone can do anything. Projects are flat. There are no boxes. If a
> committer wants to patch code one day, then modify the doc another
> day, translate it into French and then after dinner update the
> website, they can.
hmmmm...OK. Yet another rather critical clarification I would say.
>
> I sensed that several project members, including myself, where
> skeptical when this Apache project first started, and we had just a
> single ooo-dev list. How could this possibly work, without a separate
> marketing list, a QA list, a Doc list, a Support list, an
> infrastructure list, and 145 different national language lists? We
> must hurry and recreate the boxes from OpenOffice ASAP lest we
> actually talk to each other as one project!
>
> But it has worked out pretty well, I think, having a single list.
> We've all learned more about how the parts of the project work, and
> what our collected concerns and priorities are. I think this is a
> good thing. I realize that at some point we'll need to create some
> additional lists and additional wikis. But I'd urge a minimalist
> approach. Create only what is needed when it is needed. Let's not
> rush to recreate the 200 boxes of OpenOffice.org. I think we can do
> better than that.
>
> Obviously, this complicates the migration effort. We need to discuss
> and decide which services are preserved and according to your 1-5
> methods above. Luckily I think there is consensus that we must
> preserve the phpBB user support forums, so maybe we start with that?
>
>> As we've discussed elsewhere, the OOo forums and OOo wiki can easily fall
>> into (4), though whether the wiki moves into sustain support is still an
>> issue. In this case Apache will provide a hosting service which is directly
>> supported by the infra team, but they will undoubtedly expect the project to
>> provide in VM/Jail/Zone day-to-day administration, albiet compliant with
>> wider operations and security standards.
>>
>
> The obvious question we'll get is whether our wiki content could be
> migrated to confluence or moin moin, to run on existing
> infrastructure. Has anyone investigated this? Saying that
> translation is impossible due to X, Y and Z would be a great answer.
> But saying we haven't really looked but it appears to be hard, is not
> a great answer. Remember, getting MediaWiki supported at Apache will
> be hard as well.
>
> -Rob
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"If you can keep your head when all others around you
are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand
the situation!"
-- Unknown
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org?
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Monday, 2011-08-01 17:46:37 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> Another key question is that of accounts. Who will have write access
>> to the wiki?
>>
>> 1) We preserve the accounts of the Oracle-hosted server and anyone who
>> has an account there has one at Apache?
>
> +1
>
> The OOo wiki is the central resource for developers, extension
> developers, translators, QA, documentation authors, marketing and end
> users (if I forgot any, please forgive me), accounts should be
> preserved.
>
>> I think this boils down to: is this a project wiki with project work
>> in it? Or is it a community wiki?
>
> It is a community wiki.
>
>> What do we need to ensure that the
>> PPMC has oversight of project outputs and that our users have the
>> rights they think they have to those outputs, which is to say, that
>> new content remains under Apache 2.0?
>
> If simply the hosting of the wiki is transfered, why would content have
> to be under AL2?
>
I mean new content added to the wiki.
> Eike
>
> --
> PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
> Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org?
Posted by Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de>.
Hi Rob,
On Monday, 2011-08-01 17:46:37 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> Another key question is that of accounts. Who will have write access
> to the wiki?
>
> 1) We preserve the accounts of the Oracle-hosted server and anyone who
> has an account there has one at Apache?
+1
The OOo wiki is the central resource for developers, extension
developers, translators, QA, documentation authors, marketing and end
users (if I forgot any, please forgive me), accounts should be
preserved.
> I think this boils down to: is this a project wiki with project work
> in it? Or is it a community wiki?
It is a community wiki.
> What do we need to ensure that the
> PPMC has oversight of project outputs and that our users have the
> rights they think they have to those outputs, which is to say, that
> new content remains under Apache 2.0?
If simply the hosting of the wiki is transfered, why would content have
to be under AL2?
Eike
--
PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de>.
Hi Rob,
On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 10:52:33 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list.
> >
>
> That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is
> external to Apache. We're not discussing that right now. What we're
> discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which we
> are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two
> different things.
Actually the OOo 3.2 user guide by the ODFAuthors group was contributed
to the wiki as well under a CC-BY license, see for example
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/Getting_Started
Later guides for OOo 3.3 and 3.x are available as .odt and .pdf checked
in to the wiki, not as wiki pages, see
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation
Eike
--
PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Terry Ellison <Te...@ellisons.org.uk>.
Rob,
Let us take a time-out on this one. Some of these points are best
clarified off DL before coming back here; some are noise; and some are
sufficiently important to be considered properly before being raised as
threads in their own right rather than buried 20 replies down in a
thread on "Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)".
Terry
<snip the rest>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 14:16:23 -0700, Andy Brown wrote:
>
>> Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the
>> announcement of transferring to Apache, let a lone in the last week.
>> Shows that someone is still interested. I would like to find out
>> what as edited.
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges
>
> One of the 5 was me editing my user page..
>
> Eike
Thanks that is what I was looking for. That is something I never got a
round to. :(
Andy
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de>.
Hi Andy,
On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 14:16:23 -0700, Andy Brown wrote:
> Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the
> announcement of transferring to Apache, let a lone in the last week.
> Shows that someone is still interested. I would like to find out
> what as edited.
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges
One of the 5 was me editing my user page..
Eike
--
PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 19:12 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> The essential question to ask is, what rights do users of the doc
>> have? If we want downstream consumers to be able to copy, modify and
>> redistribute the documentation then we need it under Apache 2.0, which
>> is what would happen if the author signed the iCLA.
>
> The user guides are under CC-BY license. Your hypothetical case could
> reuse them just as they could reuse material under the Apache license.
>
All content contributed directly to the project is done in Apache 2.0.
But there is some allowance for using 3rd party components that have
a compatible license. A list of compatible licenses currently
recognized are listed here:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
As you can see, CC-BY 2.5 is included in that list. So I think we're good.
-Rob
> Yes, I realise you're talking about wiki material in the rest of this
> note.
>
> --Jean
>
>>
>> Project releases, naturally, are all under Apache 2.0 and must
>> guarantee these rights. This is true for any doc that is bundled with
>> them.
>>
>> As you know, we don't currently bundle the wiki doc with the releases.
>> But should we reserve the right to do this? Let me give you a very
>> plausible use case for that:
>>
>> Imagine a school or government department, or a company, that wants to
>> deploy OpenOffice in their organization, but also wants to host their
>> own copy of the wiki documentation, inside their firewall, perhaps
>> with some customized material. This could range from adding
>> additional links to internal template servers, to removing irrelevant
>> information, to adding documentation regarding internal-only plugins.
>> It could be complete, or only for some small number of pages.
>>
>> Is something like that a reasonable use? Something that we should
>> "reserve the right" to support? I think so. If we ever wanted to
>> support something like this, then we would need the wiki (or at least
>> the core doc parts of the wiki) be under a common permissive license.
>
>
>
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 19:12 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> The essential question to ask is, what rights do users of the doc
> have? If we want downstream consumers to be able to copy, modify and
> redistribute the documentation then we need it under Apache 2.0, which
> is what would happen if the author signed the iCLA.
The user guides are under CC-BY license. Your hypothetical case could
reuse them just as they could reuse material under the Apache license.
Yes, I realise you're talking about wiki material in the rest of this
note.
--Jean
>
> Project releases, naturally, are all under Apache 2.0 and must
> guarantee these rights. This is true for any doc that is bundled with
> them.
>
> As you know, we don't currently bundle the wiki doc with the releases.
> But should we reserve the right to do this? Let me give you a very
> plausible use case for that:
>
> Imagine a school or government department, or a company, that wants to
> deploy OpenOffice in their organization, but also wants to host their
> own copy of the wiki documentation, inside their firewall, perhaps
> with some customized material. This could range from adding
> additional links to internal template servers, to removing irrelevant
> information, to adding documentation regarding internal-only plugins.
> It could be complete, or only for some small number of pages.
>
> Is something like that a reasonable use? Something that we should
> "reserve the right" to support? I think so. If we ever wanted to
> support something like this, then we would need the wiki (or at least
> the core doc parts of the wiki) be under a common permissive license.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 13:18:37 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> > And we should look around at some of the TLP project wikis that allow public contributions.
>>
>> Pass along some links if you find some good examples.
>
> I think these explain well what needs to be considered for project
> documentation wikis and that it is allowed to use conventional wikis:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CWIKI/Index#Index-Ifweusethewikitomaintainprojectdocumentation%2Carethereanyspecialconsiderations%3F
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CWIKI/Index#Index-Butwhatifwewouldlikethecommunityatlargetohelpmaintainthespace%3F
>
> | the touch point is whether you want to reserve the right to bundle the
> | documentation with a release and/or check a copy into an ASF repository
>
The essential question to ask is, what rights do users of the doc
have? If we want downstream consumers to be able to copy, modify and
redistribute the documentation then we need it under Apache 2.0, which
is what would happen if the author signed the iCLA.
Project releases, naturally, are all under Apache 2.0 and must
guarantee these rights. This is true for any doc that is bundled with
them.
As you know, we don't currently bundle the wiki doc with the releases.
But should we reserve the right to do this? Let me give you a very
plausible use case for that:
Imagine a school or government department, or a company, that wants to
deploy OpenOffice in their organization, but also wants to host their
own copy of the wiki documentation, inside their firewall, perhaps
with some customized material. This could range from adding
additional links to internal template servers, to removing irrelevant
information, to adding documentation regarding internal-only plugins.
It could be complete, or only for some small number of pages.
Is something like that a reasonable use? Something that we should
"reserve the right" to support? I think so. If we ever wanted to
support something like this, then we would need the wiki (or at least
the core doc parts of the wiki) be under a common permissive license.
-Rob
>
> Eike
>
> --
> PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
> Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Wolf Halton <wo...@gmail.com>.
This certainly states the Apache position clearly, Eike.
Since I already have a CLA in file (it only hurt for a moment) it would be
silly for me to argue the case for undocumented contribution any more. The
most sensible route, IMO, is to offer a wiki with 3 contributor levels.
1. Registered users who checkbox a creative-commons eula, or Apache license
agreement. This gives us the ability to run the wiki, and to edit or delete
user content as required. I imagine these users will only be able to comment
on articles, and I expect most of them to abstain.
2. People with CLAs on file, who ike to write how-tos and pages. These
people will be allowed to edit eachother's contributions.
3. Committers who vet and edit the writings of the #2 committers (and
eachother) for possible inclusion in the official documentation.
Persons who perceive this as an honour will write in the wiki. Persons what
consider this structure to be an enormous pita will probably still write in
wikipedia, where the contributors are mostly of type #2.
Wolf
On Aug 2, 2011 6:47 PM, "Eike Rathke" <oo...@erack.de> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 13:18:37 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> > And we should look around at some of the TLP project wikis that allow
public contributions.
>>
>> Pass along some links if you find some good examples.
>
> I think these explain well what needs to be considered for project
> documentation wikis and that it is allowed to use conventional wikis:
>
>
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CWIKI/Index#Index-Ifweusethewikitomaintainprojectdocumentation%2Carethereanyspecialconsiderations%3F
>
>
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CWIKI/Index#Index-Butwhatifwewouldlikethecommunityatlargetohelpmaintainthespace%3F
>
> | the touch point is whether you want to reserve the right to bundle the
> | documentation with a release and/or check a copy into an ASF repository
>
>
> Eike
>
> --
> PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
> Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de>.
Hi Rob,
On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 13:18:37 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > And we should look around at some of the TLP project wikis that allow public contributions.
>
> Pass along some links if you find some good examples.
I think these explain well what needs to be considered for project
documentation wikis and that it is allowed to use conventional wikis:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CWIKI/Index#Index-Ifweusethewikitomaintainprojectdocumentation%2Carethereanyspecialconsiderations%3F
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CWIKI/Index#Index-Butwhatifwewouldlikethecommunityatlargetohelpmaintainthespace%3F
| the touch point is whether you want to reserve the right to bundle the
| documentation with a release and/or check a copy into an ASF repository
Eike
--
PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I'm not sure we are all talking about the same documentation. I suppose the OOODEV wiki is the appropriate place to be doing that documentation, whatever it is, that is intended in the guidelines.
>
I'm thinking of these things that are necessary for anyone to make use
of the product. The core documentation. A look around other Apache
projects would give some idea of what that doc is, at least from a
developer's perspective. But there is analogous doc requirements for
users, admins and app developers. Honestly, I think most of what we
call doc is "core doc".
> When we see the equivalent on OpenOffice.org, we should, on a per-case basis, redirect it to OOODEV perhaps.
>
I don't think we want to move content across different wiki
applications. I'd be happy to delete OOODEV and stick with MediaWiki
for both wikis. That would give us some consistency in look and feel.
It would also allow the public wiki to be a sandbox or lab where
anyone could propose and develop new doc sets. As the doc matured, it
could then me integrated into the official doc and maintained from
there. If we have a consistent license and markup, we can do things
like that.
> But we do need to get to specific cases and handle them individually.
>
Agreed. We'll learn by doing as well.
> For a general-public editable wiki, I think sticking with the Creative Commons Attribution license should be just fine where it is already supplied. More people seem to know what that is, and it is fully permissive without what appears to be such high ceremony as the ALv2.
>
I disagree. Let me explain why. The wiki currently holds a lot of
detailed plans and designs for future features. So it is used for
project planning and technical design. See, for example:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Calc/Features/Multi-range_copy_and_paste
There are also pages with more detailed designs, including embedded source code:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Calc/Implementation/Spreadsheet_Functions#formula.2Finc.2Fformula.2Fcompiler.hrc
So it is very possible that patentable methods and copyrighted source
code could migrate directly from the wiki into project source code.
It is prudent to ensure that those who contribute to these wiki pages
are making the necessary assertions with regards to any IP involved.
This is no different than the agreements you and I made when deciding
to work on standards at OASIS. Even though it is just "documentation"
that documentation is the blueprint for software, and as such has IP
implications.
Of course, the alternate way is to move these pages and those like it
into a project-wiki which is only writable by those who have returned
the iCLA.
> And we should look around at some of the TLP project wikis that allow public contributions.
>
Pass along some links if you find some good examples.
-Rob
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 09:28
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> At Apache, every committer has the ability to veto a change. Not just
>>> me. Far from it.
>>
>> True.
>>
>>> In any case, in order to move the argument forward, I'd like to
>>> reiterate thecific concerns that I have, to which I've seen no
>>> response other than "we don't want to change". But no one is
>>> addressing the fundamental questions:
>>>
>>> 1) How do we ensure that the future documentation is under the Apache
>>> 2.0 license so that it can be copied, modified and redistributed
>>> freely by others?
>>
>> If you talking the wiki, instead of requiring an ICLA as a person has to
>> create an account, why not make it part of that process that "All submitted
>> contributions are under AL2 license". Would that not be sufficient?
>>
>
> The IPMC guidance, via the Podling Guide that they have published [1] is:
>
> "Podlings may use a wiki to create documentation (including the
> website) providing that follow the guidelines. In particular, care
> must be taken to ensure that access to the wiki used to create
> documentation is restricted to only those with filed CLAs. The PPMC
> MUST review all changes and ensure that trust is not abused."
>
> I personally like your idea of having a click-through-license grant on
> the wiki itself, either as part of account creation or on the edit
> page itself. But if we did that, I'd suggest some related issues to
> address:
>
> 1) We shouldn't just ignore IPMC guidance. There may be some
> allowance for variation in procedures, but that should not be assumed.
> If we want to do something differently, then we need to write up that
> proposal, get consensus here among PPMC members, and then take it to
> the IPMC and probably Apache Legal Affairs (to review whatever
> language we use). I'd gladly support that.
>
> 2) We need a credible security mechanism for the wiki. Today, for
> example, it is not required for a user to give their real name (the
> field is optional). And the password can be as little as 1 character.
> (Yup, I just created an account with password="x"). With 15,000
> zombie accounts, lack of real names and the ability for users to
> create trivially crackable accounts, it would be hard to really
> identify a change to a particular person.
>
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/sites.html
>
>>> 2) How do we ensure that the documentation is under PPMC oversight and
>>> remains high quality?
>>
>> I received a daily report of all changes to the wiki, there is also the
>> option for "as done" report. It would only take a few minutes to do a quick
>> review of those changes, an revert them if needed.
>>
>
> OK. Maybe that report could be directed to the ooo-commits list as well?
>
>>> I'm open to discussions of various technical and procedural means to
>>> achieve these goals. But I am adamant in achieving them one way or
>>> another.
>>
>> Would the above listed work?
>>
>
> I think that takes us in the right direction. Thanks.
>
>> Andy
>>
>
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by TerryE <oo...@ellisons.org.uk>.
<snip>
> 2) We need a credible security mechanism for the wiki. Today, for
> example, it is not required for a user to give their real name (the
> field is optional). And the password can be as little as 1 character.
> (Yup, I just created an account with password="x"). With 15,000
> zombie accounts, lack of real names and the ability for users to
> create trivially crackable accounts, it would be hard to really
> identify a change to a particular person.
Yes on password strength, no on real names. The key issue here is that
at some point during either the registration or posting process, the
account holder / poster actively acknowledges that the contributed
content falls under whatever licence that is required. Without formal
identity verification, there is no material difference between a Monica
and a claimed name.
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I'm not sure we are all talking about the same documentation. I suppose the OOODEV wiki is the appropriate place to be doing that documentation, whatever it is, that is intended in the guidelines.
When we see the equivalent on OpenOffice.org, we should, on a per-case basis, redirect it to OOODEV perhaps.
But we do need to get to specific cases and handle them individually.
For a general-public editable wiki, I think sticking with the Creative Commons Attribution license should be just fine where it is already supplied. More people seem to know what that is, and it is fully permissive without what appears to be such high ceremony as the ALv2.
And we should look around at some of the TLP project wikis that allow public contributions.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 09:28
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> At Apache, every committer has the ability to veto a change. Not just
>> me. Far from it.
>
> True.
>
>> In any case, in order to move the argument forward, I'd like to
>> reiterate thecific concerns that I have, to which I've seen no
>> response other than "we don't want to change". But no one is
>> addressing the fundamental questions:
>>
>> 1) How do we ensure that the future documentation is under the Apache
>> 2.0 license so that it can be copied, modified and redistributed
>> freely by others?
>
> If you talking the wiki, instead of requiring an ICLA as a person has to
> create an account, why not make it part of that process that "All submitted
> contributions are under AL2 license". Would that not be sufficient?
>
The IPMC guidance, via the Podling Guide that they have published [1] is:
"Podlings may use a wiki to create documentation (including the
website) providing that follow the guidelines. In particular, care
must be taken to ensure that access to the wiki used to create
documentation is restricted to only those with filed CLAs. The PPMC
MUST review all changes and ensure that trust is not abused."
I personally like your idea of having a click-through-license grant on
the wiki itself, either as part of account creation or on the edit
page itself. But if we did that, I'd suggest some related issues to
address:
1) We shouldn't just ignore IPMC guidance. There may be some
allowance for variation in procedures, but that should not be assumed.
If we want to do something differently, then we need to write up that
proposal, get consensus here among PPMC members, and then take it to
the IPMC and probably Apache Legal Affairs (to review whatever
language we use). I'd gladly support that.
2) We need a credible security mechanism for the wiki. Today, for
example, it is not required for a user to give their real name (the
field is optional). And the password can be as little as 1 character.
(Yup, I just created an account with password="x"). With 15,000
zombie accounts, lack of real names and the ability for users to
create trivially crackable accounts, it would be hard to really
identify a change to a particular person.
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/sites.html
>> 2) How do we ensure that the documentation is under PPMC oversight and
>> remains high quality?
>
> I received a daily report of all changes to the wiki, there is also the
> option for "as done" report. It would only take a few minutes to do a quick
> review of those changes, an revert them if needed.
>
OK. Maybe that report could be directed to the ooo-commits list as well?
>> I'm open to discussions of various technical and procedural means to
>> achieve these goals. But I am adamant in achieving them one way or
>> another.
>
> Would the above listed work?
>
I think that takes us in the right direction. Thanks.
> Andy
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de>.
Hi Rob,
On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 16:38:02 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> I poked around and found this page:
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
>
> This lists some additional roles (with counts)
>
> Administrators (26)
> Bureaucrats (4)
> Editors (20)
> Reviewers (5)
>
> Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts.
>
> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active
> in the past 7 days.
I think that doesn't come as a surprise, most probabbly OOo is perceived
as a dead horse now. To get a sense for activity in the wiki, on mailing
lists, ... one should take a look at the period before Easter this year.
> How we authorize people for these roles and what qualifications are
> required for these roles is an important question.
To me it's unclear what the role of a Bureaucrat is or where it differs
from an Administrator. It's a subset of Administrators.
I'd say we could ask Clayton as he was Bureaucrat, editor, reviewer and
Administrator, but ...
Certainly SysOp/Administrator/Bureaucrat would be tied to Apache
committers.
Entry points for some overview:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:ValidationStatistics
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Administrators
Reviewers appear to be members of the documentation team, as are editors
but not only and that group is larger I don't know everyone.
Eike
--
PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Andy Brown<an...@the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> I poked around and found this page:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
>>
>> Good find.
>>
>>> This lists some additional roles (with counts)
>>>
>>> Administrators (26)
>>> Bureaucrats (4)
>>> Editors (20)
>>> Reviewers (5)
>>>
>>> Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts.
>>>
>>> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active
>>> in the past 7 days.
>>
>> Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the announcement
>> of transferring to Apache, let a lone in the last week. Shows that someone
>> is still interested. I would like to find out what as edited.
>>
>>> How we authorize people for these roles and what qualifications are
>>> required for these roles is an important question.
>>>
>>> There are a similar set of questions we should ask about the support
>>> forums, what the roles are and how PPMC oversight maps to them.
>>
>> I would think that the PPMC and Committers would be the logical choice. The
>> administration is still our responsibility. Currently we have members that
>> are listed in admin roles for the wiki and for the forums.
>>
>
> A reasonable set of guidelines might be:
>
> 0) The permission to set user permissions should be reserved for PPMC-delegates
>
> 1) Any permission that allows actions that cannot be logged or cannot
> easily be undone should be reserved for PPMC-delegates
>
> 2) Any permission that allows one user rights over another user
> (banning, suspending, locking pages, etc.) should be reserved for
> PPMC-delegates
>
> 3) Other permissions can be shared more broadly.
>
> The normal case would be to have PPMC delegates be committers. If not
> now, then they would be obvious candidates for to become committers.
Seems good to me. I might suggest #2 that at least two members be
required to ban a user, prevents personal issues.
Andy
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> I poked around and found this page:
>>
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
>
> Good find.
>
>> This lists some additional roles (with counts)
>>
>> Administrators (26)
>> Bureaucrats (4)
>> Editors (20)
>> Reviewers (5)
>>
>> Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts.
>>
>> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active
>> in the past 7 days.
>
> Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the announcement
> of transferring to Apache, let a lone in the last week. Shows that someone
> is still interested. I would like to find out what as edited.
>
>> How we authorize people for these roles and what qualifications are
>> required for these roles is an important question.
>>
>> There are a similar set of questions we should ask about the support
>> forums, what the roles are and how PPMC oversight maps to them.
>
> I would think that the PPMC and Committers would be the logical choice. The
> administration is still our responsibility. Currently we have members that
> are listed in admin roles for the wiki and for the forums.
>
A reasonable set of guidelines might be:
0) The permission to set user permissions should be reserved for PPMC-delegates
1) Any permission that allows actions that cannot be logged or cannot
easily be undone should be reserved for PPMC-delegates
2) Any permission that allows one user rights over another user
(banning, suspending, locking pages, etc.) should be reserved for
PPMC-delegates
3) Other permissions can be shared more broadly.
The normal case would be to have PPMC delegates be committers. If not
now, then they would be obvious candidates for to become committers.
> Andy
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by TerryE <oo...@ellisons.org.uk>.
Rob,
<snip>
> Is there any easy way to get a list of active users for the wiki,
> year-to-date for 2011, maybe sorted by number of edits? That would be
> great to know, a list of people we can reach out to and invite to
> participate again in the new project and new wiki, if they are not
> already here.
>
Possible? -- Yes. Can we resource it now? -- No not now, AFAIK. Sorry.
//Terry
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 18:36 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> Also, Jean, I'm glad you are following this thread. I'd love to hear
> what you think the relationship between the kind of doc on the wiki
> versus what you are doing on ODFAuthors. How do they relate in terms
> of topics, content types, etc.? Is there significant overlap? Is
> there any way to rationalize this?
In the past we put a "wikified" version of the user guides on the wiki,
along with the .ODT and .PDF versions, but after 3.2 we stopped doing
that as it was too much work for the small number of people involved.
The reasons for the wiki version were (a) to offer the user guides in
another format, for those who prefer reading online; and (b) to
encourage updates from people who might find that faster and easier to
do than submitting changes through the ODFAuthors group. As far as I
know, very few pages were edited on the wiki, although some valuable
comments were left on a few discussion pages, primarily in the more
advanced or technical parts of the Calc Guide. In several instances,
again mainly with the Calc Guide, there were useful links to other wiki
pages with content that we did not attempt to add to the .odt/.pdf
versions: mainly the lists of functions that were searchable in various
ways on the wiki.
Other than that, there is almost no overlap except for some how-tos that
I or others extracted from the user guides or wrote as stand-alones and
then incorporated into a user guide (perhaps 10 wiki pages at most).
BTW, I do not recommend wikifying future releases of the user guides
because of the work involved. Making the .odt/.pdf versions downloadable
from the wiki is easy and AFAIK works well for all concerned.
--Jean
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 03/08/2011, at 7:16, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
>
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active
>>> in the past 7 days.
>>
>> Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the announcement of transferring to Apache, let a lone in the last week. Shows that someone is still interested. I would like to find out what as edited.
>
> I may have updated some pages related to the workings of the Docs group and ODFAuthors, but not any docs themselves.
>
Is there any easy way to get a list of active users for the wiki,
year-to-date for 2011, maybe sorted by number of edits? That would be
great to know, a list of people we can reach out to and invite to
participate again in the new project and new wiki, if they are not
already here.
Also, Jean, I'm glad you are following this thread. I'd love to hear
what you think the relationship between the kind of doc on the wiki
versus what you are doing on ODFAuthors. How do they relate in terms
of topics, content types, etc.? Is there significant overlap? Is
there any way to rationalize this?
> Jean
>
>>
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On 03/08/2011, at 7:16, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active
>> in the past 7 days.
>
> Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the announcement of transferring to Apache, let a lone in the last week. Shows that someone is still interested. I would like to find out what as edited.
I may have updated some pages related to the workings of the Docs group and ODFAuthors, but not any docs themselves.
Jean
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Rob Weir wrote:
>
> I poked around and found this page:
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
Good find.
> This lists some additional roles (with counts)
>
> Administrators (26)
> Bureaucrats (4)
> Editors (20)
> Reviewers (5)
>
> Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts.
>
> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active
> in the past 7 days.
Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the
announcement of transferring to Apache, let a lone in the last week.
Shows that someone is still interested. I would like to find out what
as edited.
> How we authorize people for these roles and what qualifications are
> required for these roles is an important question.
>
> There are a similar set of questions we should ask about the support
> forums, what the roles are and how PPMC oversight maps to them.
I would think that the PPMC and Committers would be the logical choice.
The administration is still our responsibility. Currently we have
members that are listed in admin roles for the wiki and for the forums.
Andy
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
On 8/2/2011 16:38, Rob Weir wrote:
[snip]
> I poked around and found this page:
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
>
> This lists some additional roles (with counts)
>
> Administrators (26)
> Bureaucrats (4)
> Editors (20)
> Reviewers (5)
>
> Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts.
>
> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active
> in the past 7 days.
>
> How we authorize people for these roles and what qualifications are
> required for these roles is an important question.
>
> There are a similar set of questions we should ask about the support
> forums, what the roles are and how PPMC oversight maps to them.
>
> -Rob
>
Just a sidebar: one of those five active users is pure wiki gold.
A previously inactive user, the kind who doesn't bother to create a User
page, has added some valuable details to the Writer manual, in the
section on footnotes and end-notes. The contribution needs a little
light copy-editing, and is incomplete; but for the moment, the wiki
version of the manual is more helpful and up-to-date than the production
versions (ODT or PDF), though admittedly neither as elegant nor as
controlled.
--
/tj/
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Wolf Halton <wo...@gmail.com>.
If you go back to the founding of the support forums, you will find there is
what amounts to a charter for the support organization. The bureaucrats and
a few other roles stemmed from that. We were attempting to create an
organization that was more than simply a support website. Being one of the
people whose involvement tapered off, I have some empathy for others who got
busy with other things.
All sites I know of have a certain amount of ebb and flow among the
registered members, but even among the registered members, I suspect there
was a large number who visited to research a question without stopping to
log in. I known I do that.
Wolf
Tirelessly evading conventionality for 49 years, so you don’t have to. :-)
On Aug 2, 2011 6:11 PM, "Manfred A. Reiter" <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/8/2 Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>
>>
>> I poked around and found this page:
>>
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
>>
>> This lists some additional roles (with counts)
>>
>> Administrators (26)
>> Bureaucrats (4)
>> Editors (20)
>> Reviewers (5)
>>
>> Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts.
>>
>> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active
>> in the past 7 days.
>>
>
>
> did you poked around 1 year ago as well?
> do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down?
>
> with the statistic above you don't increase the credibility ...
>
> or
>
>
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/Veroeffentl/Monatshefte/essay.asp?xYear=2004&xMonth=11&eNr=11
>
> cheers
>
> M.
>
>
> M.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by TerryE <oo...@ellisons.org.uk>.
On 03/08/11 03:05, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, TerryE<oo...@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 02/08/11 23:28, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> ... But right now I see almost no activity on the wiki ...
>> ... We've discussed the update access reasons and issues previously. As you
>> can see from the Apache logs, the read volumes are still pretty high though
>> they have fallen off by almost a factor of two since the Apache
>> announcement ...
> ... Read volumes are pretty much irrelevant when
> discussing a policy for editing. Or are you suggesting that this is
> related to caching policy? If so, that is a reasonable point. With
> only 5 people editing, with a very low rate of changes, and many
> people reading, caching should be very effective, at least on the most
> frequently-read pages.
>
Rob, my point was that updates are only one measure of "activity on the
wiki". It's there to used and so read rates can't be ignored.
Once you've got to grips with OOo and have been through a release cycle
then you will come to understand the basic rhythm of update activity.
Whilst scoping the content of a new version and the dev releases there
is an upturn in R/W activity as members reflect this in the wiki and use
the wiki to collaborate on ideas.. Following the release, there is a
hump in end-user demand both to learn about new features or because this
has triggered rework of macros, etc. A good way to kill the update
rates and drop the read rates is to stall the upgrade cycle as happened
back in April. This is the main cause of the read and update trends
that we are discussing.
//Terry
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, TerryE <oo...@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
> On 02/08/11 23:28, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> With the wiki, if we really want to allow anyone to have write access
>> to it, then we really need to be committed to fight the weeds, which
>> in the case of wikis would be spam, low quality content, edit wars,
>> etc. If we can re-establish the community participation level the way
>> it was a year ago, then great. It would have a chance of success.
>> But right now I see almost no activity on the wiki. 35,000 user
>> accounts, but no users. If this doesn't change, the weeds will surely
>> win.
>
> [terrye@doc logs]$ ls -hl
>
> total 112635922
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Jan 12 2011 access.20110106.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.2G Jan 19 2011 access.20110113.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.2G Jan 26 2011 access.20110120.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.2G Feb 2 2011 access.20110127.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.2G Feb 9 23:59 access.20110203.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Feb 16 23:59 access.20110210.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Feb 23 23:59 access.20110217.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Mar 2 23:59 access.20110224.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Mar 9 23:59 access.20110303.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.0G Mar 16 23:59 access.20110310.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.0G Mar 23 23:59 access.20110317.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.0G Mar 30 23:59 access.20110324.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.9G Apr 6 23:59 access.20110331.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.9G Apr 13 23:59 access.20110407.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.8G Apr 20 23:59 access.20110414.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.6G Apr 27 23:59 access.20110421.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.8G May 4 23:59 access.20110428.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.8G May 11 23:59 access.20110505.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.7G May 18 23:59 access.20110512.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.6G May 25 23:59 access.20110519.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.6G Jun 1 23:59 access.20110526.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.5G Jun 8 23:59 access.20110602.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.5G Jun 15 23:59 access.20110609.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.6G Jun 22 23:59 access.20110616.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.4G Jun 29 23:59 access.20110623.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.3G Jul 6 23:59 access.20110630.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.4G Jul 13 23:59 access.20110707.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.3G Jul 20 23:59 access.20110714.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.4G Jul 27 23:59 access.20110721.log
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.1G Aug 3 03:14 access.20110728.log
>
> We've discussed the update access reasons and issues previously. As you
> can see from the Apache logs, the read volumes are still pretty high though
> they have fallen off by almost a factor of two since the Apache
> announcement. Sorry, but I can't give you proper transaction volumes.
> Clayton had o:rw access, not me.
>
No need to apologize. Read volumes are pretty much irrelevant when
discussing a policy for editing. Or are you suggesting that this is
related to caching policy? If so, that is a reasonable point. With
only 5 people editing, with a very low rate of changes, and many
people reading, caching should be very effective, at least on the most
frequently-read pages.
> Terry
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by TerryE <oo...@ellisons.org.uk>.
On 02/08/11 23:28, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> With the wiki, if we really want to allow anyone to have write access
> to it, then we really need to be committed to fight the weeds, which
> in the case of wikis would be spam, low quality content, edit wars,
> etc. If we can re-establish the community participation level the way
> it was a year ago, then great. It would have a chance of success.
> But right now I see almost no activity on the wiki. 35,000 user
> accounts, but no users. If this doesn't change, the weeds will surely
> win.
[terrye@doc logs]$ ls -hl
total 112635922
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Jan 12 2011 access.20110106.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.2G Jan 19 2011 access.20110113.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.2G Jan 26 2011 access.20110120.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.2G Feb 2 2011 access.20110127.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.2G Feb 9 23:59 access.20110203.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Feb 16 23:59 access.20110210.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Feb 23 23:59 access.20110217.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Mar 2 23:59 access.20110224.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Mar 9 23:59 access.20110303.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.0G Mar 16 23:59 access.20110310.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.0G Mar 23 23:59 access.20110317.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.0G Mar 30 23:59 access.20110324.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.9G Apr 6 23:59 access.20110331.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.9G Apr 13 23:59 access.20110407.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.8G Apr 20 23:59 access.20110414.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.6G Apr 27 23:59 access.20110421.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.8G May 4 23:59 access.20110428.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.8G May 11 23:59 access.20110505.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.7G May 18 23:59 access.20110512.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.6G May 25 23:59 access.20110519.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.6G Jun 1 23:59 access.20110526.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.5G Jun 8 23:59 access.20110602.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.5G Jun 15 23:59 access.20110609.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.6G Jun 22 23:59 access.20110616.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.4G Jun 29 23:59 access.20110623.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.3G Jul 6 23:59 access.20110630.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.4G Jul 13 23:59 access.20110707.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.3G Jul 20 23:59 access.20110714.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.4G Jul 27 23:59 access.20110721.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.1G Aug 3 03:14 access.20110728.log
We've discussed the update access reasons and issues previously. As
you can see from the Apache logs, the read volumes are still pretty high
though they have fallen off by almost a factor of two since the Apache
announcement. Sorry, but I can't give you proper transaction volumes.
Clayton had o:rw access, not me.
Terry
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
I'll give you the context, from earlier in the thread.
> A specific question then that should not require diverting your
> current efforts. Is there a announcement list or some other mechanism
> to send an email to every registered wiki user?
>
> I don't want to take time away from your higher priority migration
> work, but if some such facility were available, we could work (on this
> list) on a note that we could send later, to notify all users of the
> migration, explain some relevant aspects of the new Apache project,
> and invite them to join us.
I believe that answers your questions. We're talking technical
possibilities. Any message would discussed on the list before being
sent or posted.
-Rob
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> Let's slow down here. I don't recognize any alignment on what it is we think we are asking for (or attempting to do). This is going way over the edge past JFDI and/or lazy consensus.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Brown [mailto:andy@the-martin-byrd.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:00
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
>>
>
> Terry,
>
> Where would be the best place on the wiki to place a notice directing
> users to connect here or at least see if they would be willing/able to
> send in an iCLA?
>
> Andy
>
>
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
My reply is to Andy Brown's post, not one of yours. It appears that I failed to CC: him.
I have no quarrel about figuring out where PPMC oversight goes and how it is exercised. I allowed for that in my response to Andy with regard to special-privileged cases. I chose not to drag that detail into the recognition of case (1) versus (2).
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:04
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> 1. Well, if we *have* to require an iCLA because we choose (or are limited to) an approach that makes iCLA mandatory, there is nothing to be gained by conducting a survey on the matter.
>
> 2. If we come up with an approach where nothing is changed with regard to what is currently user-editable, we don't have to stir anything up by even raising the iCLA question.
>
> So maybe we need to resolve whether we can offer (2). I believe there is strong interest in being able to do that, especially in the short run.
>
I'm not discussing the iCLA. I'm talking about community
development. I'm suggesting that we make the wiki contributors aware
of the move to Apache and invite them to join. I'd like to do the
same, via appropriate means, more broadly, to all of the OOo mailing
lists, as well as on the website.
> We have heard from infrastructure and security (via infrastructure) that there are some technical arrangements to deal with, but I have seen nothing that compels our disrupting current registrations and user-editing permissions. (There are a modest number of special-privileged cases and they should be dealt with as individually, seems to me.)
>
The PPMC needs to have a plan for how it exercises oversight over the
project's websites, including the wiki. Having unknown, anonymous
users, unknown to the PPMC, with the ability to ban users and delete
pages is not a good start in exercising oversight.
As was discussed previously on this thread, one approach was to ensure
that anyone who had more-than-user rights would need to be approved in
that role by the PPMC.
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Brown [mailto:andy@the-martin-byrd.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:35
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
> Dennis,
>
> We are working on some ideas only. There are questions on how to deal
> with the current OOo wiki and move it to Apache servers. The concern is
> that there will be a lose of "active" users if there is a big change in
> the way edits are made, i.e. requiring an iCLA. At this point we do not
> have any hard numbers on way maybe lost and trying to see if we can get
> those users involved to see what path we need to take.
>
> HTH
> Andy
>
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> Let's slow down here. I don't recognize any alignment on what it is we think we are asking for (or attempting to do). This is going way over the edge past JFDI and/or lazy consensus.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andy Brown [mailto:andy@the-martin-byrd.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:00
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>>
>>>
>>
>> Terry,
>>
>> Where would be the best place on the wiki to place a notice directing
>> users to connect here or at least see if they would be willing/able to
>> send in an iCLA?
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> 1. Well, if we *have* to require an iCLA because we choose (or are limited to) an approach that makes iCLA mandatory, there is nothing to be gained by conducting a survey on the matter.
>
> 2. If we come up with an approach where nothing is changed with regard to what is currently user-editable, we don't have to stir anything up by even raising the iCLA question.
>
> So maybe we need to resolve whether we can offer (2). I believe there is strong interest in being able to do that, especially in the short run.
>
I'm not discussing the iCLA. I'm talking about community
development. I'm suggesting that we make the wiki contributors aware
of the move to Apache and invite them to join. I'd like to do the
same, via appropriate means, more broadly, to all of the OOo mailing
lists, as well as on the website.
> We have heard from infrastructure and security (via infrastructure) that there are some technical arrangements to deal with, but I have seen nothing that compels our disrupting current registrations and user-editing permissions. (There are a modest number of special-privileged cases and they should be dealt with as individually, seems to me.)
>
The PPMC needs to have a plan for how it exercises oversight over the
project's websites, including the wiki. Having unknown, anonymous
users, unknown to the PPMC, with the ability to ban users and delete
pages is not a good start in exercising oversight.
As was discussed previously on this thread, one approach was to ensure
that anyone who had more-than-user rights would need to be approved in
that role by the PPMC.
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Brown [mailto:andy@the-martin-byrd.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:35
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
> Dennis,
>
> We are working on some ideas only. There are questions on how to deal
> with the current OOo wiki and move it to Apache servers. The concern is
> that there will be a lose of "active" users if there is a big change in
> the way edits are made, i.e. requiring an iCLA. At this point we do not
> have any hard numbers on way maybe lost and trying to see if we can get
> those users involved to see what path we need to take.
>
> HTH
> Andy
>
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> Let's slow down here. I don't recognize any alignment on what it is we think we are asking for (or attempting to do). This is going way over the edge past JFDI and/or lazy consensus.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andy Brown [mailto:andy@the-martin-byrd.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:00
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>>
>>>
>>
>> Terry,
>>
>> Where would be the best place on the wiki to place a notice directing
>> users to connect here or at least see if they would be willing/able to
>> send in an iCLA?
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>
>
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
1. Well, if we *have* to require an iCLA because we choose (or are limited to) an approach that makes iCLA mandatory, there is nothing to be gained by conducting a survey on the matter.
2. If we come up with an approach where nothing is changed with regard to what is currently user-editable, we don't have to stir anything up by even raising the iCLA question.
So maybe we need to resolve whether we can offer (2). I believe there is strong interest in being able to do that, especially in the short run.
We have heard from infrastructure and security (via infrastructure) that there are some technical arrangements to deal with, but I have seen nothing that compels our disrupting current registrations and user-editing permissions. (There are a modest number of special-privileged cases and they should be dealt with as individually, seems to me.)
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Brown [mailto:andy@the-martin-byrd.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:35
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Dennis,
We are working on some ideas only. There are questions on how to deal
with the current OOo wiki and move it to Apache servers. The concern is
that there will be a lose of "active" users if there is a big change in
the way edits are made, i.e. requiring an iCLA. At this point we do not
have any hard numbers on way maybe lost and trying to see if we can get
those users involved to see what path we need to take.
HTH
Andy
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Let's slow down here. I don't recognize any alignment on what it is we think we are asking for (or attempting to do). This is going way over the edge past JFDI and/or lazy consensus.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Brown [mailto:andy@the-martin-byrd.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:00
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
>>
>
> Terry,
>
> Where would be the best place on the wiki to place a notice directing
> users to connect here or at least see if they would be willing/able to
> send in an iCLA?
>
> Andy
>
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Dennis,
We are working on some ideas only. There are questions on how to deal
with the current OOo wiki and move it to Apache servers. The concern is
that there will be a lose of "active" users if there is a big change in
the way edits are made, i.e. requiring an iCLA. At this point we do not
have any hard numbers on way maybe lost and trying to see if we can get
those users involved to see what path we need to take.
HTH
Andy
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Let's slow down here. I don't recognize any alignment on what it is we think we are asking for (or attempting to do). This is going way over the edge past JFDI and/or lazy consensus.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Brown [mailto:andy@the-martin-byrd.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:00
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
>>
>
> Terry,
>
> Where would be the best place on the wiki to place a notice directing
> users to connect here or at least see if they would be willing/able to
> send in an iCLA?
>
> Andy
>
>
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
Let's slow down here. I don't recognize any alignment on what it is we think we are asking for (or attempting to do). This is going way over the edge past JFDI and/or lazy consensus.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Brown [mailto:andy@the-martin-byrd.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:00
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
Terry,
Where would be the best place on the wiki to place a notice directing
users to connect here or at least see if they would be willing/able to
send in an iCLA?
Andy
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
TerryE wrote:
> (Some) developers for some arcane reason seem to like DLs. AFAIK, others
> and the majority of users hate them and regard them as spam, preferring
> less invasive pull technologies such as forums and subscription services
> such as gmane. For example, I routinely work 6 forums and 4 wikis, plus
> a dozen gname lists. This is the only SMTP DL that I am on. Announce
> Lists just don't work in this end-user world.
>
Terry,
Where would be the best place on the wiki to place a notice directing
users to connect here or at least see if they would be willing/able to
send in an iCLA?
Andy
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
What message is that?
Can we get more concrete here, please.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 08:59
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
[ ... ]
Good point. I've seen Wikipedia handle this type of broadcast
communication by injecting content into every page, via a header
template or whatever. You see that for their fund raising campaigns
or surveys, for example. We might be able to do something like that
and get the message out.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:44 AM, TerryE <oo...@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
> On 03/08/11 16:15, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Terry Ellison<Te...@ellisons.org.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/08/11 15:14, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A specific question then that should not require diverting your
>>>> current efforts. Is there a announcement list or some other mechanism
>>>> to send an email to every registered wiki user?
>>>
>>> At a technical level, it's simple to run a query dumping all of the mail
>>> addresses of contributors to the wiki. I've just done a few on my local
>>> VM
>>> which has a snapshot of the prod wiki as at Thursday/Fri night IIRC.
>>>
>>> * There are 34,969 registered users. Of which
>>> * 3,675 have made contributions. There is no need to contact those
>>> who haven't
>>> * 3,623 have registered email addresses and have made 182,677
>>> contributions
>>> * 52 have no registered email addresses and have made 153
>>> contributions (prob dating back to the early days when email
>>> registration and confirmation wasn't mandatory
>>>
>>> It is trivial to dump this list of user / email addr / post count.
>>>
>>> However giving this to Apache and the project making use of it is a more
>>> complex issue. The server is current located in Oracle's Hamburg
>>> facility
>>> under German / EU legislation. We have data protection legislation and
>>> Anti-Spam guidelines / legislation to bear in mind here. Moving email
>>> addresses across national and organisational boundary might trigger
>>> these.
>>> Also one can't send out mailshot emails in the EU unless the recipients
>>> have first agreed in principle to accept these.
>>>
>>> What I can do is to provide this data to Andrew via the internal Oracle
>>> email, and let him figure out the legal / compliance issues and terms of
>>> use
>>> before him making it available to the project. Not my call.
>>>
>> Good enough. Thanks. I was hoping that there would be some community
>> email list that everyone was already signed up on. Maybe if not at
>> the wiki system level, then at the OpenOffice.org level? If there is
>> a master announce list that everyone is already on, then we'd be
>> golden.
>>
> (Some) developers for some arcane reason seem to like DLs. AFAIK, others
> and the majority of users hate them and regard them as spam, preferring less
> invasive pull technologies such as forums and subscription services such as
> gmane. For example, I routinely work 6 forums and 4 wikis, plus a dozen
> gname lists. This is the only SMTP DL that I am on. Announce Lists just
> don't work in this end-user world.
>
Good point. I've seen Wikipedia handle this type of broadcast
communication by injecting content into every page, via a header
template or whatever. You see that for their fund raising campaigns
or surveys, for example. We might be able to do something like that
and get the message out.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by TerryE <oo...@ellisons.org.uk>.
On 03/08/11 16:15, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Terry Ellison<Te...@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 03/08/11 15:14, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> A specific question then that should not require diverting your
>>> current efforts. Is there a announcement list or some other mechanism
>>> to send an email to every registered wiki user?
>> At a technical level, it's simple to run a query dumping all of the mail
>> addresses of contributors to the wiki. I've just done a few on my local VM
>> which has a snapshot of the prod wiki as at Thursday/Fri night IIRC.
>>
>> * There are 34,969 registered users. Of which
>> * 3,675 have made contributions. There is no need to contact those
>> who haven't
>> * 3,623 have registered email addresses and have made 182,677
>> contributions
>> * 52 have no registered email addresses and have made 153
>> contributions (prob dating back to the early days when email
>> registration and confirmation wasn't mandatory
>>
>> It is trivial to dump this list of user / email addr / post count.
>>
>> However giving this to Apache and the project making use of it is a more
>> complex issue. The server is current located in Oracle's Hamburg facility
>> under German / EU legislation. We have data protection legislation and
>> Anti-Spam guidelines / legislation to bear in mind here. Moving email
>> addresses across national and organisational boundary might trigger these.
>> Also one can't send out mailshot emails in the EU unless the recipients
>> have first agreed in principle to accept these.
>>
>> What I can do is to provide this data to Andrew via the internal Oracle
>> email, and let him figure out the legal / compliance issues and terms of use
>> before him making it available to the project. Not my call.
>>
> Good enough. Thanks. I was hoping that there would be some community
> email list that everyone was already signed up on. Maybe if not at
> the wiki system level, then at the OpenOffice.org level? If there is
> a master announce list that everyone is already on, then we'd be
> golden.
>
(Some) developers for some arcane reason seem to like DLs. AFAIK,
others and the majority of users hate them and regard them as spam,
preferring less invasive pull technologies such as forums and
subscription services such as gmane. For example, I routinely work 6
forums and 4 wikis, plus a dozen gname lists. This is the only SMTP DL
that I am on. Announce Lists just don't work in this end-user world.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Ingrid von der Mehden <In...@gmx-topmail.de>.
Am 03.08.2011 17:04, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
> Some good points. Maybe we want to start (or steal) an FAQ on similar
> "netiquette" points? It might fit in the "Community FAQ's" section.
>
There is a good one already at Apache:
http://www.apache.org/dev/contrib-email-tips.html
Maybe we can link it prominently from one of our main pages.
Kind regards,
Ingrid
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.
Oracle Email Signature Logo
Andrew Rist | Interoperability Architect
Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
Redwood Shores, CA | 650.506.9847
On 8/3/2011 8:15 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Terry Ellison<Te...@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 03/08/11 15:14, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> A specific question then that should not require diverting your
>>> current efforts. Is there a announcement list or some other mechanism
>>> to send an email to every registered wiki user?
>> At a technical level, it's simple to run a query dumping all of the mail
>> addresses of contributors to the wiki. I've just done a few on my local VM
>> which has a snapshot of the prod wiki as at Thursday/Fri night IIRC.
>>
>> * There are 34,969 registered users. Of which
>> * 3,675 have made contributions. There is no need to contact those
>> who haven't
>> * 3,623 have registered email addresses and have made 182,677
>> contributions
>> * 52 have no registered email addresses and have made 153
>> contributions (prob dating back to the early days when email
>> registration and confirmation wasn't mandatory
>>
>> It is trivial to dump this list of user / email addr / post count.
>>
>> However giving this to Apache and the project making use of it is a more
>> complex issue. The server is current located in Oracle's Hamburg facility
>> under German / EU legislation. We have data protection legislation and
>> Anti-Spam guidelines / legislation to bear in mind here. Moving email
>> addresses across national and organisational boundary might trigger these.
>> Also one can't send out mailshot emails in the EU unless the recipients
>> have first agreed in principle to accept these.
>>
>> What I can do is to provide this data to Andrew via the internal Oracle
>> email, and let him figure out the legal / compliance issues and terms of use
>> before him making it available to the project. Not my call.
>>
> Good enough. Thanks. I was hoping that there would be some community
> email list that everyone was already signed up on. Maybe if not at
> the wiki system level, then at the OpenOffice.org level? If there is
> a master announce list that everyone is already on, then we'd be
> golden.
It is extremely unlikely that any such list will be officially donated.
We are working on the transfer of the hosting of the Forum and Wiki.
Once they have been transferred, this may be something that can be done
as a part of managing these properties.
>
>> Terry
>>
>>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch>.
Am 03.08.11 13:58, schrieb Andre Schnabel:
> Hi Rob,
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>> Von: Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter<ma...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 2011/8/3 Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter<ma...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> 2011/8/2 Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
> ....
>>>>>> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been
>> active
>>>>>> in the past 7 days.
>>>>>>
>>>>> did you poked around 1 year ago as well?
Yes I think it's not a good choice to map only the last five days. So
this will realy not tell the true.
>>>>> do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down?
Because atm is not a load to do at documentation and because we are in a
new start situation?
--
My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 3 August 2011 14:45, Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> > Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
>
> >
> > Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the
> > same as introducing facts.
>
> I did not do any speculation in my mail, the only thing I did was
> to quote (again) Manfred's questions (that you did not see before).
>
> A simple:
> - no I did not poke the data from a year ago
> and
> - no I will not speculations why access to OOo wiki is increasing or
> decreasing
>
> would have been sufficient answers.
>
>
> There is no need to try to find something in my mails what I didn't
> actually write.
>
> regards,
>
> André
>
By informed hypothesis I meant TerryE's
"Once you've got to grips with OOo and have been through a release cycle
then you will come to understand the basic rhythm of update activity.
Whilst scoping the content of a new version and the dev releases there is an
upturn in R/W activity as members reflect this in the wiki and use the wiki
to collaborate on ideas. Following the release, there is a hump in end-user
demand both to learn about new features or because this has triggered rework
of macros, etc. A good way to kill the update rates and drop the read rates
is to stall the upgrade cycle as happened back in April. This is the main
cause of the read and update trends that we are discussing. "
Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick, if so, sorry. I'll go back to what I
think I can do to have the biggest effect on OOo take up. (My own informed
opinion, or perhaps speculation ;-) )
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
>
>> >
>> > There is no need to try to find something in my mails what I didn't
>> actually write.
>> >
>>
>> Andre, perhaps you forgot, but you did speculate on this earlier in
>> the thread, when you wrote:
>
> Oh, sorry, but I did not see this as speculation ...
>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net>
>> wrote:
>> >> Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
>> >>
>> >> And I'm not seeing a lot of activity at the OpenOffice.org wiki either:
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500
>> >>
>> >> What does that prove?
>> >
>> >
>> > that OpenOffice.org is a project with (still) a strong name but without
>> > community contributions?
>
> If there are no contributions, then there are no contributions. Plain simple
> logic to me.
>
> But ok, your's might be different.
>
>
Still speculation. The alternative speculation (or theory, or
hypothesis, or informed speculation or hypothesis with a cherry on
top) is that there are thousands of contributors, out there, but they
have nothing to work on right now, since they typically are more
engaged at certain points of the product release cycle.
Personally, I think extrapolations from the past are almost worthless
at this point. We have ODFAuthors,org now. We have LibreOffice. We
have less investment from Oracle. We have more investment from IBM.
OpenOffice has moved to Apache. And we have interest from new
contributors who were not involved in OOo previously. We can't just
assume that the sun rises the next day, the rooster crows (or is it
the other way around?) and everything is exactly the same it was
before. There will be changes and not all of the changes will be ones
that we control. But we will not succeed if we just go on auto-pilot
and pretend that it is 2008.
I don't have all the answers. Far from it. But I hope I have some of
the questions.
> André
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net>.
Hi,
> Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
> >
> > There is no need to try to find something in my mails what I didn't
> actually write.
> >
>
> Andre, perhaps you forgot, but you did speculate on this earlier in
> the thread, when you wrote:
Oh, sorry, but I did not see this as speculation ...
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
> >> Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
> >>
> >> And I'm not seeing a lot of activity at the OpenOffice.org wiki either:
> >>
> >>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500
> >>
> >> What does that prove?
> >
> >
> > that OpenOffice.org is a project with (still) a strong name but without
> > community contributions?
If there are no contributions, then there are no contributions. Plain simple
logic to me.
But ok, your's might be different.
André
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
>> Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
>
>>
>> Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the
>> same as introducing facts.
>
> I did not do any speculation in my mail, the only thing I did was
> to quote (again) Manfred's questions (that you did not see before).
>
> A simple:
> - no I did not poke the data from a year ago
> and
> - no I will not speculations why access to OOo wiki is increasing or
> decreasing
>
> would have been sufficient answers.
>
>
> There is no need to try to find something in my mails what I didn't actually write.
>
Andre, perhaps you forgot, but you did speculate on this earlier in
the thread, when you wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>> Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
>
>> > We already have two separate wikis, one that the community uses and one
>> that requires committers to make the changes. I notice the second one is
>> not getting much activity.
>> >
>>
>> And I'm not seeing a lot of activity at the OpenOffice.org wiki either:
>>
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500
>>
>> What does that prove?
>
>
> that OpenOffice.org is a project with (still) a strong name but without
> community contributions?
>
> scnr
>
> André
>
> regards,
>
> André
>
>
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net>.
Hi Rob,
> Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
>
> Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the
> same as introducing facts.
I did not do any speculation in my mail, the only thing I did was
to quote (again) Manfred's questions (that you did not see before).
A simple:
- no I did not poke the data from a year ago
and
- no I will not speculations why access to OOo wiki is increasing or
decreasing
would have been sufficient answers.
There is no need to try to find something in my mails what I didn't actually write.
regards,
André
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
I suppose it is rather obvious that we have moved far afield from the subject line here.
At this point, I have no idea what problem there being a master announce list solves:
1. What is it proposed to be used for?
2. Who will be doing that and speaking for whom?
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 08:15
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
[ ... ]
Good enough. Thanks. I was hoping that there would be some community
email list that everyone was already signed up on. Maybe if not at
the wiki system level, then at the OpenOffice.org level? If there is
a master announce list that everyone is already on, then we'd be
golden.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Terry Ellison <Te...@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
> On 03/08/11 15:14, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> A specific question then that should not require diverting your
>> current efforts. Is there a announcement list or some other mechanism
>> to send an email to every registered wiki user?
>
> At a technical level, it's simple to run a query dumping all of the mail
> addresses of contributors to the wiki. I've just done a few on my local VM
> which has a snapshot of the prod wiki as at Thursday/Fri night IIRC.
>
> * There are 34,969 registered users. Of which
> * 3,675 have made contributions. There is no need to contact those
> who haven't
> * 3,623 have registered email addresses and have made 182,677
> contributions
> * 52 have no registered email addresses and have made 153
> contributions (prob dating back to the early days when email
> registration and confirmation wasn't mandatory
>
> It is trivial to dump this list of user / email addr / post count.
>
> However giving this to Apache and the project making use of it is a more
> complex issue. The server is current located in Oracle's Hamburg facility
> under German / EU legislation. We have data protection legislation and
> Anti-Spam guidelines / legislation to bear in mind here. Moving email
> addresses across national and organisational boundary might trigger these.
> Also one can't send out mailshot emails in the EU unless the recipients
> have first agreed in principle to accept these.
>
> What I can do is to provide this data to Andrew via the internal Oracle
> email, and let him figure out the legal / compliance issues and terms of use
> before him making it available to the project. Not my call.
>
Good enough. Thanks. I was hoping that there would be some community
email list that everyone was already signed up on. Maybe if not at
the wiki system level, then at the OpenOffice.org level? If there is
a master announce list that everyone is already on, then we'd be
golden.
> Terry
>
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Terry Ellison <Te...@ellisons.org.uk>.
On 03/08/11 15:14, Rob Weir wrote:
> A specific question then that should not require diverting your
> current efforts. Is there a announcement list or some other mechanism
> to send an email to every registered wiki user?
At a technical level, it's simple to run a query dumping all of the mail
addresses of contributors to the wiki. I've just done a few on my local
VM which has a snapshot of the prod wiki as at Thursday/Fri night IIRC.
* There are 34,969 registered users. Of which
* 3,675 have made contributions. There is no need to contact those
who haven't
* 3,623 have registered email addresses and have made 182,677
contributions
* 52 have no registered email addresses and have made 153
contributions (prob dating back to the early days when email
registration and confirmation wasn't mandatory
It is trivial to dump this list of user / email addr / post count.
However giving this to Apache and the project making use of it is a more
complex issue. The server is current located in Oracle's Hamburg
facility under German / EU legislation. We have data protection
legislation and Anti-Spam guidelines / legislation to bear in mind
here. Moving email addresses across national and organisational
boundary might trigger these. Also one can't send out mailshot emails
in the EU unless the recipients have first agreed in principle to accept
these.
What I can do is to provide this data to Andrew via the internal Oracle
email, and let him figure out the legal / compliance issues and terms of
use before him making it available to the project. Not my call.
Terry
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Terry Ellison <Te...@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Rob, a nice polemic but why is it relevant to a point about /usage patterns/
> on the wiki. I am already working 12+ hours a day on migration this /pro
> bono/, not salaried by some company to do my job. If you want hard data to
> inform the decision making process, then ranting at people working to their
> limit really doesn't help. Perhaps you can get an account on the prod wiki
> and do the analysis yourself. Regards Terry
>
A specific question then that should not require diverting your
current efforts. Is there a announcement list or some other mechanism
to send an email to every registered wiki user?
I don't want to take time away from your higher priority migration
work, but if some such facility were available, we could work (on this
list) on a note that we could send later, to notify all users of the
migration, explain some relevant aspects of the new Apache project,
and invite them to join us.
Regards,
-Rob
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Terry Ellison <Te...@ellisons.org.uk>.
On 03/08/11 14:38, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Ian Lynch<ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3 August 2011 14:14, Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip
>>>>> Ah. OK. He was asking for speculation on why the traffic is less now
>>>>> than a year ago. Impossible to say, since I can't find any data on
>>>>> what the traffic actually was a year ago. One way to back speculation
>>>>> with facts would be to get a log of edits from last year, gather the
>>>>> editors who were most active then, and contact them with a set of
>>>>> survey questions.
>>>>>
>>>> Rob, I think that I covered this point to some degree in an earlier post
>>>> today :-) //Terry
>>>>
>>> Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the
>>> same as introducing facts.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>> I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and speculation
>> :-)
Thanks, I have been monitoring the wiki from the system side since early
2010, and the forums for over 5 years. So I do have relevant
/experience/ of usage patterns. Unfortunately, I just don't have the
time to do the quantitative analysis because of my other workload.
> And neither is the same as facts. I'm concerned when I hear
> paternalistic statements of "our contributors will never post patches"
> or "They would never ever sign the iCLA", or "If we don't let them
> contribute anonymously with 1-character passwords and fake names under
> an eclectic license of their choice then they will kill themselves".
> Have we asked them? Are we really certain that all 35,000 registered
> wiki users are incapable or unwilling to sign a piece of paper and
> mail it to Apache? Have we had this conversation with them? Have we
> even brought it up? Have we explained the workings of Apache
> projects to them and how the meritocracy works? Have we even sent
> all registered wiki users a note, telling them that we're moving to
> Apache and inviting them to join us? Have we proposed the idea of the
> iCLA to them and explained the benefits to them, how it would ensure
> the license to their contributions was clear and ensures that their
> contributions could then be reused by others?
>
> I really expect more, much more, from our PPMC members, in terms of
> community outreach and community development. These are important
> goals for the project. This is not achieved by having 2 or 3 people
> claiming to speak for the opinions of thousands. It is done by
> reaching out to those thousands and showing them the benefits of
> working at Apache, and inviting them to join us here.
Rob, a nice polemic but why is it relevant to a point about /usage
patterns/ on the wiki. I am already working 12+ hours a day on
migration this /pro bono/, not salaried by some company to do my job.
If you want hard data to inform the decision making process, then
ranting at people working to their limit really doesn't help. Perhaps
you can get an account on the prod wiki and do the analysis yourself.
Regards Terry
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 August 2011 15:10, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Rob,
>> >
>> >> Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and
>> >> speculation
>> >> > :-)
>> >>
>> >> And neither is the same as facts. I'm concerned when I hear
>> >> paternalistic statements of "our contributors will never post patches"
>> >> or "They would never ever sign the iCLA", or "If we don't let them
>> >> contribute anonymously with 1-character passwords and fake names under
>> >> an eclectic license of their choice then they will kill themselves".
>> >
>> > Well maybe - just maybe - you may consider that the people who try to
>> give
>> > you some advice have been dealing with exactly those type of contributors
>> > for the last couple of years, while IBM (according to your own words
>> > was not the best citizen in the Ooo community ecosystem).
>> >
>>
>> I do consider that. I'm sure their views are honestly held. I'm not
>> ignoring them. But there is a huge difference between an opinion on
>> what you personally would prefer or do versus an opinion on what you
>> think thousands of others would prefer or do. I can accept the former
>> while giving much less weight to the latter. I see no reason to accept
>> as the gospel truth the views of 3 people claiming to speak for
>> thousands when we have the easy ability to reach out to the thousands
>> directly.
>>
>> > Btw. I have mot seen anybody stating such statements as you quote. The
>> only
>> > thing i saw was people pointing to risks. You may ignore a certain amount
>> > of risks, but finally these sum up.
>> >
>>
>> There are risk either way. For example, the risk of having a wiki
>> containing product documentation that no one can copy or modify
>> because it is not under a proper license.
>>
>> > You need not care about me (I'm not an apache committer) but it's sad
>> that
>> > you even try to ignore those people who are strongly committed to OOo at
>> > apache.
>> >
>>
>> Generally, it is in bad form to start every conversation with a
>> statement along the lines of, "You probably will ignore me" or "You
>> may not care what I say" or "You'll probably will think this is a bad
>> idea", etc. Have enough respect for your own ideas that you think
>> they are worthy of serious consideration. And have enough respect for
>> others on the list that you assume that they will consider your
>> thoughts serious. It poisons the conversation from the start when you
>> start in a defensive tone.
>>
>
> To be fair, an overly aggressive tone can do just as much poisoning as a
> defensive one. I think it is also worth bearing in mind that a lot of people
> here are not native English speakers and so it is easy to read things into
> posts that were either not intended or were a subset of the entire situation
> simply because it just takes too long to type reams in a foreign language
> explaining every aspect of everything. Apart from the language issue, what
> is considered bad form varies with culture so we should be wary of brute
> logic from our own perspective as a tool for progress. We have to work
> together and respect other people's position especially when most are doing
> this for love rather than for money. It's not like in a company where you
> can sack and replace people. We have lost good people in the past because
> that wasn't understood and it's easier to keep people and their knowledge
> resource than replace and retrain them.
>
Some good points. Maybe we want to start (or steal) an FAQ on similar
"netiquette" points? It might fit in the "Community FAQ's" section.
> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> >
>> > regards,
>> >
>> > André
>> >
>> > PS: again a scnr:
>> > http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d3df553ef01538f1979c0970b-pi
>> >
>> >
>>
> --
> Ian
>
> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
>
> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
>
> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
> Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
> Wales.
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Aug 3, 2011, at 7:25 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
> To be fair, an overly aggressive tone can do just as much poisoning as a
> defensive one. I think it is also worth bearing in mind that a lot of people
> here are not native English speakers and so it is easy to read things into
> posts that were either not intended or were a subset of the entire situation
> simply because it just takes too long to type reams in a foreign language
> explaining every aspect of everything. Apart from the language issue, what
> is considered bad form varies with culture so we should be wary of brute
> logic from our own perspective as a tool for progress. We have to work
> together and respect other people's position especially when most are doing
> this for love rather than for money. It's not like in a company where you
> can sack and replace people. We have lost good people in the past because
> that wasn't understood and it's easier to keep people and their knowledge
> resource than replace and retrain them.
+1 - In my 10 years of managing a small group of Russian developers I discovered that the more I wrote the less was comprehended. We do best when I point and wait for the answer including the likelihood that my direction was not the best or only answer.
I think we all need to use our listening skills and tone down the compulsion to have all the answers immediately available.
Regards,
Dave
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 3 August 2011 15:10, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> >> Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
> >
> >> >
> >> > I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and
> >> speculation
> >> > :-)
> >>
> >> And neither is the same as facts. I'm concerned when I hear
> >> paternalistic statements of "our contributors will never post patches"
> >> or "They would never ever sign the iCLA", or "If we don't let them
> >> contribute anonymously with 1-character passwords and fake names under
> >> an eclectic license of their choice then they will kill themselves".
> >
> > Well maybe - just maybe - you may consider that the people who try to
> give
> > you some advice have been dealing with exactly those type of contributors
> > for the last couple of years, while IBM (according to your own words
> > was not the best citizen in the Ooo community ecosystem).
> >
>
> I do consider that. I'm sure their views are honestly held. I'm not
> ignoring them. But there is a huge difference between an opinion on
> what you personally would prefer or do versus an opinion on what you
> think thousands of others would prefer or do. I can accept the former
> while giving much less weight to the latter. I see no reason to accept
> as the gospel truth the views of 3 people claiming to speak for
> thousands when we have the easy ability to reach out to the thousands
> directly.
>
> > Btw. I have mot seen anybody stating such statements as you quote. The
> only
> > thing i saw was people pointing to risks. You may ignore a certain amount
> > of risks, but finally these sum up.
> >
>
> There are risk either way. For example, the risk of having a wiki
> containing product documentation that no one can copy or modify
> because it is not under a proper license.
>
> > You need not care about me (I'm not an apache committer) but it's sad
> that
> > you even try to ignore those people who are strongly committed to OOo at
> > apache.
> >
>
> Generally, it is in bad form to start every conversation with a
> statement along the lines of, "You probably will ignore me" or "You
> may not care what I say" or "You'll probably will think this is a bad
> idea", etc. Have enough respect for your own ideas that you think
> they are worthy of serious consideration. And have enough respect for
> others on the list that you assume that they will consider your
> thoughts serious. It poisons the conversation from the start when you
> start in a defensive tone.
>
To be fair, an overly aggressive tone can do just as much poisoning as a
defensive one. I think it is also worth bearing in mind that a lot of people
here are not native English speakers and so it is easy to read things into
posts that were either not intended or were a subset of the entire situation
simply because it just takes too long to type reams in a foreign language
explaining every aspect of everything. Apart from the language issue, what
is considered bad form varies with culture so we should be wary of brute
logic from our own perspective as a tool for progress. We have to work
together and respect other people's position especially when most are doing
this for love rather than for money. It's not like in a company where you
can sack and replace people. We have lost good people in the past because
that wasn't understood and it's easier to keep people and their knowledge
resource than replace and retrain them.
Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > André
> >
> > PS: again a scnr:
> > http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d3df553ef01538f1979c0970b-pi
> >
> >
>
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
>> Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
>
>> >
>> > I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and
>> speculation
>> > :-)
>>
>> And neither is the same as facts. I'm concerned when I hear
>> paternalistic statements of "our contributors will never post patches"
>> or "They would never ever sign the iCLA", or "If we don't let them
>> contribute anonymously with 1-character passwords and fake names under
>> an eclectic license of their choice then they will kill themselves".
>
> Well maybe - just maybe - you may consider that the people who try to give
> you some advice have been dealing with exactly those type of contributors
> for the last couple of years, while IBM (according to your own words
> was not the best citizen in the Ooo community ecosystem).
>
I do consider that. I'm sure their views are honestly held. I'm not
ignoring them. But there is a huge difference between an opinion on
what you personally would prefer or do versus an opinion on what you
think thousands of others would prefer or do. I can accept the former
while giving much less weight to the latter. I see no reason to accept
as the gospel truth the views of 3 people claiming to speak for
thousands when we have the easy ability to reach out to the thousands
directly.
> Btw. I have mot seen anybody stating such statements as you quote. The only
> thing i saw was people pointing to risks. You may ignore a certain amount
> of risks, but finally these sum up.
>
There are risk either way. For example, the risk of having a wiki
containing product documentation that no one can copy or modify
because it is not under a proper license.
> You need not care about me (I'm not an apache committer) but it's sad that
> you even try to ignore those people who are strongly committed to OOo at
> apache.
>
Generally, it is in bad form to start every conversation with a
statement along the lines of, "You probably will ignore me" or "You
may not care what I say" or "You'll probably will think this is a bad
idea", etc. Have enough respect for your own ideas that you think
they are worthy of serious consideration. And have enough respect for
others on the list that you assume that they will consider your
thoughts serious. It poisons the conversation from the start when you
start in a defensive tone.
Regards,
-Rob
>
> regards,
>
> André
>
> PS: again a scnr:
> http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d3df553ef01538f1979c0970b-pi
>
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net>.
Hi Rob,
> Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
> >
> > I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and
> speculation
> > :-)
>
> And neither is the same as facts. I'm concerned when I hear
> paternalistic statements of "our contributors will never post patches"
> or "They would never ever sign the iCLA", or "If we don't let them
> contribute anonymously with 1-character passwords and fake names under
> an eclectic license of their choice then they will kill themselves".
Well maybe - just maybe - you may consider that the people who try to give
you some advice have been dealing with exactly those type of contributors
for the last couple of years, while IBM (according to your own words
was not the best citizen in the Ooo community ecosystem).
Btw. I have mot seen anybody stating such statements as you quote. The only
thing i saw was people pointing to risks. You may ignore a certain amount
of risks, but finally these sum up.
You need not care about me (I'm not an apache committer) but it's sad that
you even try to ignore those people who are strongly committed to OOo at
apache.
regards,
André
PS: again a scnr:
http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d3df553ef01538f1979c0970b-pi
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 August 2011 14:14, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:02 AM, TerryE <oo...@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
>> > On 03/08/11 13:57, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Andre Schnabel<An...@gmx.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Rob,
>> >>>
>> >>> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Von: Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter<ma.reiter@gmail.com
>> >
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 2011/8/3 Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter<
>> ma.reiter@gmail.com>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> 2011/8/2 Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
>> >>>
>> >>> ....
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been
>> >>>>
>> >>>> active
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> in the past 7 days.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> did you poked around 1 year ago as well?
>> >>>>>>> do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> ...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 2. May be, my english is not good enough to understand, wheather your
>> >>>>> your response answers my questions.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> If you have an unanswered question, please restate it,
>> >>>
>> >>> It's still in the quoted mail.
>> >>>
>> >>>> perhaps
>> >>>> rephrase if you think it was originally misunderstood.
>> >>>
>> >>> Afaics there is nothing to be misunderstood in the (two) question(s).
>> >>>
>> >> Ah. OK. He was asking for speculation on why the traffic is less now
>> >> than a year ago. Impossible to say, since I can't find any data on
>> >> what the traffic actually was a year ago. One way to back speculation
>> >> with facts would be to get a log of edits from last year, gather the
>> >> editors who were most active then, and contact them with a set of
>> >> survey questions.
>> >>
>> > Rob, I think that I covered this point to some degree in an earlier post
>> > today :-) //Terry
>> >
>>
>> Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the
>> same as introducing facts.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> >
>>
>
> I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and speculation
> :-)
And neither is the same as facts. I'm concerned when I hear
paternalistic statements of "our contributors will never post patches"
or "They would never ever sign the iCLA", or "If we don't let them
contribute anonymously with 1-character passwords and fake names under
an eclectic license of their choice then they will kill themselves".
Have we asked them? Are we really certain that all 35,000 registered
wiki users are incapable or unwilling to sign a piece of paper and
mail it to Apache? Have we had this conversation with them? Have we
even brought it up? Have we explained the workings of Apache
projects to them and how the meritocracy works? Have we even sent
all registered wiki users a note, telling them that we're moving to
Apache and inviting them to join us? Have we proposed the idea of the
iCLA to them and explained the benefits to them, how it would ensure
the license to their contributions was clear and ensures that their
contributions could then be reused by others?
I really expect more, much more, from our PPMC members, in terms of
community outreach and community development. These are important
goals for the project. This is not achieved by having 2 or 3 people
claiming to speak for the opinions of thousands. It is done by
reaching out to those thousands and showing them the benefits of
working at Apache, and inviting them to join us here.
-Rob
>
> --
> Ian
>
> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
>
> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
>
> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
> Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
> Wales.
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 3 August 2011 14:14, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:02 AM, TerryE <oo...@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
> > On 03/08/11 13:57, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Andre Schnabel<An...@gmx.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Rob,
> >>>
> >>> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> >>>>
> >>>> Von: Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
> >>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter<ma.reiter@gmail.com
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2011/8/3 Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter<
> ma.reiter@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2011/8/2 Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
> >>>
> >>> ....
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been
> >>>>
> >>>> active
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> in the past 7 days.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> did you poked around 1 year ago as well?
> >>>>>>> do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down?
> >>>>>>>
> >>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. May be, my english is not good enough to understand, wheather your
> >>>>> your response answers my questions.
> >>>>>
> >>>> If you have an unanswered question, please restate it,
> >>>
> >>> It's still in the quoted mail.
> >>>
> >>>> perhaps
> >>>> rephrase if you think it was originally misunderstood.
> >>>
> >>> Afaics there is nothing to be misunderstood in the (two) question(s).
> >>>
> >> Ah. OK. He was asking for speculation on why the traffic is less now
> >> than a year ago. Impossible to say, since I can't find any data on
> >> what the traffic actually was a year ago. One way to back speculation
> >> with facts would be to get a log of edits from last year, gather the
> >> editors who were most active then, and contact them with a set of
> >> survey questions.
> >>
> > Rob, I think that I covered this point to some degree in an earlier post
> > today :-) //Terry
> >
>
> Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the
> same as introducing facts.
>
> -Rob
>
> >
>
I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and speculation
:-)
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:02 AM, TerryE <oo...@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
> On 03/08/11 13:57, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Andre Schnabel<An...@gmx.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>>>>
>>>> Von: Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter<ma...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2011/8/3 Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter<ma...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2011/8/2 Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
>>>
>>> ....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been
>>>>
>>>> active
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in the past 7 days.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> did you poked around 1 year ago as well?
>>>>>>> do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down?
>>>>>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. May be, my english is not good enough to understand, wheather your
>>>>> your response answers my questions.
>>>>>
>>>> If you have an unanswered question, please restate it,
>>>
>>> It's still in the quoted mail.
>>>
>>>> perhaps
>>>> rephrase if you think it was originally misunderstood.
>>>
>>> Afaics there is nothing to be misunderstood in the (two) question(s).
>>>
>> Ah. OK. He was asking for speculation on why the traffic is less now
>> than a year ago. Impossible to say, since I can't find any data on
>> what the traffic actually was a year ago. One way to back speculation
>> with facts would be to get a log of edits from last year, gather the
>> editors who were most active then, and contact them with a set of
>> survey questions.
>>
> Rob, I think that I covered this point to some degree in an earlier post
> today :-) //Terry
>
Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the
same as introducing facts.
-Rob
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by TerryE <oo...@ellisons.org.uk>.
On 03/08/11 13:57, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Andre Schnabel<An...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>>> Von: Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter<ma...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 2011/8/3 Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter<ma...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 2011/8/2 Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
>> ....
>>>>>>> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been
>>> active
>>>>>>> in the past 7 days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> did you poked around 1 year ago as well?
>>>>>> do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down?
>>>>>>
>> ...
>>>> 2. May be, my english is not good enough to understand, wheather your
>>>> your response answers my questions.
>>>>
>>> If you have an unanswered question, please restate it,
>>
>> It's still in the quoted mail.
>>
>>> perhaps
>>> rephrase if you think it was originally misunderstood.
>> Afaics there is nothing to be misunderstood in the (two) question(s).
>>
> Ah. OK. He was asking for speculation on why the traffic is less now
> than a year ago. Impossible to say, since I can't find any data on
> what the traffic actually was a year ago. One way to back speculation
> with facts would be to get a log of edits from last year, gather the
> editors who were most active then, and contact them with a set of
> survey questions.
>
Rob, I think that I covered this point to some degree in an earlier post
today :-) //Terry
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>> Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter <ma...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > 2011/8/3 Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter <ma...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > 2011/8/2 Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
> ....
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been
>> active
>> >> >> in the past 7 days.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > did you poked around 1 year ago as well?
>> >> > do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down?
>> >> >
> ...
>> >
>> > 2. May be, my english is not good enough to understand, wheather your
>> > your response answers my questions.
>> >
>>
>> If you have an unanswered question, please restate it,
>
>
> It's still in the quoted mail.
>
>> perhaps
>> rephrase if you think it was originally misunderstood.
>
> Afaics there is nothing to be misunderstood in the (two) question(s).
>
Ah. OK. He was asking for speculation on why the traffic is less now
than a year ago. Impossible to say, since I can't find any data on
what the traffic actually was a year ago. One way to back speculation
with facts would be to get a log of edits from last year, gather the
editors who were most active then, and contact them with a set of
survey questions.
> André
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net>.
Hi Rob,
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 2011/8/3 Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > 2011/8/2 Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
....
> >> >>
> >> >> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been
> active
> >> >> in the past 7 days.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > did you poked around 1 year ago as well?
> >> > do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down?
> >> >
...
> >
> > 2. May be, my english is not good enough to understand, wheather your
> > your response answers my questions.
> >
>
> If you have an unanswered question, please restate it,
It's still in the quoted mail.
> perhaps
> rephrase if you think it was originally misunderstood.
Afaics there is nothing to be misunderstood in the (two) question(s).
André
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/8/3 Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2011/8/2 Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> I poked around and found this page:
>> >>
>> >> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
>> >>
>> >> This lists some additional roles (with counts)
>> >>
>> >> Administrators (26)
>> >> Bureaucrats (4)
>> >> Editors (20)
>> >> Reviewers (5)
>> >>
>> >> Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts.
>> >>
>> >> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active
>> >> in the past 7 days.
>> >>
>> >
>> > did you poked around 1 year ago as well?
>> > do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down?
>> >
>> > with the statistic above you don't increase the credibility ...
>> >
>> > or
>> >
>> > http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/Veroeffentl/Monatshefte/essay.asp?xYear=2004&xMonth=11&eNr=11
>> >
>
> 1. did you read the first sentence in the link above?
> more or less - Churchill: "I only belive in statistics, which I have
> mainpulated myself."
> or "the only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself"
>
But as Mark Twain once wrote, "Responding to data with clever quotes
is not so valuable as responding to data with better data".
>
>> One of the biggest mistakes I made when I moved into my house was to ...
> ... [fairy-tail deleted]
>
>>
>> With the wiki, if we really want to allow anyone to have write access
>> to it, then we really need to be committed to fight the weeds, which
>> in the case of wikis would be spam, low quality content, edit wars,
>> etc. If we can re-establish the community participation level the way
>> it was a year ago, then great. It would have a chance of success.
>> But right now I see almost no activity on the wiki. 35,000 user
>> accounts, but no users. If this doesn't change, the weeds will surely
>> win.
>>
>
> 2. May be, my english is not good enough to understand, wheather your
> your response answers my questions.
>
If you have an unanswered question, please restate it, perhaps
rephrase if you think it was originally misunderstood.
Regards,
-Rob
> M.
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by "Manfred A. Reiter" <ma...@gmail.com>.
2011/8/3 Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2011/8/2 Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
> >
> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> I poked around and found this page:
> >>
> >> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
> >>
> >> This lists some additional roles (with counts)
> >>
> >> Administrators (26)
> >> Bureaucrats (4)
> >> Editors (20)
> >> Reviewers (5)
> >>
> >> Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts.
> >>
> >> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active
> >> in the past 7 days.
> >>
> >
> > did you poked around 1 year ago as well?
> > do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down?
> >
> > with the statistic above you don't increase the credibility ...
> >
> > or
> >
> > http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/Veroeffentl/Monatshefte/essay.asp?xYear=2004&xMonth=11&eNr=11
> >
1. did you read the first sentence in the link above?
more or less - Churchill: "I only belive in statistics, which I have
mainpulated myself."
or "the only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself"
> One of the biggest mistakes I made when I moved into my house was to ...
... [fairy-tail deleted]
>
> With the wiki, if we really want to allow anyone to have write access
> to it, then we really need to be committed to fight the weeds, which
> in the case of wikis would be spam, low quality content, edit wars,
> etc. If we can re-establish the community participation level the way
> it was a year ago, then great. It would have a chance of success.
> But right now I see almost no activity on the wiki. 35,000 user
> accounts, but no users. If this doesn't change, the weeds will surely
> win.
>
2. May be, my english is not good enough to understand, wheather your
your response answers my questions.
M.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/8/2 Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>
>>
>> I poked around and found this page:
>>
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
>>
>> This lists some additional roles (with counts)
>>
>> Administrators (26)
>> Bureaucrats (4)
>> Editors (20)
>> Reviewers (5)
>>
>> Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts.
>>
>> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active
>> in the past 7 days.
>>
>
>
> did you poked around 1 year ago as well?
> do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down?
>
> with the statistic above you don't increase the credibility ...
>
> or
>
> http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/Veroeffentl/Monatshefte/essay.asp?xYear=2004&xMonth=11&eNr=11
>
One of the biggest mistakes I made when I moved into my house was to
design in my back yard a huge garden. It took a weeks of labor to get
it started. But I never had time to maintain it. I created a garden
far too large for my small "community" (my wife and I) to handle. We
fought back the weeds, but the weeds won in the end. I would have
been better off with house plants, in pots. More sheltered. But also
easier to take care of.
With the wiki, if we really want to allow anyone to have write access
to it, then we really need to be committed to fight the weeds, which
in the case of wikis would be spam, low quality content, edit wars,
etc. If we can re-establish the community participation level the way
it was a year ago, then great. It would have a chance of success.
But right now I see almost no activity on the wiki. 35,000 user
accounts, but no users. If this doesn't change, the weeds will surely
win.
> cheers
>
> M.
>
>
> M.
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by "Manfred A. Reiter" <ma...@gmail.com>.
2011/8/2 Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> I poked around and found this page:
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
>
> This lists some additional roles (with counts)
>
> Administrators (26)
> Bureaucrats (4)
> Editors (20)
> Reviewers (5)
>
> Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts.
>
> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active
> in the past 7 days.
>
did you poked around 1 year ago as well?
do you have an explanation, why these numbers are slowing down?
with the statistic above you don't increase the credibility ...
or
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/Veroeffentl/Monatshefte/essay.asp?xYear=2004&xMonth=11&eNr=11
cheers
M.
M.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by eric b <er...@openoffice.org>.
Hi Rob,
> I poked around and found this page:
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
>
> This lists some additional roles (with counts)
>
> Administrators (26)
> Bureaucrats (4)
> Editors (20)
> Reviewers (5)
>
> Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts.
>
> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active
> in the past 7 days.
>
I'd say People observe what happens, since the announce, but probably
before ...
To tell you more, I myself was - between 2006 and 2009 - very active
on the OpenOffice.org wiki, initialy thought for developers purpose.
It was a very alive and uggly big bazaar, with a lot of ideas, tries
and experiences. The Mac OS X native port was the best moment of the
OpenOffice.org Community life (before people use the word, thinking
to ''usefull idiots'' instead, to be honest ... ). There was nothing
forced : we tried to organize, as well as possible, but concentrating
on the content, not on the look. As an example, have a look at my
users page, per see the activity it was : http://
wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User:Ericb
But a day, some people decided to control the OpenOffice.org wiki
(not only the wiki in fact). After that, people like me were upset,
and simply definitily stopped to use it.
It would be great to not redo the same mistakes ...
Regards,
Eric Bachard
--
qɔᴉɹə
Education Project:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Education_Project
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> Another aspect I'd love to see addressed in the proposal:
>>
>> What other roles exist in the wiki?
>>
>> I know about:
>>
>> - Users (which we say may be anyone, provided they identify themselves
>> and agree to the license)
>>
>> - Admins, which as we know need to be committers
>>
>> But any other roles? Moderators? Any form of super users? How are
>> these appointed/approved? How does the PPMC exercise oversight?
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
> I will add something on this as well. Thanks for the info.
>
I poked around and found this page:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
This lists some additional roles (with counts)
Administrators (26)
Bureaucrats (4)
Editors (20)
Reviewers (5)
Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts.
Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active
in the past 7 days.
How we authorize people for these roles and what qualifications are
required for these roles is an important question.
There are a similar set of questions we should ask about the support
forums, what the roles are and how PPMC oversight maps to them.
-Rob
> Andy
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> Another aspect I'd love to see addressed in the proposal:
>
> What other roles exist in the wiki?
>
> I know about:
>
> - Users (which we say may be anyone, provided they identify themselves
> and agree to the license)
>
> - Admins, which as we know need to be committers
>
> But any other roles? Moderators? Any form of super users? How are
> these appointed/approved? How does the PPMC exercise oversight?
>
> -Rob
>
I will add something on this as well. Thanks for the info.
Andy
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
Another aspect I'd love to see addressed in the proposal:
What other roles exist in the wiki?
I know about:
- Users (which we say may be anyone, provided they identify themselves
and agree to the license)
- Admins, which as we know need to be committers
But any other roles? Moderators? Any form of super users? How are
these appointed/approved? How does the PPMC exercise oversight?
-Rob
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
> Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Andy Brown wrote:
>>
>>> I work on this and see what I can come up with. I am no expert on this
>>> so it will be a very rough draft, but something that I fell we will need to
>>> do. We are much different that the "normal" Apache project so hopefully be
>>> granted some working room. I will start a new thread as this one is getting
>>> to deep to manage.
>>
>> Please put the word [PROPOSAL] in the subject.
>>
>> I think it should be in the context of openoffice.org site issues as
>> opposed to apache.org issues, I think that may be the best dividing line for
>> the boundary for this "working room".
>
> Thanks for the idea, I will go that way.
>
>>> I am only trying to help all of us to keep a great product where it
>>> belongs.
>>
>> By trying you succeed.
>
> Thanks.
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Andy Brown wrote:
>
>> I work on this and see what I can come up with. I am no expert on this so it will be a very rough draft, but something that I fell we will need to do. We are much different that the "normal" Apache project so hopefully be granted some working room. I will start a new thread as this one is getting to deep to manage.
>
> Please put the word [PROPOSAL] in the subject.
>
> I think it should be in the context of openoffice.org site issues as opposed to apache.org issues, I think that may be the best dividing line for the boundary for this "working room".
Thanks for the idea, I will go that way.
>> I am only trying to help all of us to keep a great product where it belongs.
>
> By trying you succeed.
Thanks.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Andy Brown wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Andy Brown<an...@the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you talking the wiki, instead of requiring an ICLA as a person has to
>>> create an account, why not make it part of that process that "All submitted
>>> contributions are under AL2 license". Would that not be sufficient?
>>>
>>
>> The IPMC guidance, via the Podling Guide that they have published [1] is:
>>
>> "Podlings may use a wiki to create documentation (including the
>> website) providing that follow the guidelines. In particular, care
>> must be taken to ensure that access to the wiki used to create
>> documentation is restricted to only those with filed CLAs. The PPMC
>> MUST review all changes and ensure that trust is not abused."
>>
>> I personally like your idea of having a click-through-license grant on
>> the wiki itself, either as part of account creation or on the edit
>> page itself. But if we did that, I'd suggest some related issues to
>> address:
>>
>> 1) We shouldn't just ignore IPMC guidance. There may be some
>> allowance for variation in procedures, but that should not be assumed.
>> If we want to do something differently, then we need to write up that
>> proposal, get consensus here among PPMC members, and then take it to
>> the IPMC and probably Apache Legal Affairs (to review whatever
>> language we use). I'd gladly support that.
>
> I work on this and see what I can come up with. I am no expert on this so it will be a very rough draft, but something that I fell we will need to do. We are much different that the "normal" Apache project so hopefully be granted some working room. I will start a new thread as this one is getting to deep to manage.
Please put the word [PROPOSAL] in the subject.
I think it should be in the context of openoffice.org site issues as opposed to apache.org issues, I think that may be the best dividing line for the boundary for this "working room".
>
>> 2) We need a credible security mechanism for the wiki. Today, for
>> example, it is not required for a user to give their real name (the
>> field is optional). And the password can be as little as 1 character.
>> (Yup, I just created an account with password="x"). With 15,000
>> zombie accounts, lack of real names and the ability for users to
>> create trivially crackable accounts, it would be hard to really
>> identify a change to a particular person.
>
> I do not believe I have seen anyone state that there were not problems with the current setup and improvements could not be made. This is one area that we really need to look at and fix.
>
>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/sites.html
>>
>>>> 2) How do we ensure that the documentation is under PPMC oversight and
>>>> remains high quality?
>>>
>>> I received a daily report of all changes to the wiki, there is also the
>>> option for "as done" report. It would only take a few minutes to do a quick
>>> review of those changes, an revert them if needed.
>>>
>>
>> OK. Maybe that report could be directed to the ooo-commits list as well?
>
> I am sure that is a possibility but if all that use the committers that use the wiki get the reports then we should have that covered without adding to the ooo-commit list.
>
>>>> I'm open to discussions of various technical and procedural means to
>>>> achieve these goals. But I am adamant in achieving them one way or
>>>> another.
>>>
>>> Would the above listed work?
>>>
>>
>> I think that takes us in the right direction. Thanks.
>
> I am only trying to help all of us to keep a great product where it belongs.
By trying you succeed.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Andy
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Andy Brown<an...@the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
>>
>> If you talking the wiki, instead of requiring an ICLA as a person has to
>> create an account, why not make it part of that process that "All submitted
>> contributions are under AL2 license". Would that not be sufficient?
>>
>
> The IPMC guidance, via the Podling Guide that they have published [1] is:
>
> "Podlings may use a wiki to create documentation (including the
> website) providing that follow the guidelines. In particular, care
> must be taken to ensure that access to the wiki used to create
> documentation is restricted to only those with filed CLAs. The PPMC
> MUST review all changes and ensure that trust is not abused."
>
> I personally like your idea of having a click-through-license grant on
> the wiki itself, either as part of account creation or on the edit
> page itself. But if we did that, I'd suggest some related issues to
> address:
>
> 1) We shouldn't just ignore IPMC guidance. There may be some
> allowance for variation in procedures, but that should not be assumed.
> If we want to do something differently, then we need to write up that
> proposal, get consensus here among PPMC members, and then take it to
> the IPMC and probably Apache Legal Affairs (to review whatever
> language we use). I'd gladly support that.
I work on this and see what I can come up with. I am no expert on this
so it will be a very rough draft, but something that I fell we will need
to do. We are much different that the "normal" Apache project so
hopefully be granted some working room. I will start a new thread as
this one is getting to deep to manage.
> 2) We need a credible security mechanism for the wiki. Today, for
> example, it is not required for a user to give their real name (the
> field is optional). And the password can be as little as 1 character.
> (Yup, I just created an account with password="x"). With 15,000
> zombie accounts, lack of real names and the ability for users to
> create trivially crackable accounts, it would be hard to really
> identify a change to a particular person.
I do not believe I have seen anyone state that there were not problems
with the current setup and improvements could not be made. This is one
area that we really need to look at and fix.
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/sites.html
>
>>> 2) How do we ensure that the documentation is under PPMC oversight and
>>> remains high quality?
>>
>> I received a daily report of all changes to the wiki, there is also the
>> option for "as done" report. It would only take a few minutes to do a quick
>> review of those changes, an revert them if needed.
>>
>
> OK. Maybe that report could be directed to the ooo-commits list as well?
I am sure that is a possibility but if all that use the committers that
use the wiki get the reports then we should have that covered without
adding to the ooo-commit list.
>>> I'm open to discussions of various technical and procedural means to
>>> achieve these goals. But I am adamant in achieving them one way or
>>> another.
>>
>> Would the above listed work?
>>
>
> I think that takes us in the right direction. Thanks.
I am only trying to help all of us to keep a great product where it belongs.
Andy
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> At Apache, every committer has the ability to veto a change. Not just
>> me. Far from it.
>
> True.
>
>> In any case, in order to move the argument forward, I'd like to
>> reiterate thecific concerns that I have, to which I've seen no
>> response other than "we don't want to change". But no one is
>> addressing the fundamental questions:
>>
>> 1) How do we ensure that the future documentation is under the Apache
>> 2.0 license so that it can be copied, modified and redistributed
>> freely by others?
>
> If you talking the wiki, instead of requiring an ICLA as a person has to
> create an account, why not make it part of that process that "All submitted
> contributions are under AL2 license". Would that not be sufficient?
>
The IPMC guidance, via the Podling Guide that they have published [1] is:
"Podlings may use a wiki to create documentation (including the
website) providing that follow the guidelines. In particular, care
must be taken to ensure that access to the wiki used to create
documentation is restricted to only those with filed CLAs. The PPMC
MUST review all changes and ensure that trust is not abused."
I personally like your idea of having a click-through-license grant on
the wiki itself, either as part of account creation or on the edit
page itself. But if we did that, I'd suggest some related issues to
address:
1) We shouldn't just ignore IPMC guidance. There may be some
allowance for variation in procedures, but that should not be assumed.
If we want to do something differently, then we need to write up that
proposal, get consensus here among PPMC members, and then take it to
the IPMC and probably Apache Legal Affairs (to review whatever
language we use). I'd gladly support that.
2) We need a credible security mechanism for the wiki. Today, for
example, it is not required for a user to give their real name (the
field is optional). And the password can be as little as 1 character.
(Yup, I just created an account with password="x"). With 15,000
zombie accounts, lack of real names and the ability for users to
create trivially crackable accounts, it would be hard to really
identify a change to a particular person.
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/sites.html
>> 2) How do we ensure that the documentation is under PPMC oversight and
>> remains high quality?
>
> I received a daily report of all changes to the wiki, there is also the
> option for "as done" report. It would only take a few minutes to do a quick
> review of those changes, an revert them if needed.
>
OK. Maybe that report could be directed to the ooo-commits list as well?
>> I'm open to discussions of various technical and procedural means to
>> achieve these goals. But I am adamant in achieving them one way or
>> another.
>
> Would the above listed work?
>
I think that takes us in the right direction. Thanks.
> Andy
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> At Apache, every committer has the ability to veto a change. Not just
> me. Far from it.
True.
> In any case, in order to move the argument forward, I'd like to
> reiterate thecific concerns that I have, to which I've seen no
> response other than "we don't want to change". But no one is
> addressing the fundamental questions:
>
> 1) How do we ensure that the future documentation is under the Apache
> 2.0 license so that it can be copied, modified and redistributed
> freely by others?
If you talking the wiki, instead of requiring an ICLA as a person has to
create an account, why not make it part of that process that "All
submitted contributions are under AL2 license". Would that not be
sufficient?
> 2) How do we ensure that the documentation is under PPMC oversight and
> remains high quality?
I received a daily report of all changes to the wiki, there is also the
option for "as done" report. It would only take a few minutes to do a
quick review of those changes, an revert them if needed.
> I'm open to discussions of various technical and procedural means to
> achieve these goals. But I am adamant in achieving them one way or
> another.
Would the above listed work?
Andy
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 15:39 +0100, Terry Ellison wrote:
> Rob,
>
> I think that you've missed my point. The guy didn't THREATEN to leave.
> He HAS left. I doubt we will get him back. My strong reaction was
> because of that entirely avoidable loss of 5+ man-years of project
> expertise that we will be pressed to recover for the sake on an
> ill-considered shout-down.
Terry, you may have private info from Clayton that I don't have, but my
understanding from conversations with him is that he never had any
intention of remaining with the Apache OOo project beyond helping a bit
with the handover process. In fact, I'm fairly sure he said this in a
note to this list some weeks ago, but I haven't the energy to try to
track it down in the archives.
--Jean
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Terry Ellison <Te...@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
> Rob,
>
> I think that you've missed my point. The guy didn't THREATEN to leave. He
> HAS left. I doubt we will get him back. My strong reaction was because of
> that entirely avoidable loss of 5+ man-years of project expertise that we
> will be pressed to recover for the sake on an ill-considered shout-down.
> Was this really wise?
>
No, I do not think it was wise of him to leave. But, in the end, that
is his choice. Participating in an open source project, where views
can be aired freely, is not for everyone. You need the ability to air
opinions and proposals an discuss them respectfully, But you should
never feel that an idea is unable to be discussed, or that other
members will threaten to leave because someone disagrees with them, or
if they find that their ideas are not loved. That would only stifle
the free expression of views from other project members.
> Yes, I have only been on the DL for two days, but I have been a major
> contributor to community side of the OOo project for five years. And in my
> 30+ years in this business, I've seen lots of f***ed up project take-overs
> in my business unit. I was trying to flag up that this old dog is starting
> to sniff another one, and I would REALLY like to prevent this happening.
>
I assume that the project starts with a random assortment of prior OOo
members, members of related projects, members of other Apache
projects, members of the OASIS ODF standards committees, as well as
some new members "kicking the tires" to see what all the noise is
about. Some of them will find that this project is not to their
liking. Some will. We should try to make this project be inviting to
new members, as well as old members. But I suspect that incremental
growth will come mainly from new members.
But please tell me, what do you expect I should do when you or anyone
else repeatedly reads your resume to me? Should I not be allowed to
question proposals? Should it be considered rude to suggest
alternatives? Should I feel that it would be in imposition to ask
"why?" Should I feel that if I don't do exactly what you want,
without question, that you will leave the project? Really? Is that
the type of project you would want to work on? Is that the type of
project that will best attract more contributors?
In terms of project structure and oversight, Apache OpenOffice is a
fresh start. No one inherits their titles from the legacy project.
No questions are out of bounds. Nothing is above question. Yes, of
course, we shouldn't make arbitrary changes, without good reason, just
for the fun of it. But where something did not work well before, like
achieving a consistent license on the documentation, then we should be
looking at making necessary changes.
And remember, we also have fewer code contributors today, because
there are some developers who are not willing to sign the iCLA or
agree with the Apache 2.0 license. Should we change that requirement
as well? I don't think so. This is an Apache project. The license
is not negotiable, even though that necessarily means that there will
be some who, for whatever personal reasons and beliefs they honestly
hold, will not be able to participate.
> You seem to be positioning yourself as the project leader and absolute
> arbiter of Apache policy, and YOU have caused a valuable asset to this
> project to walk, yet you seem to be totally unaware of this -- or are and
> don't care. If we keep this up then this Apache project will drive away
> many if not most of the ex-OOo team who want to contribute. You'll be left
> with an extremely tidy and well-managed DL but no OpenOffice product.
>
Starting an ad hominen attack does not do credit you or your arguments.
At Apache, every committer has the ability to veto a change. Not just
me. Far from it.
In any case, in order to move the argument forward, I'd like to
reiterate the specific concerns that I have, to which I've seen no
response other than "we don't want to change". But no one is
addressing the fundamental questions:
1) How do we ensure that the future documentation is under the Apache
2.0 license so that it can be copied, modified and redistributed
freely by others?
2) How do we ensure that the documentation is under PPMC oversight and
remains high quality?
I'm open to discussions of various technical and procedural means to
achieve these goals. But I am adamant in achieving them one way or
another.
> If this is the Apache way, then this will be a sad outcome. But is this the
> Apache way or just your individual interpretation? I do wonder what is the
> biggest project that you've run personally, or have you even done this
> before?
>
Did you read the link I sent on decision making at Apache? Did you
have any questions on it? If you actually read it, I don't think you
could possibly be asking the above question.
> Regards Terry
>
> On 02/08/11 14:40, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:00 AM, TerryE<oo...@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Regardless... it doesn't matter to me anymore. I'm stepping out of
>>>> this discussion now, and stepping away from anything to do with OOo
>>>> documentation, including the OOo Wiki.
>>>>
>>>> Clayton
>>>
>>> This was the outcome of an ill considered discussion. Clayton, is the
>>> one
>>> guy who really understands how the documentation is put together. He's
>>> been
>>> working full time on this for at least 5 years that I know of. He was
>>> kicked in the teeth by Oracle, albeit for ration if perhaps impersonal
>>> commercial drivers, and now has to consider his future options. Despite
>>> this and somewhat to my surprise he was willing to re-engage and support
>>> OOo
>>> in the future within Apache. His departure would truly be a loss to the
>>> project and one that I think we all should regret.
>>>
>>> In my naiveté I did get the impression that the project would be a flat
>>> consensual collaborative organisation rather than a hierarchical dictat,
>>> albeit with the Apache umbrella. OK, I fully accept that I don't
>>> understand the "Apache way" yet, but in my days in EDS I had technical
>>> oversight in taking over many account teams and ensuring continuity of
>>> service (most far larger than this project) as well as running large
>>> teams
>>> myself. I have no interest in shovelling this shit in future but I do
>>> know
>>> how to get the team to vanish like sand through your fingers. One sure
>>> way
>>> is not to listen to considered and rational experience, to ride roughshod
>>> over peoples input, and to use sarcasm as a tool in sensitive dialogue.
>>> These people are volunteers contributing pro-bono, not servants. If
>>> this
>>> is going to be the culture of this project, then it is going to wither
>>> and
>>> die.
>>>
>> By your strong reaction, Terry, after only being on the list for 2
>> days, I suspect that you are not yet accustomed to the way we are
>> debating. No one is shutting anything down. We're discussing. When
>> there is consensus then we move forward.
>>
>> Decision making at Apache is described here:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management
>>
>> It is a good read. In particular I see nothing about trying to force
>> decisions by threatening to leave the project. But maybe I missed
>> that line ;-)
>>
>> And remember experience at OOo is not the sole fons et origo of
>> wisdom. There are other sources of relevant knowledge and experience.
>> We should try to respect all views raised on this list, and not try
>> to close down arguments by saying, "That's the way we always did it at
>> OOo" or "I'm more experienced in doing things my way, therefore
>> everyone else should yield". Those are not ways to reach consensus.
>> Similarly, there are parts of Apache that are non-negotiable and areas
>> where we have some discretion in the project. The Apache 2.0 license
>> is an example of something that is non-negotiable.
>>
>> -Rob
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Terry Ellison <Te...@ellisons.org.uk>.
Rob,
I think that you've missed my point. The guy didn't THREATEN to leave.
He HAS left. I doubt we will get him back. My strong reaction was
because of that entirely avoidable loss of 5+ man-years of project
expertise that we will be pressed to recover for the sake on an
ill-considered shout-down. Was this really wise?
Yes, I have only been on the DL for two days, but I have been a major
contributor to community side of the OOo project for five years. And in
my 30+ years in this business, I've seen lots of f***ed up project
take-overs in my business unit. I was trying to flag up that this old
dog is starting to sniff another one, and I would REALLY like to prevent
this happening.
You seem to be positioning yourself as the project leader and absolute
arbiter of Apache policy, and YOU have caused a valuable asset to this
project to walk, yet you seem to be totally unaware of this -- or are
and don't care. If we keep this up then this Apache project will drive
away many if not most of the ex-OOo team who want to contribute. You'll
be left with an extremely tidy and well-managed DL but no OpenOffice
product.
If this is the Apache way, then this will be a sad outcome. But is this
the Apache way or just your individual interpretation? I do wonder what
is the biggest project that you've run personally, or have you even done
this before?
Regards Terry
On 02/08/11 14:40, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:00 AM, TerryE<oo...@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Regardless... it doesn't matter to me anymore. I'm stepping out of
>>> this discussion now, and stepping away from anything to do with OOo
>>> documentation, including the OOo Wiki.
>>>
>>> Clayton
>> This was the outcome of an ill considered discussion. Clayton, is the one
>> guy who really understands how the documentation is put together. He's been
>> working full time on this for at least 5 years that I know of. He was
>> kicked in the teeth by Oracle, albeit for ration if perhaps impersonal
>> commercial drivers, and now has to consider his future options. Despite
>> this and somewhat to my surprise he was willing to re-engage and support OOo
>> in the future within Apache. His departure would truly be a loss to the
>> project and one that I think we all should regret.
>>
>> In my naiveté I did get the impression that the project would be a flat
>> consensual collaborative organisation rather than a hierarchical dictat,
>> albeit with the Apache umbrella. OK, I fully accept that I don't
>> understand the "Apache way" yet, but in my days in EDS I had technical
>> oversight in taking over many account teams and ensuring continuity of
>> service (most far larger than this project) as well as running large teams
>> myself. I have no interest in shovelling this shit in future but I do know
>> how to get the team to vanish like sand through your fingers. One sure way
>> is not to listen to considered and rational experience, to ride roughshod
>> over peoples input, and to use sarcasm as a tool in sensitive dialogue.
>> These people are volunteers contributing pro-bono, not servants. If this
>> is going to be the culture of this project, then it is going to wither and
>> die.
>>
> By your strong reaction, Terry, after only being on the list for 2
> days, I suspect that you are not yet accustomed to the way we are
> debating. No one is shutting anything down. We're discussing. When
> there is consensus then we move forward.
>
> Decision making at Apache is described here:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management
>
> It is a good read. In particular I see nothing about trying to force
> decisions by threatening to leave the project. But maybe I missed
> that line ;-)
>
> And remember experience at OOo is not the sole fons et origo of
> wisdom. There are other sources of relevant knowledge and experience.
> We should try to respect all views raised on this list, and not try
> to close down arguments by saying, "That's the way we always did it at
> OOo" or "I'm more experienced in doing things my way, therefore
> everyone else should yield". Those are not ways to reach consensus.
> Similarly, there are parts of Apache that are non-negotiable and areas
> where we have some discretion in the project. The Apache 2.0 license
> is an example of something that is non-negotiable.
>
> -Rob
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Regina Henschel <rb...@t-online.de>.
Hi Rob,
(comments inline)
Rob Weir schrieb:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber<je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
>>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
>>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
>>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
>>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
>>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
>>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
>>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
>>> is product documentation.
>>
>> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
>> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
>> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
>> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
>> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
>> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
>> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
>> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
>> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
>> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
>> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
>>
>
> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
> quality, namely:
>
> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
> must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
> become part of the documentation set.
I don't agree. It is the nature of a wiki, that the content is not
approved before, but by ongoing editing.
Any such contributions must be
> made under Apache 2.0 license.
In http://www.ooowiki.de/ we have the license information on the start
page and in the header of each editing mode page. Submitting a change
automatically agrees to the license. Wouldn't it be possible to do it
the same with the Apache 2.0 license?
>
> 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
> documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
That is a very formal action. So most people will not do it. But they
might write some tips and tutorials.
>
> 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
> tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
> change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
> can trace to a real email address is fine.
Isn't it possible to set up the wiki in a way, that only registered
users can write? That is already a hurdle, but I would accept it.
>
> With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
> (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
> a committer, and then checked into the repository.
That is fine for all things, which belong to the product binaries and to
the sources, but not for the wiki content.
With
> documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
> achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
> this.
>
> I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
> That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
> project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
> annoyance to contributors.
We need no such formal mechanism like signing up a iCLA, but groups of
people who feel responsible for special parts of the wiki. For example,
compare the pages belonging to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Statistics with the corresponding
ones in other languages. The better quality of the English ones are not
due to a formal mechanism of contribution and pre-approving, but because
the people in the group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Statistics care for
the pages. It is still possible for everyone to edit the content of the
wiki pages.
Kind regards
Regina
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:00 AM, TerryE <oo...@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> Regardless... it doesn't matter to me anymore. I'm stepping out of
>> this discussion now, and stepping away from anything to do with OOo
>> documentation, including the OOo Wiki.
>>
>> Clayton
>
> This was the outcome of an ill considered discussion. Clayton, is the one
> guy who really understands how the documentation is put together. He's been
> working full time on this for at least 5 years that I know of. He was
> kicked in the teeth by Oracle, albeit for ration if perhaps impersonal
> commercial drivers, and now has to consider his future options. Despite
> this and somewhat to my surprise he was willing to re-engage and support OOo
> in the future within Apache. His departure would truly be a loss to the
> project and one that I think we all should regret.
>
> In my naiveté I did get the impression that the project would be a flat
> consensual collaborative organisation rather than a hierarchical dictat,
> albeit with the Apache umbrella. OK, I fully accept that I don't
> understand the "Apache way" yet, but in my days in EDS I had technical
> oversight in taking over many account teams and ensuring continuity of
> service (most far larger than this project) as well as running large teams
> myself. I have no interest in shovelling this shit in future but I do know
> how to get the team to vanish like sand through your fingers. One sure way
> is not to listen to considered and rational experience, to ride roughshod
> over peoples input, and to use sarcasm as a tool in sensitive dialogue.
> These people are volunteers contributing pro-bono, not servants. If this
> is going to be the culture of this project, then it is going to wither and
> die.
>
By your strong reaction, Terry, after only being on the list for 2
days, I suspect that you are not yet accustomed to the way we are
debating. No one is shutting anything down. We're discussing. When
there is consensus then we move forward.
Decision making at Apache is described here:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management
It is a good read. In particular I see nothing about trying to force
decisions by threatening to leave the project. But maybe I missed
that line ;-)
And remember experience at OOo is not the sole fons et origo of
wisdom. There are other sources of relevant knowledge and experience.
We should try to respect all views raised on this list, and not try
to close down arguments by saying, "That's the way we always did it at
OOo" or "I'm more experienced in doing things my way, therefore
everyone else should yield". Those are not ways to reach consensus.
Similarly, there are parts of Apache that are non-negotiable and areas
where we have some discretion in the project. The Apache 2.0 license
is an example of something that is non-negotiable.
-Rob
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by TerryE <oo...@ellisons.org.uk>.
<snip>
> Regardless... it doesn't matter to me anymore. I'm stepping out of
> this discussion now, and stepping away from anything to do with OOo
> documentation, including the OOo Wiki.
>
> Clayton
This was the outcome of an ill considered discussion. Clayton, is the
one guy who really understands how the documentation is put together.
He's been working full time on this for at least 5 years that I know
of. He was kicked in the teeth by Oracle, albeit for ration if perhaps
impersonal commercial drivers, and now has to consider his future
options. Despite this and somewhat to my surprise he was willing to
re-engage and support OOo in the future within Apache. His departure
would truly be a loss to the project and one that I think we all should
regret.
In my naiveté I did get the impression that the project would be a flat
consensual collaborative organisation rather than a hierarchical dictat,
albeit with the Apache umbrella. OK, I fully accept that I don't
understand the "Apache way" yet, but in my days in EDS I had technical
oversight in taking over many account teams and ensuring continuity of
service (most far larger than this project) as well as running large
teams myself. I have no interest in shovelling this shit in future but
I do know how to get the team to vanish like sand through your fingers.
One sure way is not to listen to considered and rational experience, to
ride roughshod over peoples input, and to use sarcasm as a tool in
sensitive dialogue. These people are volunteers contributing pro-bono,
not servants. If this is going to be the culture of this project, then
it is going to wither and die.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> All wikis that accept public contributions (which is essentially all interesting wikis) must be curated. Ward Cunningham has provided the definitive exposition about that.
>
> I am sure we can find responsible contributors who will be eager to do that. Maybe some will need administrative access rights and we can require them to be project committers as part of the extension of PPMC oversight and responsibility.
>
> But with regard to contributions of documentation pages, forums, FAQ, etc., the more extended-community involvement that is encouraged by low-friction means, the better.
>
I think that is the key piece, determining what are the essential
documentation pieces (the pieces without which the project cannot
function and the users cannot make use of the releases) versus the
broader universe of supplemental material.
I hope we agree that there is some core part of the documentation set
that the project must provide more direct oversight of, and which we
need to ensure is under a license that permits downstream consumers to
copy, modify and redistribute.
That's all I'm asking for. That we treat the core documentation as an
essential project asset and use those procedures that we routinely
apply to core project assets.
> In addition, wiki operation is very much in the Apache spirit already - there is no change that can't be reverted (and, in many cases, the reversion consists of moving a copy of an earlier version to be most-recent also, so history is never lost). I have seen Wikipedia lose history, but I assume that there are ways to avoid that with Wikimedia if we are careful.
>
It is funny when you read Obama's biography one day and read that he
was born in 1712. It is not funny when you read an OpenOffice wiki
page and a see DOS command that instructs the unwary user to delete
their windows/system directory.
We need to make it clear what is core, trusted documentation versus
other supplemental material that we put a disclaimer on. Untrusted,
unreviewed doc can do just as much damage as untrusted, unreviewed
code.
> I think this can be worked out as we bring up openoffice.org with hosting on Apache infrastructure. We do not need a one-size-fits-all autocratic solution.
>
We need two sizes, right: 1) core documentation and 2) supplemental.
That was the idea if having two wikis in the first place.
-Rob
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reizinger Zoltán [mailto:zreizinger@hdsnet.hu]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 07:45
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
> 2011.08.02. 15:47 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Reizinger Zoltán<zr...@hdsnet.hu> wrote:
>>> 2011.08.02. 14:03 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber<je...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
>>>>>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
>>>>>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
>>>>>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
>>>>>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
>>>>>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
>>>>>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
>>>>>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
>>>>>> is product documentation.
>>>>> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
>>>>> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
>>>>> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
>>>>> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
>>>>> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
>>>>> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
>>>>> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
>>>>> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
>>>>> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
>>>>> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
>>>>> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
>>>>>
>>>> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
>>>> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
>>>> quality, namely:
>>>>
>>>> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
>>>> must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
>>>> become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
>>>> made under Apache 2.0 license.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
>>>> documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
>>>>
>>>> 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
>>>> tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
>>>> change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
>>>> can trace to a real email address is fine.
>>>>
>>>> With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
>>>> (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
>>>> a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
>>>> documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
>>>> achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
>>>> this.
>>> Rob,
>>> I think you lives outside of this world. You will not find a lot of
>>> contributors which needs to work with this idea.
>> I'm seeing it working exactly as it does now, with the difference that
>> the changes made by non-committers are not immediately visible on the
>> page until reviewed and approved by a committer.
>>
>>> This will stop causal documentation contributors to enhance wiki page.
>> So you think that someone will refuse to contribute unless their
>> change is made available immediately? Have you tried this? Can you
>> back up your assertion that no one will contribute?
>>
>> Take a look at the wiki logs right now:
>>
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500
>>
>> What do you see? Many new zombie accounts. People updating their
>> User pages (not documentation) and a few real documentation changes,
>> most of which are made by Jean, who is already an Apache OpenOffice
>> committer.
>>
>> So although I've seen claims that there are 35,000 user accounts, even
>> 15,000 real accounts, I'm not seeing a huge volume of changes.
> Fighting with spammers is a continuous work.
> No changes so much because OOo 3.4 was not out on time, and the no new
> features happens, it is an side effect of Oracle stopping work on OOo.
>
> See my rare contribution to wiki:
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=R4zoli
> Check it, the changes I've made during my contribution, worth for
> committer checks, who has not knowledge in Hungarian or OOo Base?
> Worth for waiting for approvals?
>
> Your idea to bring all user content under AL 2.0 will not help the users
> of OOo, it will hurt them, that is what my experience on tho OOo is saying.
>
> I see no further effort on this topic, your idea may be wrong.
> I not want to spend more time on this.
> I not see so much support on your side, only you forcing this idea.
> Time will tell that it will be useful or not.
>
> Zoltan
>> When I started working with wiki documentation, first I checked that the
>> written down text is working in OOo, and if I find something corrected the
>> text.
>> I did this when I found some time to work on wiki.
>> If the causal user meet barriers like every post wait for moderating for
>> committers they will lost their interest very soon.
>> What if the wait for review was only a day?
>>
>>> May be you will have good managed and fully license compliant documentation,
>>> but fully out of date.
>> Again, what if aimed to delay the review/approval by no more than 1
>> day? Certainly that would not be technically out of date. Even if
>> the delay was a week it would not be out of date since releases come
>> only every couple of months.
>>
>>> Zoltan
>>>> I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
>>>> That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
>>>> project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
>>>> annoyance to contributors.
>>>>
>>>>> --Jean
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
+1
All wikis that accept public contributions (which is essentially all interesting wikis) must be curated. Ward Cunningham has provided the definitive exposition about that.
I am sure we can find responsible contributors who will be eager to do that. Maybe some will need administrative access rights and we can require them to be project committers as part of the extension of PPMC oversight and responsibility.
But with regard to contributions of documentation pages, forums, FAQ, etc., the more extended-community involvement that is encouraged by low-friction means, the better.
In addition, wiki operation is very much in the Apache spirit already - there is no change that can't be reverted (and, in many cases, the reversion consists of moving a copy of an earlier version to be most-recent also, so history is never lost). I have seen Wikipedia lose history, but I assume that there are ways to avoid that with Wikimedia if we are careful.
I think this can be worked out as we bring up openoffice.org with hosting on Apache infrastructure. We do not need a one-size-fits-all autocratic solution.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Reizinger Zoltán [mailto:zreizinger@hdsnet.hu]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 07:45
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
2011.08.02. 15:47 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Reizinger Zoltán<zr...@hdsnet.hu> wrote:
>> 2011.08.02. 14:03 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta:
>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber<je...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
>>>>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
>>>>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
>>>>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
>>>>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
>>>>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
>>>>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
>>>>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
>>>>> is product documentation.
>>>> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
>>>> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
>>>> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
>>>> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
>>>> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
>>>> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
>>>> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
>>>> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
>>>> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
>>>> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
>>>> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
>>>>
>>> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
>>> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
>>> quality, namely:
>>>
>>> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
>>> must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
>>> become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
>>> made under Apache 2.0 license.
>>>
>>> 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
>>> documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
>>>
>>> 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
>>> tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
>>> change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
>>> can trace to a real email address is fine.
>>>
>>> With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
>>> (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
>>> a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
>>> documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
>>> achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
>>> this.
>> Rob,
>> I think you lives outside of this world. You will not find a lot of
>> contributors which needs to work with this idea.
> I'm seeing it working exactly as it does now, with the difference that
> the changes made by non-committers are not immediately visible on the
> page until reviewed and approved by a committer.
>
>> This will stop causal documentation contributors to enhance wiki page.
> So you think that someone will refuse to contribute unless their
> change is made available immediately? Have you tried this? Can you
> back up your assertion that no one will contribute?
>
> Take a look at the wiki logs right now:
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500
>
> What do you see? Many new zombie accounts. People updating their
> User pages (not documentation) and a few real documentation changes,
> most of which are made by Jean, who is already an Apache OpenOffice
> committer.
>
> So although I've seen claims that there are 35,000 user accounts, even
> 15,000 real accounts, I'm not seeing a huge volume of changes.
Fighting with spammers is a continuous work.
No changes so much because OOo 3.4 was not out on time, and the no new
features happens, it is an side effect of Oracle stopping work on OOo.
See my rare contribution to wiki:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=R4zoli
Check it, the changes I've made during my contribution, worth for
committer checks, who has not knowledge in Hungarian or OOo Base?
Worth for waiting for approvals?
Your idea to bring all user content under AL 2.0 will not help the users
of OOo, it will hurt them, that is what my experience on tho OOo is saying.
I see no further effort on this topic, your idea may be wrong.
I not want to spend more time on this.
I not see so much support on your side, only you forcing this idea.
Time will tell that it will be useful or not.
Zoltan
> When I started working with wiki documentation, first I checked that the
> written down text is working in OOo, and if I find something corrected the
> text.
> I did this when I found some time to work on wiki.
> If the causal user meet barriers like every post wait for moderating for
> committers they will lost their interest very soon.
> What if the wait for review was only a day?
>
>> May be you will have good managed and fully license compliant documentation,
>> but fully out of date.
> Again, what if aimed to delay the review/approval by no more than 1
> day? Certainly that would not be technically out of date. Even if
> the delay was a week it would not be out of date since releases come
> only every couple of months.
>
>> Zoltan
>>> I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
>>> That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
>>> project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
>>> annoyance to contributors.
>>>
>>>> --Jean
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Reizinger Zoltán <zr...@hdsnet.hu>.
2011.08.02. 15:47 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Reizinger Zoltán<zr...@hdsnet.hu> wrote:
>> 2011.08.02. 14:03 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta:
>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber<je...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
>>>>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
>>>>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
>>>>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
>>>>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
>>>>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
>>>>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
>>>>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
>>>>> is product documentation.
>>>> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
>>>> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
>>>> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
>>>> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
>>>> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
>>>> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
>>>> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
>>>> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
>>>> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
>>>> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
>>>> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
>>>>
>>> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
>>> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
>>> quality, namely:
>>>
>>> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
>>> must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
>>> become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
>>> made under Apache 2.0 license.
>>>
>>> 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
>>> documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
>>>
>>> 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
>>> tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
>>> change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
>>> can trace to a real email address is fine.
>>>
>>> With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
>>> (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
>>> a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
>>> documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
>>> achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
>>> this.
>> Rob,
>> I think you lives outside of this world. You will not find a lot of
>> contributors which needs to work with this idea.
> I'm seeing it working exactly as it does now, with the difference that
> the changes made by non-committers are not immediately visible on the
> page until reviewed and approved by a committer.
>
>> This will stop causal documentation contributors to enhance wiki page.
> So you think that someone will refuse to contribute unless their
> change is made available immediately? Have you tried this? Can you
> back up your assertion that no one will contribute?
>
> Take a look at the wiki logs right now:
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500
>
> What do you see? Many new zombie accounts. People updating their
> User pages (not documentation) and a few real documentation changes,
> most of which are made by Jean, who is already an Apache OpenOffice
> committer.
>
> So although I've seen claims that there are 35,000 user accounts, even
> 15,000 real accounts, I'm not seeing a huge volume of changes.
Fighting with spammers is a continuous work.
No changes so much because OOo 3.4 was not out on time, and the no new
features happens, it is an side effect of Oracle stopping work on OOo.
See my rare contribution to wiki:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=R4zoli
Check it, the changes I've made during my contribution, worth for
committer checks, who has not knowledge in Hungarian or OOo Base?
Worth for waiting for approvals?
Your idea to bring all user content under AL 2.0 will not help the users
of OOo, it will hurt them, that is what my experience on tho OOo is saying.
I see no further effort on this topic, your idea may be wrong.
I not want to spend more time on this.
I not see so much support on your side, only you forcing this idea.
Time will tell that it will be useful or not.
Zoltan
> When I started working with wiki documentation, first I checked that the
> written down text is working in OOo, and if I find something corrected the
> text.
> I did this when I found some time to work on wiki.
> If the causal user meet barriers like every post wait for moderating for
> committers they will lost their interest very soon.
> What if the wait for review was only a day?
>
>> May be you will have good managed and fully license compliant documentation,
>> but fully out of date.
> Again, what if aimed to delay the review/approval by no more than 1
> day? Certainly that would not be technically out of date. Even if
> the delay was a week it would not be out of date since releases come
> only every couple of months.
>
>> Zoltan
>>> I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
>>> That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
>>> project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
>>> annoyance to contributors.
>>>
>>>> --Jean
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Reizinger Zoltán <zr...@hdsnet.hu> wrote:
> 2011.08.02. 14:03 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber<je...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
>>>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
>>>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
>>>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
>>>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
>>>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
>>>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
>>>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
>>>> is product documentation.
>>>
>>> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
>>> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
>>> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
>>> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
>>> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
>>> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
>>> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
>>> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
>>> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
>>> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
>>> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
>>>
>> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
>> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
>> quality, namely:
>>
>> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
>> must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
>> become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
>> made under Apache 2.0 license.
>>
>> 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
>> documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
>>
>> 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
>> tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
>> change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
>> can trace to a real email address is fine.
>>
>> With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
>> (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
>> a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
>> documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
>> achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
>> this.
>
> Rob,
> I think you lives outside of this world. You will not find a lot of
> contributors which needs to work with this idea.
I'm seeing it working exactly as it does now, with the difference that
the changes made by non-committers are not immediately visible on the
page until reviewed and approved by a committer.
> This will stop causal documentation contributors to enhance wiki page.
So you think that someone will refuse to contribute unless their
change is made available immediately? Have you tried this? Can you
back up your assertion that no one will contribute?
Take a look at the wiki logs right now:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500
What do you see? Many new zombie accounts. People updating their
User pages (not documentation) and a few real documentation changes,
most of which are made by Jean, who is already an Apache OpenOffice
committer.
So although I've seen claims that there are 35,000 user accounts, even
15,000 real accounts, I'm not seeing a huge volume of changes.
> When I started working with wiki documentation, first I checked that the
> written down text is working in OOo, and if I find something corrected the
> text.
> I did this when I found some time to work on wiki.
> If the causal user meet barriers like every post wait for moderating for
> committers they will lost their interest very soon.
What if the wait for review was only a day?
> May be you will have good managed and fully license compliant documentation,
> but fully out of date.
Again, what if aimed to delay the review/approval by no more than 1
day? Certainly that would not be technically out of date. Even if
the delay was a week it would not be out of date since releases come
only every couple of months.
> Zoltan
>>
>> I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
>> That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
>> project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
>> annoyance to contributors.
>>
>>> --Jean
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Reizinger Zoltán <zr...@hdsnet.hu>.
2011.08.02. 14:03 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber<je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
>>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
>>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
>>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
>>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
>>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
>>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
>>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
>>> is product documentation.
>> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
>> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
>> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
>> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
>> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
>> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
>> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
>> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
>> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
>> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
>> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
>>
> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
> quality, namely:
>
> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
> must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
> become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
> made under Apache 2.0 license.
>
> 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
> documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
>
> 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
> tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
> change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
> can trace to a real email address is fine.
>
> With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
> (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
> a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
> documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
> achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
> this.
Rob,
I think you lives outside of this world. You will not find a lot of
contributors which needs to work with this idea.
This will stop causal documentation contributors to enhance wiki page.
When I started working with wiki documentation, first I checked that the
written down text is working in OOo, and if I find something corrected
the text.
I did this when I found some time to work on wiki.
If the causal user meet barriers like every post wait for moderating for
committers they will lost their interest very soon.
May be you will have good managed and fully license compliant
documentation, but fully out of date.
Zoltan
> I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
> That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
> project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
> annoyance to contributors.
>
>> --Jean
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 08:03 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
> >> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
> >> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
> >> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
> >> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
> >> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
> >> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
> >> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
> >> is product documentation.
> >
> > Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
> > wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
> > guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
> > from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
> > They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
> > able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
> > license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
> > updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
> > contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
> > Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
> > put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
> >
>
> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
> quality, namely:
>
> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
> must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
> become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
> made under Apache 2.0 license.
>
> 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
> documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
>
> 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
> tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
> change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
> can trace to a real email address is fine.
>
> With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
> (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
> a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
> documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
> achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
> this.
>
> I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
> That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
> project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
> annoyance to contributors.
As far as I can tell, you are talking about direct edits to the wiki.
That is not what I asked about.
--Jean
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:35 AM, C <sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 14:56, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>
> Against my better judgement, one last reply...
>
>> iCLA is not the same as the JCA. You should read it:
>
> You miss the point entirely Rob. The issue is not the fine print of
> the iCLA or the JCA (I know what the iCLA says.. I read it)... it is
> the very fact that requiring it for OOo user documentation raises the
> bar for contribution to the documentation. If you demand that doc
> contributors sign an iCLA, they simply won't bother... they just go
> away - I've seen this happen over and over, and the people walked..
> not because of the fine print in the JCA... it was because they had to
> sign something, and it was over their head or they can't be bothered
> trying to figure it out.
>
And if these same non-developer, normal user retirees wanted to write
an article for a magazine, on an OpenOffice feature, they would need
to sign a copyright assignment for it to be published by the magazine.
The point is not the user's background. Giving license to content
is not a special concern of developers. It applies to anyone that
creates creative works that they want others to be able to use.
Remember, the mess we're in now, as we're pondering exactly what parts
of the wiki we can actually migrate, was caused by lax attention to
this issue given by the OOo project previously. That is reducing our
flexibility now. I'd like to avoid these kinds of problems in the
future.
> Doc contributors are NOT developers. They are mostly "normal" people
> who have no clue about software development processes. They are end
> users who enjoy writing a little... editing an FAQ... writing a HowTO.
> They are often retirees with some spare time on their hands.
>
And their contributions are greatly appreciated. I don't want to
force them to learn software development process. But I do what to
ensure that their contributions are made in a way that allows others
to max greatest use of their contributions. That's why we're an open
source project.
>
>> All documentation in an Apache project is community-developed.
>
> And Apache projects are all very technical. They are databases, web
> servers, XML framework tools, development toolkits, network
> application frameworks, message brokers, Java development toolsets,
> XML parsers and so on.. none which are Consumer Level products (at
> least that I am aware of or could find). Documentation for these
> products is written by developers for developers.... OOo
> documentation it is user oriented not developer oriented. It is a very
> different animal.
>
Again, that is a red herring. How the documentation is written and
how it is licensed are two entirely different things. Ditto for how
content is written and how it is reviewed and approved. I have no
wish to complicate things for the documentation writer-contributor. We
should make it so they can use familiar tools and techniques.
-Rob
>
> C.
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by C <sm...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 14:56, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
Against my better judgement, one last reply...
> iCLA is not the same as the JCA. You should read it:
You miss the point entirely Rob. The issue is not the fine print of
the iCLA or the JCA (I know what the iCLA says.. I read it)... it is
the very fact that requiring it for OOo user documentation raises the
bar for contribution to the documentation. If you demand that doc
contributors sign an iCLA, they simply won't bother... they just go
away - I've seen this happen over and over, and the people walked..
not because of the fine print in the JCA... it was because they had to
sign something, and it was over their head or they can't be bothered
trying to figure it out.
Doc contributors are NOT developers. They are mostly "normal" people
who have no clue about software development processes. They are end
users who enjoy writing a little... editing an FAQ... writing a HowTO.
They are often retirees with some spare time on their hands.
> All documentation in an Apache project is community-developed.
And Apache projects are all very technical. They are databases, web
servers, XML framework tools, development toolkits, network
application frameworks, message brokers, Java development toolsets,
XML parsers and so on.. none which are Consumer Level products (at
least that I am aware of or could find). Documentation for these
products is written by developers for developers.... OOo
documentation it is user oriented not developer oriented. It is a very
different animal.
C.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:20 AM, C <sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 14:03, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
>> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
>> quality, namely:
>>
>> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
>> must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
>> become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
>> made under Apache 2.0 license.
>>
>> 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
>> documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
>>
>> 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
>> tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
>> change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
>> can trace to a real email address is fine.
>>
>> With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
>> (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
>> a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
>> documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
>> achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
>> this.
>>
>> I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
>> That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
>> project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
>> annoyance to contributors.
>
> This is pretty much JCA regime that was in place under Sun and Oracle.
> On the User Doc side, it hindered not encouraged doc contributions...
> thus the move to a low entry barrier community Wiki (among other
> things that we tried to implement). Accepting patches and fixes via a
> bug reporting system is great if you've got the people working the
> bugs and managing the input in a timely manner..... otherwise you
> simply have a bottleneck in one or two people. The same goes for the
> MediaWiki Flagged Revisions (which is installed on the existing OOo
> Wiki by the way, just not in use)... without a team of reviewers, the
> edits are never approved, and community contributions dry up very
> quickly.
>
iCLA is not the same as the JCA. You should read it:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
The OpenOffice JCA says:
"Contributor hereby assigns to Sun joint ownership in all worldwide
common law and statutory rights associated with the copyrights,
copyright application, copyright registration and moral rights in the
Contribution to the extent allowable under applicable local laws and
copyright conventions."
The Apache iCLA says:
"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."
See the key difference? With the iCLA recipients get the same rights
as Apache does. There is no asymmetry like there was with the JCA
where Sun received special rights.
We don't have "a bottleneck in one or two people". All committers are
able to review and approve patches. We have (according to Dennis's
latest tally) 54 committers on the project right now. How many wiki
changes do you think we receive per day? How much time would it take
to review and approve a single wiki change? I'd like to see the math
that would suggest a bottleneck.
Of course, not every committer wants to review documentation. On the
other hand, we're not limited to 54 committers. If someone is making
a lot of doc changes, and we think they are of high quality, then we
elect them to be committers. So in an Apache project, you should
never have a review bottleneck. If you do that would be a sign that
the PPMC is not doing its job of identifying new committers.
> Also you really need to differentiate between Wiki documentation which
> is Community developed... and Application help which is/was treated
> like the source code (and required a JCA to work on).
>
All documentation in an Apache project is community-developed. All of
it. 100% of it. Every single line. Every character, space, em-dash
and en-dash. There is absolutely nothing in an Apache project, code,
documentation or website that is not developed by the community. If
you are making a distinction between the committers and the
contributors and some other "community" then you are making a false
distinction.
The question is how does the community work within Apache?
-Rob
<snip>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by C <sm...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 14:03, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
> quality, namely:
>
> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
> must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
> become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
> made under Apache 2.0 license.
>
> 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
> documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
>
> 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
> tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
> change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
> can trace to a real email address is fine.
>
> With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
> (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
> a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
> documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
> achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
> this.
>
> I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
> That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
> project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
> annoyance to contributors.
This is pretty much JCA regime that was in place under Sun and Oracle.
On the User Doc side, it hindered not encouraged doc contributions...
thus the move to a low entry barrier community Wiki (among other
things that we tried to implement). Accepting patches and fixes via a
bug reporting system is great if you've got the people working the
bugs and managing the input in a timely manner..... otherwise you
simply have a bottleneck in one or two people. The same goes for the
MediaWiki Flagged Revisions (which is installed on the existing OOo
Wiki by the way, just not in use)... without a team of reviewers, the
edits are never approved, and community contributions dry up very
quickly.
Also you really need to differentiate between Wiki documentation which
is Community developed... and Application help which is/was treated
like the source code (and required a JCA to work on).
Regardless... it doesn't matter to me anymore. I'm stepping out of
this discussion now, and stepping away from anything to do with OOo
documentation, including the OOo Wiki.
Clayton
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Aug 2, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> -1
>
> I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list.
>
> There are cross-over cases, such as authoring of what will be embedded help (in many languages) and also the support for on-line help. But even for on-line help it would be great if it could be community-augmented.
>
> All we're accomplishing here is guaranteeing that the only well-written documents and congenial forums for users will carry the LibreOffice logo.
>
> We already have two separate wikis, one that the community uses and one that requires committers to make the changes. I notice the second one is not getting much activity.
>
> I think this stance is too heavy-handed in an area where there is no demonstration of harm and a great need for community engagement. We need to be flexible here, and quickly too.
+1 - Let's listen carefully. We don't have to have all the answers immediately and we don't need to drown in slew of emails.
Regards,
Dave
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
>>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
>>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
>>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
>>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
>>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
>>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
>>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
>>> is product documentation.
>>
>> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
>> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
>> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
>> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
>> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
>> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
>> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
>> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
>> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
>> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
>> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
>>
>
> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
> quality, namely:
>
> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
> must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
> become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
> made under Apache 2.0 license.
>
> 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
> documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
>
> 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
> tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
> change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
> can trace to a real email address is fine.
>
> With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
> (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
> a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
> documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
> achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
> this.
>
> I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
> That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
> project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
> annoyance to contributors.
>
>> --Jean
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Umm, the proposal page for this incubator project was on a public wiki site and was publicly edited. While there were some mistakes in the course of that, it all worked out didn't it?
The project home page is where it is. That's a straw man (just like the one I just gave). It is not on OpenOffice.org and it won't be, it seems to me. It is in the Apache ooo space.
I propose that we do this on an individual-case basis as we migrate/blend/divide/whatever OpenOffice.org-reached content and apache.org-reached content.
I propose that we do *not* drop the iCLA hammer on everything to do with OpenOffice.org and we should deal with this on concrete terms when we have cloned the content of OpenOffice.org ready to reopen under new management but with the same welcoming face to the public.
I don't accept that there has been any harm in the handling of provenance on OpenOffice.org although it certainly could have been done better. In fact, keeping it the OpenOffice.org site is probably the easiest way to avoid sticky permission problems. Of course, if any contributors want their material taken down, we should happily comply.
I wouldn't even add the Apache license to the pages. The Creative Commons attribution license seems perfectly fine there and we should not mess with it. The copyright notice I would leave to sharper minds than ours.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 07:53
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> -1
>
> I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list.
>
That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is
external to Apache. We're not discussing that right now. What we're
discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which we
are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two
different things.
As for "in release" versus "not in a release", I'll pose a question:
Should we allow anyone to directly edit the project home page, even if
they are not a project committer? Why not? It is not "in a release"?
We should be trying to build a an open source release that anyone can
use, modify and redistribute, according to the Apache 2.0 license.
The fact that some pieces are in the source tarball and other pieces
are on the website is irrelevant. We prevent others from making full
use of our code if we do not allow them to also make full use of
essential documentation.
> There are cross-over cases, such as authoring of what will be embedded help (in many languages) and also the support for on-line help. But even for on-line help it would be great if it could be community-augmented.
>
I agree, Everything at Apache is built by the community, including
the source code. We encourage contributions from all, including
committers, of course, but also patches from users and other
interested parties. But all such patches are reviewed and approved by
project committers.
> All we're accomplishing here is guaranteeing that the only well-written documents and congenial forums for users will carry the LibreOffice logo.
>
> We already have two separate wikis, one that the community uses and one that requires committers to make the changes. I notice the second one is not getting much activity.
>
And I'm not seeing a lot of activity at the OpenOffice.org wiki either:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500
What does that prove?
> I think this stance is too heavy-handed in an area where there is no demonstration of harm and a great need for community engagement. We need to be flexible here, and quickly too.
>
The harm is to the ability of downstream consumers to copy, modify and
redistribute the documentation. The lax attention paid to this
concern by OpenOffice.org is responsible for the nebulous state of the
IP in the wiki's content today. That harm has already been done. I'd
like to prevent that harm from continuing.
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
>>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
>>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
>>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
>>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
>>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
>>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
>>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
>>> is product documentation.
>>
>> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
>> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
>> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
>> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
>> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
>> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
>> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
>> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
>> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
>> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
>> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
>>
>
> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
> quality, namely:
>
> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
> must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
> become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
> made under Apache 2.0 license.
>
> 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
> documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
>
> 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
> tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
> change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
> can trace to a real email address is fine.
>
> With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
> (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
> a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
> documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
> achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
> this.
>
> I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
> That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
> project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
> annoyance to contributors.
>
>> --Jean
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>.
Hmm ..
If Oracle owns them we can include them in the grant and update te
license.
Cheers,
pedro.
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:17:28 +1000, Jean Hollis Weber
<je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 20:43 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jean Hollis Weber
>> <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 10:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> >> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> >> > -1
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things
>> not in a release have to be treated as if it requires the same
>> treatment as the content of a release. I thought we had worked a
>> high-level sketch of the user documentation case with Jean Hollis
>> Weber some time ago on this list.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is
>> >> external to Apache. We're not discussing that right now. What
>> we're
>> >> discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which
>> we
>> >> are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two
>> >> different things.
>> >
>> > *I* was talking about the docs produced by ODFAuthors, in my note
>> quoted
>> > below, and I asked a question that was not answered; the answer
>> was
>> > about the material directly edited on the wiki, not about the
>> material I
>> > asked about.
>> >
>>
>> From licensing perspective it is the same, whether it is content in
>> wikitext or content in attachments to a wiki page. The thing that
>> would be different would be links to content on external sites.
>>
>> If that is not answering your question, maybe you should restate,
>> with
>> a link to a specific example.
>
> The user guides are dual-licensed under CC-BY and GPL, and the past
> contributors have obviously agreed to those licenses. They have not
> agreed to the Apache license, and most of them cannot be found to ask
> if
> they agree. We can't just relicense the books under the Apache
> license.
>
> What you have said tells me that those books cannot be attachments on
> a
> Apache-OOo wiki page. Is that correct? If so, then we can host them
> elsewhere and link to them from the wiki.
>
> Does this also mean that the guides cannot be part of the official
> documentation set? That's okay with me (not sure what other
> contributors
> think), but it seems less than ideal for the project.
>
> Examples of the existing user guides can be downloaded from this page
> and pages linked to it:
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters
>
> --Jean
>
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
>> >> > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04
>> >> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo +
>> OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber
>> <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >> >>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed
>> for our
>> >> >>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to
>> admins, to
>> >> >>> application developers, that documentation is product
>> documentation.
>> >> >>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it,
>> would cause
>> >> >>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If
>> the right
>> >> >>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is
>> essentially to
>> >> >>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or
>> even a
>> >> >>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project,
>> then it
>> >> >>> is product documentation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items
>> on the
>> >> >> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of
>> user
>> >> >> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for
>> download
>> >> >> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit
>> into this.
>> >> >> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would
>> never be
>> >> >> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree
>> to the
>> >> >> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about
>> future
>> >> >> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every
>> future
>> >> >> contributor to these guides during their production must sign
>> the iCLA?
>> >> >> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights
>> (committer?) can
>> >> >> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not
>> necessarily
>> >> > the same tools, but the same care for provenance,
>> accountability and
>> >> > quality, namely:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but
>> these
>> >> > must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer
>> before they
>> >> > become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions
>> must be
>> >> > made under Apache 2.0 license.
>> >> >
>> >> > 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
>> >> > documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
>> >> >
>> >> > 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from
>> committers and
>> >> > tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
>> >> > change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id
>> that we
>> >> > can trace to a real email address is fine.
>> >> >
>> >> > With code this works by non-committer contributors sending
>> patches
>> >> > (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and
>> reviewed by
>> >> > a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
>> >> > documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different
>> mechanism for
>> >> > achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to
>> enable
>> >> > this.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the
>> wiki.
>> >> > That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get
>> this under
>> >> > project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too
>> much
>> >> > annoyance to contributors.
>> >> >
RE: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 15:17 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Jean,
>
> Thanks for the links.
>
> My analysis is based on <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters>
> and related pages.
>
> Note: The Draw Guide material, which is apparently being updated as we speak, is apparently now V3.3, not 3.2. Also, the Math Guide claims publication on 2011-04-28 and being applicable to V3.3, so the information on the download page appears to be out of date as well.
Thanks for catching the typos in those two headings. I've now fixed
them. --Jean
>
> Summary: The User Guides are essentially third-party materials incorporated into the content of OpenOffice.org. In the individual User Guides there are copyright notices with regard to the collective contributors. Neither Oracle nor Sun are identified as contributors in those notices. It seems unlikely that any Oracle license grant to Apache applies (or even can apply) to these materials.
>
> - Dennis
>
RE: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Jean,
Thanks for the links.
My analysis is based on <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters>
and related pages.
Note: The Draw Guide material, which is apparently being updated as we speak, is apparently now V3.3, not 3.2. Also, the Math Guide claims publication on 2011-04-28 and being applicable to V3.3, so the information on the download page appears to be out of date as well.
Summary: The User Guides are essentially third-party materials incorporated into the content of OpenOffice.org. In the individual User Guides there are copyright notices with regard to the collective contributors. Neither Oracle nor Sun are identified as contributors in those notices. It seems unlikely that any Oracle license grant to Apache applies (or even can apply) to these materials.
- Dennis
ANALYSIS OF THE WAY COPYRIGHT AND LICENSING ARE HANDLED FOR THE USER GUIDES:
1. The web page has a Wiki:Copyright links which states, as we have noted before, a common notice page that says
"Copyright 1999, 2010 by the contributing authors and Oracle and/or its affiliates.
"Sections or single pages of this wiki are covered by certain licenses. If a licence notice is displayed at a given wiki page, you may use the content of this page according to the license. In case you are contributing to such a page, your contribution is covered by this licensing terms."
2. The particular page does not have any different copyright notice, but it does assert that the page is under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC-BY).
3. The PDFs have the following notices, as Jean mentioned before:
==============================================================
"This document is Copyright © 2005–2011 by its contributors as listed below. You may
distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either the GNU General Public
License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), version 3 or later, or the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), version
3.0 or later.
"All trademarks within this guide belong to their legitimate owners."
There is one chapter identified as licensed under CC-BY 3.0 only, with no dual licensing.
3.1 There are named contributors. The lists of names vary from document to document. Note that neither Oracle nor Sun are identified as contributors and neither is singled out in the copyright notice.
3.2 IMPORTANT: The feedback link is to odfauthors-discuss@.lists.odfauthors.org. Also, the PDF documents contain information about where versions of the document can be found at <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org>.
3.2 There are Acknowledgments sometimes. These can trace a fascinating history of translation and contribution back to OpenOffice.org 1.x sources. Not all of the acknowledged contributors are listed as directly-named contributors (3.1).
3.3 The documents bear the imprint of ODF Authors (sometimes OOo Authors) and direct readers to those sites to provide feedback, report problems, etc.
4. The Guides are available as PDF and ODT documents for OpenOffice 3.3. For OpenOffice 3.2, the guides are also available as wiki pages. The site also has OpenOffice.org 2.x User Guides.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean Hollis Weber [mailto:jeanweber@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 14:32
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Dennis,
The wiki, ODT, and PDF versions of the OOo3.2 guides start here:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides
The wiki, ODT, and PDF versions of the OOo2.x guides start here:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOoAuthors_User_Manual
That's the bulk of the material. I don't recall if any other pages are
CC-BY, but I don't think it's a lot.
You can also look for Categories: CC-BY License | Documentation
All of the relevant pages should have those categories assigned to them.
(If not, I goofed in not adding the category info.)
If it helps, here are more detailed links:
The user guides for OOo3.3 are linked to these pages:
PDF
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters
ODT
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_Chapters_ODT
The user guides for OOo3.2 are linked to these pages:
PDF
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/Chapters
ODT
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/Chapters_ODT
--Jean
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 14:09 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Jean,
>
> I'd like to have a closer look.
>
> Can you provide some links to some of the specific material on OpenOffice.org? And how much material do you estimate there is that is licensed in this manner.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean Hollis Weber [mailto:jeanweber@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 19:40
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
>
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 22:18 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The user guides are dual-licensed under CC-BY and GPL, and the past
> > > contributors have obviously agreed to those licenses. They have not
> > > agreed to the Apache license, and most of them cannot be found to ask if
> > > they agree. We can't just relicense the books under the Apache license.
> > >
> > > What you have said tells me that those books cannot be attachments on a
> > > Apache-OOo wiki page. Is that correct? If so, then we can host them
> > > elsewhere and link to them from the wiki.
> > >
> >
> > You asked previously about CC-BY. I said that was on the list of
> > compatible licenses. You never asked about GPL nor did I make a
> > comment on GPL.
>
> Your note about CC-BY reached me after I sent this note to the list. At
> the time I wrote the above, I did not have that information. Sorry to
> add to the noise confusion!
>
> >
> > In any case, do you really mean GPL? Or do you mean GNU Free
> > Documentation License (GFDL)?
>
> Yes, I meant GPL. Here is the copyright statement from a typical user
> guide chapter:
>
> "This document is Copyright © 2005–2011 by its contributors as listed
> below. You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either
> the GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html),
> version 3 or later, or the Creative Commons Attribution License
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), version 3.0 or later."
>
> Derivative works (which would include any Apache-OOo materials based on
> these books) could therefore be licensed under either GPL or CC-BY, so
> the GPL license statement could be dropped if that's an issue.
>
> > As I mentioned before, the list of compatible licenses are listed here:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
> >
> > CC-BY is fine. Specifically version 2.5:
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
> >
> > Note that CC-BY 3.0 is not listed. But this may just be because no
> > project as requested it to be reviewed and approved.
> >
> > What version are you licensing under?
>
> CC-BY 3.0 or later.
>
> --Jean
>
RE: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
Dennis,
The wiki, ODT, and PDF versions of the OOo3.2 guides start here:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides
The wiki, ODT, and PDF versions of the OOo2.x guides start here:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOoAuthors_User_Manual
That's the bulk of the material. I don't recall if any other pages are
CC-BY, but I don't think it's a lot.
You can also look for Categories: CC-BY License | Documentation
All of the relevant pages should have those categories assigned to them.
(If not, I goofed in not adding the category info.)
If it helps, here are more detailed links:
The user guides for OOo3.3 are linked to these pages:
PDF
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters
ODT
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_Chapters_ODT
The user guides for OOo3.2 are linked to these pages:
PDF
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/Chapters
ODT
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/Chapters_ODT
--Jean
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 14:09 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Jean,
>
> I'd like to have a closer look.
>
> Can you provide some links to some of the specific material on OpenOffice.org? And how much material do you estimate there is that is licensed in this manner.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean Hollis Weber [mailto:jeanweber@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 19:40
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
>
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 22:18 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The user guides are dual-licensed under CC-BY and GPL, and the past
> > > contributors have obviously agreed to those licenses. They have not
> > > agreed to the Apache license, and most of them cannot be found to ask if
> > > they agree. We can't just relicense the books under the Apache license.
> > >
> > > What you have said tells me that those books cannot be attachments on a
> > > Apache-OOo wiki page. Is that correct? If so, then we can host them
> > > elsewhere and link to them from the wiki.
> > >
> >
> > You asked previously about CC-BY. I said that was on the list of
> > compatible licenses. You never asked about GPL nor did I make a
> > comment on GPL.
>
> Your note about CC-BY reached me after I sent this note to the list. At
> the time I wrote the above, I did not have that information. Sorry to
> add to the noise confusion!
>
> >
> > In any case, do you really mean GPL? Or do you mean GNU Free
> > Documentation License (GFDL)?
>
> Yes, I meant GPL. Here is the copyright statement from a typical user
> guide chapter:
>
> "This document is Copyright © 2005–2011 by its contributors as listed
> below. You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either
> the GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html),
> version 3 or later, or the Creative Commons Attribution License
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), version 3.0 or later."
>
> Derivative works (which would include any Apache-OOo materials based on
> these books) could therefore be licensed under either GPL or CC-BY, so
> the GPL license statement could be dropped if that's an issue.
>
> > As I mentioned before, the list of compatible licenses are listed here:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
> >
> > CC-BY is fine. Specifically version 2.5:
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
> >
> > Note that CC-BY 3.0 is not listed. But this may just be because no
> > project as requested it to be reviewed and approved.
> >
> > What version are you licensing under?
>
> CC-BY 3.0 or later.
>
> --Jean
>
RE: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Jean,
I'd like to have a closer look.
Can you provide some links to some of the specific material on OpenOffice.org? And how much material do you estimate there is that is licensed in this manner.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean Hollis Weber [mailto:jeanweber@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 19:40
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 22:18 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The user guides are dual-licensed under CC-BY and GPL, and the past
> > contributors have obviously agreed to those licenses. They have not
> > agreed to the Apache license, and most of them cannot be found to ask if
> > they agree. We can't just relicense the books under the Apache license.
> >
> > What you have said tells me that those books cannot be attachments on a
> > Apache-OOo wiki page. Is that correct? If so, then we can host them
> > elsewhere and link to them from the wiki.
> >
>
> You asked previously about CC-BY. I said that was on the list of
> compatible licenses. You never asked about GPL nor did I make a
> comment on GPL.
Your note about CC-BY reached me after I sent this note to the list. At
the time I wrote the above, I did not have that information. Sorry to
add to the noise confusion!
>
> In any case, do you really mean GPL? Or do you mean GNU Free
> Documentation License (GFDL)?
Yes, I meant GPL. Here is the copyright statement from a typical user
guide chapter:
"This document is Copyright © 2005–2011 by its contributors as listed
below. You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either
the GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html),
version 3 or later, or the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), version 3.0 or later."
Derivative works (which would include any Apache-OOo materials based on
these books) could therefore be licensed under either GPL or CC-BY, so
the GPL license statement could be dropped if that's an issue.
> As I mentioned before, the list of compatible licenses are listed here:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
>
> CC-BY is fine. Specifically version 2.5:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
>
> Note that CC-BY 3.0 is not listed. But this may just be because no
> project as requested it to be reviewed and approved.
>
> What version are you licensing under?
CC-BY 3.0 or later.
--Jean
Re: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 22:18 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The user guides are dual-licensed under CC-BY and GPL, and the past
> > contributors have obviously agreed to those licenses. They have not
> > agreed to the Apache license, and most of them cannot be found to ask if
> > they agree. We can't just relicense the books under the Apache license.
> >
> > What you have said tells me that those books cannot be attachments on a
> > Apache-OOo wiki page. Is that correct? If so, then we can host them
> > elsewhere and link to them from the wiki.
> >
>
> You asked previously about CC-BY. I said that was on the list of
> compatible licenses. You never asked about GPL nor did I make a
> comment on GPL.
Your note about CC-BY reached me after I sent this note to the list. At
the time I wrote the above, I did not have that information. Sorry to
add to the noise confusion!
>
> In any case, do you really mean GPL? Or do you mean GNU Free
> Documentation License (GFDL)?
Yes, I meant GPL. Here is the copyright statement from a typical user
guide chapter:
"This document is Copyright © 2005–2011 by its contributors as listed
below. You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either
the GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html),
version 3 or later, or the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), version 3.0 or later."
Derivative works (which would include any Apache-OOo materials based on
these books) could therefore be licensed under either GPL or CC-BY, so
the GPL license statement could be dropped if that's an issue.
> As I mentioned before, the list of compatible licenses are listed here:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
>
> CC-BY is fine. Specifically version 2.5:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
>
> Note that CC-BY 3.0 is not listed. But this may just be because no
> project as requested it to be reviewed and approved.
>
> What version are you licensing under?
CC-BY 3.0 or later.
--Jean
Re: User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 20:43 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 10:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> >> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> >> > -1
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is
>> >> external to Apache. We're not discussing that right now. What we're
>> >> discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which we
>> >> are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two
>> >> different things.
>> >
>> > *I* was talking about the docs produced by ODFAuthors, in my note quoted
>> > below, and I asked a question that was not answered; the answer was
>> > about the material directly edited on the wiki, not about the material I
>> > asked about.
>> >
>>
>> From licensing perspective it is the same, whether it is content in
>> wikitext or content in attachments to a wiki page. The thing that
>> would be different would be links to content on external sites.
>>
>> If that is not answering your question, maybe you should restate, with
>> a link to a specific example.
>
> The user guides are dual-licensed under CC-BY and GPL, and the past
> contributors have obviously agreed to those licenses. They have not
> agreed to the Apache license, and most of them cannot be found to ask if
> they agree. We can't just relicense the books under the Apache license.
>
> What you have said tells me that those books cannot be attachments on a
> Apache-OOo wiki page. Is that correct? If so, then we can host them
> elsewhere and link to them from the wiki.
>
You asked previously about CC-BY. I said that was on the list of
compatible licenses. You never asked about GPL nor did I make a
comment on GPL.
In any case, do you really mean GPL? Or do you mean GNU Free
Documentation License (GFDL)?
As I mentioned before, the list of compatible licenses are listed here:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
CC-BY is fine. Specifically version 2.5:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
Note that CC-BY 3.0 is not listed. But this may just be because no
project as requested it to be reviewed and approved.
What version are you licensing under?
Nothing is mentioned about GFDL. It is not in the permitted or forbidden lists.
> Does this also mean that the guides cannot be part of the official
> documentation set? That's okay with me (not sure what other contributors
> think), but it seems less than ideal for the project.
>
See above. CC-BY 2.5 is acceptable.
> Examples of the existing user guides can be downloaded from this page
> and pages linked to it:
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters
>
> --Jean
>
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
>> >> > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04
>> >> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >> >>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
>> >> >>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
>> >> >>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
>> >> >>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
>> >> >>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
>> >> >>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
>> >> >>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
>> >> >>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
>> >> >>> is product documentation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
>> >> >> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
>> >> >> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
>> >> >> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
>> >> >> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
>> >> >> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
>> >> >> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
>> >> >> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
>> >> >> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
>> >> >> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
>> >> >> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
>> >> > the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
>> >> > quality, namely:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
>> >> > must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
>> >> > become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
>> >> > made under Apache 2.0 license.
>> >> >
>> >> > 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
>> >> > documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
>> >> >
>> >> > 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
>> >> > tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
>> >> > change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
>> >> > can trace to a real email address is fine.
>> >> >
>> >> > With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
>> >> > (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
>> >> > a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
>> >> > documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
>> >> > achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
>> >> > this.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
>> >> > That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
>> >> > project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
>> >> > annoyance to contributors.
>> >> >
>
>
>
User guide licensing (was: Refactoring the brand)
Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 20:43 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 10:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> >> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> >> > -1
> >> >
> >> > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is
> >> external to Apache. We're not discussing that right now. What we're
> >> discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which we
> >> are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two
> >> different things.
> >
> > *I* was talking about the docs produced by ODFAuthors, in my note quoted
> > below, and I asked a question that was not answered; the answer was
> > about the material directly edited on the wiki, not about the material I
> > asked about.
> >
>
> From licensing perspective it is the same, whether it is content in
> wikitext or content in attachments to a wiki page. The thing that
> would be different would be links to content on external sites.
>
> If that is not answering your question, maybe you should restate, with
> a link to a specific example.
The user guides are dual-licensed under CC-BY and GPL, and the past
contributors have obviously agreed to those licenses. They have not
agreed to the Apache license, and most of them cannot be found to ask if
they agree. We can't just relicense the books under the Apache license.
What you have said tells me that those books cannot be attachments on a
Apache-OOo wiki page. Is that correct? If so, then we can host them
elsewhere and link to them from the wiki.
Does this also mean that the guides cannot be part of the official
documentation set? That's okay with me (not sure what other contributors
think), but it seems less than ideal for the project.
Examples of the existing user guides can be downloaded from this page
and pages linked to it:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters
--Jean
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04
> >> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> >>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
> >> >>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
> >> >>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
> >> >>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
> >> >>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
> >> >>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
> >> >>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
> >> >>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
> >> >>> is product documentation.
> >> >>
> >> >> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
> >> >> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
> >> >> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
> >> >> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
> >> >> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
> >> >> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
> >> >> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
> >> >> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
> >> >> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
> >> >> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
> >> >> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
> >> > the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
> >> > quality, namely:
> >> >
> >> > 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
> >> > must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
> >> > become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
> >> > made under Apache 2.0 license.
> >> >
> >> > 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
> >> > documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
> >> >
> >> > 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
> >> > tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
> >> > change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
> >> > can trace to a real email address is fine.
> >> >
> >> > With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
> >> > (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
> >> > a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
> >> > documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
> >> > achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
> >> > this.
> >> >
> >> > I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
> >> > That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
> >> > project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
> >> > annoyance to contributors.
> >> >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 10:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> > -1
>> >
>> > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list.
>> >
>>
>> That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is
>> external to Apache. We're not discussing that right now. What we're
>> discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which we
>> are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two
>> different things.
>
> *I* was talking about the docs produced by ODFAuthors, in my note quoted
> below, and I asked a question that was not answered; the answer was
> about the material directly edited on the wiki, not about the material I
> asked about.
>
>From licensing perspective it is the same, whether it is content in
wikitext or content in attachments to a wiki page. The thing that
would be different would be links to content on external sites.
If that is not answering your question, maybe you should restate, with
a link to a specific example.
-Rob
> --Jean
>
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04
>> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
>> >>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
>> >>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
>> >>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
>> >>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
>> >>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
>> >>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
>> >>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
>> >>> is product documentation.
>> >>
>> >> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
>> >> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
>> >> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
>> >> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
>> >> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
>> >> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
>> >> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
>> >> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
>> >> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
>> >> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
>> >> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
>> > the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
>> > quality, namely:
>> >
>> > 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
>> > must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
>> > become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
>> > made under Apache 2.0 license.
>> >
>> > 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
>> > documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
>> >
>> > 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
>> > tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
>> > change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
>> > can trace to a real email address is fine.
>> >
>> > With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
>> > (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
>> > a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
>> > documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
>> > achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
>> > this.
>> >
>> > I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
>> > That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
>> > project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
>> > annoyance to contributors.
>> >
>> >> --Jean
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 10:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> > -1
> >
> > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list.
> >
>
> That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is
> external to Apache. We're not discussing that right now. What we're
> discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which we
> are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two
> different things.
*I* was talking about the docs produced by ODFAuthors, in my note quoted
below, and I asked a question that was not answered; the answer was
about the material directly edited on the wiki, not about the material I
asked about.
--Jean
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
> >>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
> >>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
> >>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
> >>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
> >>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
> >>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
> >>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
> >>> is product documentation.
> >>
> >> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
> >> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
> >> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
> >> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
> >> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
> >> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
> >> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
> >> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
> >> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
> >> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
> >> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
> >>
> >
> > I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
> > the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
> > quality, namely:
> >
> > 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
> > must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
> > become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
> > made under Apache 2.0 license.
> >
> > 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
> > documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
> >
> > 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
> > tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
> > change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
> > can trace to a real email address is fine.
> >
> > With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
> > (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
> > a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
> > documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
> > achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
> > this.
> >
> > I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
> > That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
> > project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
> > annoyance to contributors.
> >
> >> --Jean
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net>.
Hi,
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
> > We already have two separate wikis, one that the community uses and one
> that requires committers to make the changes. I notice the second one is
> not getting much activity.
> >
>
> And I'm not seeing a lot of activity at the OpenOffice.org wiki either:
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500
>
> What does that prove?
that OpenOffice.org is a project with (still) a strong name but without
community contributions?
scnr
André
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> -1
>
> I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list.
>
That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is
external to Apache. We're not discussing that right now. What we're
discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which we
are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two
different things.
As for "in release" versus "not in a release", I'll pose a question:
Should we allow anyone to directly edit the project home page, even if
they are not a project committer? Why not? It is not "in a release"?
We should be trying to build a an open source release that anyone can
use, modify and redistribute, according to the Apache 2.0 license.
The fact that some pieces are in the source tarball and other pieces
are on the website is irrelevant. We prevent others from making full
use of our code if we do not allow them to also make full use of
essential documentation.
> There are cross-over cases, such as authoring of what will be embedded help (in many languages) and also the support for on-line help. But even for on-line help it would be great if it could be community-augmented.
>
I agree, Everything at Apache is built by the community, including
the source code. We encourage contributions from all, including
committers, of course, but also patches from users and other
interested parties. But all such patches are reviewed and approved by
project committers.
> All we're accomplishing here is guaranteeing that the only well-written documents and congenial forums for users will carry the LibreOffice logo.
>
> We already have two separate wikis, one that the community uses and one that requires committers to make the changes. I notice the second one is not getting much activity.
>
And I'm not seeing a lot of activity at the OpenOffice.org wiki either:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&from=20110702130619&days=30&limit=500
What does that prove?
> I think this stance is too heavy-handed in an area where there is no demonstration of harm and a great need for community engagement. We need to be flexible here, and quickly too.
>
The harm is to the ability of downstream consumers to copy, modify and
redistribute the documentation. The lax attention paid to this
concern by OpenOffice.org is responsible for the nebulous state of the
IP in the wiki's content today. That harm has already been done. I'd
like to prevent that harm from continuing.
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
>>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
>>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
>>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
>>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
>>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
>>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
>>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
>>> is product documentation.
>>
>> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
>> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
>> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
>> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
>> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
>> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
>> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
>> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
>> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
>> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
>> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
>>
>
> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
> quality, namely:
>
> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
> must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
> become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
> made under Apache 2.0 license.
>
> 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
> documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
>
> 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
> tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
> change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
> can trace to a real email address is fine.
>
> With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
> (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
> a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
> documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
> achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
> this.
>
> I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
> That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
> project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
> annoyance to contributors.
>
>> --Jean
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
-1
I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some time ago on this list.
There are cross-over cases, such as authoring of what will be embedded help (in many languages) and also the support for on-line help. But even for on-line help it would be great if it could be community-augmented.
All we're accomplishing here is guaranteeing that the only well-written documents and congenial forums for users will carry the LibreOffice logo.
We already have two separate wikis, one that the community uses and one that requires committers to make the changes. I notice the second one is not getting much activity.
I think this stance is too heavy-handed in an area where there is no demonstration of harm and a great need for community engagement. We need to be flexible here, and quickly too.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
>> is product documentation.
>
> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
>
I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
quality, namely:
1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
made under Apache 2.0 license.
2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
can trace to a real email address is fine.
With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
(diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
this.
I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
annoyance to contributors.
> --Jean
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
>> is product documentation.
>
> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
>
I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
quality, namely:
1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions must be
made under Apache 2.0 license.
2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id that we
can trace to a real email address is fine.
With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
(diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
this.
I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get this under
project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too much
annoyance to contributors.
> --Jean
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
> is product documentation.
Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
--Jean
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 20:45 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> I can certainly see the value of a community wiki that anyone can
>> edit. Can you see the value of a documentation wiki that has
>> controlled access and ensures that everything is under a single
>> permissive license? I think we need both.
>
> I think we are running into a similar problem here to one we discussed
> earlier, before Terry joined the list.
>
> That is the distinction between *user* documentation and *project*
> documentation. The former, including ALL of the existing user guides,
> are effectively "community documentation" at this time. But I think you
> are talking about *project* documentation, the developer-related stuff.
>
No, that's not the distinction I was making. Would you say that the
code that the users touch, like the user interface, should be open for
anyone to modify? But the UNO API code should only be writable by
developers? I don't think so.
I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If the right
to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
is product documentation.
Otherwise we create some frankenlicensed product, with parts under
Apache 2.0, which in theory can be freely modified and reused, but
with other essential components, like documentation and translations,
in assorted other licenses. A key thing about what makes an Apace
project Apache, is that it is under the Apache 2.0 license.
> I certainly agree that *project* documentation should go on a controlled
> wiki, but I think that *user* docs should go on a community wiki.
>
> --Jean
>
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Jean Hollis Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 20:45 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> I can certainly see the value of a community wiki that anyone can
> edit. Can you see the value of a documentation wiki that has
> controlled access and ensures that everything is under a single
> permissive license? I think we need both.
I think we are running into a similar problem here to one we discussed
earlier, before Terry joined the list.
That is the distinction between *user* documentation and *project*
documentation. The former, including ALL of the existing user guides,
are effectively "community documentation" at this time. But I think you
are talking about *project* documentation, the developer-related stuff.
I certainly agree that *project* documentation should go on a controlled
wiki, but I think that *user* docs should go on a community wiki.
--Jean
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/1/2011 5:45 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> I was talking about access controls. I was not talking about existing
>> content and whether we need to delete it. For the later question, we need to
>> do some IP review. If the copyright on the wiki pages was assigned to
>> Sun/Oracle, then they can grant it to us under a compatible license.
>
> For the Wiki it is probably best to move forward under the assumption that
> copyright may not have been assigned to Sun/Oracle.
> Transferring the hosting of the Wiki is something that is probably not
> problematic, but it is unlikely there will be any grant associated with the
> content.
Hmmm... so one approach would be to treat it like the source code.
Migrate it all over to Apache and then do an IP review. If there are
parts that we find we may not use, then we either delete or move to
apache-extras. But move it all over now, and then lock it down to
allow only committer write access until we've completed the IP review.
>>
>> That is how they were able to grant us the source code. On the other hand,
>> if the wiki pages are under a variety of eclectic licenses, then we will
>> need to determine exactly what we can do with it. But note, this is exactly
>> the same problem that is solved by requiring that those who edit
>> documentation sign the iCLA. That ensures that our documentation is copyable
>> and reusable by others. If OOo had taken such steps, we wouldn't have to
>> worry about whether we'll need to delete some Russian DataPilots page
>> because it has an incompatible license.
>
>
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.
On 8/1/2011 5:45 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
<snip>
> I was talking about access controls. I was not talking about existing
> content and whether we need to delete it. For the later question, we
> need to do some IP review. If the copyright on the wiki pages was
> assigned to Sun/Oracle, then they can grant it to us under a
> compatible license.
For the Wiki it is probably best to move forward under the assumption
that copyright may not have been assigned to Sun/Oracle.
Transferring the hosting of the Wiki is something that is probably not
problematic, but it is unlikely there will be any grant associated with
the content.
> That is how they were able to grant us the source code. On the other
> hand, if the wiki pages are under a variety of eclectic licenses, then
> we will need to determine exactly what we can do with it. But note,
> this is exactly the same problem that is solved by requiring that
> those who edit documentation sign the iCLA. That ensures that our
> documentation is copyable and reusable by others. If OOo had taken
> such steps, we wouldn't have to worry about whether we'll need to
> delete some Russian DataPilots page because it has an incompatible
> license.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Terry Ellison <Te...@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> Obviously different open source foundations or forges or projects will
>> make this determination in different ways. At Apache, the requirement
>> is described as:
>>
>> "Using A Wiki To Create Documentation
>>
>> Podlings may use a wiki to create documentation (including the
>> website) providing that follow the guidelines. In particular, care
>> must be taken to ensure that access to the wiki used to create
>> documentation is restricted to only those with filed CLAs. The PPMC
>> MUST review all changes and ensure that trust is not abused."
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/sites.html
>>
>> So documentation is special. And a lot of what I see on the OOo is
>> documentation, for end users as well as developers. Build
>> instructions, component architecture overviews, FAQ's, Admin Guides,
>> etc. These are all forms of project documentation. I don't see how
>> we avoid limiting write access to those pages.
>>
>> Remember, the thing that ensures that someone can take an Apache
>> project and create a new distribution or a new derivative of it, is
>> the Apache 2,0 license. That ensures that they can take the code, the
>> documentation, translations, etc., and reuse it. This includes the
>> documentation.
>
> Rob,
>
> OOo isn't a new project. It's been in continuous development for some 15
> years, and has a user population in millions. The active support community
> is in hundreds if not thousands. Before we use the letter of some guideline
> to abandon a huge body of knowledge and good-faith contributions perhaps we
> should seek clarification on the interpretation of such guidelines by the
> appropriate Apache authorities?
>
Apache OpenOffice is a new Apache project. That's why we're in the
Incubator. That's why we have Mentors. That's why, if we do not
demonstrate reasonable progress in acting like an Apache project, we
can be shut down at our Quarterly Review. The next one is in 3 weeks.
> I agree with you that the documentation that is formally distributed with
> the product such as the online documentation must be properly licensed to be
> distributed, as does website content which carries the Apache logo and is
> "Apache content".
>
The rule I quoted was in the context of a describing access controls
for a wiki that contains documentation, including the project's
website.
> But does this really apply to a community wiki, where some user has created
> a HowTo in Russian on using DataPilots in Calc, say. Are you saying that he
> will have to sign an iCLA or we delete the content. If some user spots a
> typo in the documentation and corrects it in the wiki, are you saying that
> we must ignore this unless she signs an iCLA?
>
I was talking about access controls. I was not talking about existing
content and whether we need to delete it. For the later question, we
need to do some IP review. If the copyright on the wiki pages was
assigned to Sun/Oracle, then they can grant it to us under a
compatible license. That is how they were able to grant us the source
code. On the other hand, if the wiki pages are under a variety of
eclectic licenses, then we will need to determine exactly what we can
do with it.
But note, this is exactly the same problem that is solved by requiring
that those who edit documentation sign the iCLA. That ensures that
our documentation is copyable and reusable by others. If OOo had
taken such steps, we wouldn't have to worry about whether we'll need
to delete some Russian DataPilots page because it has an incompatible
license.
> I apologise if these seem trivial, but the Community wiki and forums by
> nature contain content generated by the community, and there is a true
> continuum here. Surely, an end-user product as complex as OOo can only
> succeed in a FLOSS world if it embraces rather than rejects a community
> support model.
>
I can certainly see the value of a community wiki that anyone can
edit. Can you see the value of a documentation wiki that has
controlled access and ensures that everything is under a single
permissive license? I think we need both.
-Rob
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Terry Ellison <Te...@ellisons.org.uk>.
<snip>
> Obviously different open source foundations or forges or projects will
> make this determination in different ways. At Apache, the requirement
> is described as:
>
> "Using A Wiki To Create Documentation
>
> Podlings may use a wiki to create documentation (including the
> website) providing that follow the guidelines. In particular, care
> must be taken to ensure that access to the wiki used to create
> documentation is restricted to only those with filed CLAs. The PPMC
> MUST review all changes and ensure that trust is not abused."
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/sites.html
>
> So documentation is special. And a lot of what I see on the OOo is
> documentation, for end users as well as developers. Build
> instructions, component architecture overviews, FAQ's, Admin Guides,
> etc. These are all forms of project documentation. I don't see how
> we avoid limiting write access to those pages.
>
> Remember, the thing that ensures that someone can take an Apache
> project and create a new distribution or a new derivative of it, is
> the Apache 2,0 license. That ensures that they can take the code, the
> documentation, translations, etc., and reuse it. This includes the
> documentation.
Rob,
OOo isn't a new project. It's been in continuous development for some
15 years, and has a user population in millions. The active support
community is in hundreds if not thousands. Before we use the letter of
some guideline to abandon a huge body of knowledge and good-faith
contributions perhaps we should seek clarification on the interpretation
of such guidelines by the appropriate Apache authorities?
I agree with you that the documentation that is formally distributed
with the product such as the online documentation must be properly
licensed to be distributed, as does website content which carries the
Apache logo and is "Apache content".
But does this really apply to a community wiki, where some user has
created a HowTo in Russian on using DataPilots in Calc, say. Are you
saying that he will have to sign an iCLA or we delete the content. If
some user spots a typo in the documentation and corrects it in the wiki,
are you saying that we must ignore this unless she signs an iCLA?
I apologise if these seem trivial, but the Community wiki and forums by
nature contain content generated by the community, and there is a true
continuum here. Surely, an end-user product as complex as OOo can only
succeed in a FLOSS world if it embraces rather than rejects a community
support model.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 08/01/2011 03:09 PM, C wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 23:46, Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Another key question is that of accounts. �Who will have write access
>>> to the wiki?
>>>
>>> 1) We preserve the accounts of the Oracle-hosted server and anyone who
>>> has an account there has one at Apache?
>>
>> The accounts take up little "room" and are simply part of the OOoWiki
>> backend.. not linked to any external LDAP. Should they be...
>> probably. It would certainly be a nice to have if we could link the
>> OOo Accounts to the main OOo accounts.. one log in for all bits of
>> OOo.
>
> +1 !!!
>
>>
>> As an aside, there are more than 10k (probably more like 20k) of what
>> I call zombie accounts, accounts that are more than 2 years old and
>> never been used to edit a page, and never even logged into after they
>> were created. A huge number of the zombie accounts are created by
>> spammers.... it wouldn't be a bad thing if we purged the unused
>> accounts, but it's not necessary.
>>
>>> 2) We start fresh and allow anyone to sign up?
>>
>> How do you preserve the existing content and the continuity of the
>> previous editors' work of you do that? If you start fresh, you no
>> longer have any contributor history on the existing content.
>>
>>
>>> 3) We hook it up to Apache's LDAP, and only allow project committers
>>> to write to the wiki?
>>
>> That doesn't make it much of a community project.
>
> no -- it doesn't. The wiki should be much more community oriented, as a wiki
> should! Good point "C".
>
> The whole point of
>>
>> a Wiki is to allow anyone to edit and add content. Parts of the
>> Documentation for example has been added by people who were not
>> associated directly with the Doc project, (see
>>
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Reference/Calc_functions_alpha
>> for an example) and their contributions are pretty important. Another
>> group that I haven't seen represented here on the Incubators list is a
>> subset of the Russian OOo community that have created a massive
>> documentation structure on the Wiki over the past 2 years or so (see
>>
>> http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpersonas.i-rs.ru%2Fblog%2Fnews%2F270.html
>> for some info on this). I don't think they would be contributing
>> their knowledge if we made them apply for and become Apache project
>> committers... but maybe I'm too cynical.
>
> No, you're not too cynical, you're right on. The point is this. There are
> SOME areas of OO.o that are controlled by svn, like the main web site
> pages,. But, at some point, various projects, like Documentation, and the
> Brazil NL project, for example, decided they didn't want or need the hassle
> of all this formal control, and went to the wiki specifically to GET more
> community involvement. There is no need to impose control where it's not
> really needed.
>
It is good that you acknowledge that at OOo there were some areas that
were controlled by SVN and could not be modified by everyone.
Obviously different open source foundations or forges or projects will
make this determination in different ways. At Apache, the requirement
is described as:
"Using A Wiki To Create Documentation
Podlings may use a wiki to create documentation (including the
website) providing that follow the guidelines. In particular, care
must be taken to ensure that access to the wiki used to create
documentation is restricted to only those with filed CLAs. The PPMC
MUST review all changes and ensure that trust is not abused."
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/sites.html
So documentation is special. And a lot of what I see on the OOo is
documentation, for end users as well as developers. Build
instructions, component architecture overviews, FAQ's, Admin Guides,
etc. These are all forms of project documentation. I don't see how
we avoid limiting write access to those pages.
Remember, the thing that ensures that someone can take an Apache
project and create a new distribution or a new derivative of it, is
the Apache 2,0 license. That ensures that they can take the code, the
documentation, translations, etc., and reuse it. This includes the
documentation.
>>
>>
>>> I think this boils down to: �is this a project wiki with project work
>>> in it? �Or is it a community wiki? �What do we need to ensure that the
>>> PPMC has oversight of project outputs and that our users have the
>>> rights they think they have to those outputs, which is to say, that
>>> new content remains under Apache 2.0?
>>
>> The OOo Wiki, as it is now, is a Community Wiki. It contains pages
>> created by the projects for project use, pages created by the
>> projects for users, and pages created by users for users. Some is old
>> and could/should be trimmed out, but... there is also some very
>> valuable and important information tucked away in the Wiki.
>>
>> C.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "If you can keep your head when all others around you
> are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand
> the situation!"
> -- Unknown
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 08/01/2011 03:09 PM, C wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 23:46, Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>> Another key question is that of accounts. �Who will have write access
>> to the wiki?
>>
>> 1) We preserve the accounts of the Oracle-hosted server and anyone who
>> has an account there has one at Apache?
>
> The accounts take up little "room" and are simply part of the OOoWiki
> backend.. not linked to any external LDAP. Should they be...
> probably. It would certainly be a nice to have if we could link the
> OOo Accounts to the main OOo accounts.. one log in for all bits of
> OOo.
+1 !!!
>
> As an aside, there are more than 10k (probably more like 20k) of what
> I call zombie accounts, accounts that are more than 2 years old and
> never been used to edit a page, and never even logged into after they
> were created. A huge number of the zombie accounts are created by
> spammers.... it wouldn't be a bad thing if we purged the unused
> accounts, but it's not necessary.
>
>> 2) We start fresh and allow anyone to sign up?
>
> How do you preserve the existing content and the continuity of the
> previous editors' work of you do that? If you start fresh, you no
> longer have any contributor history on the existing content.
>
>
>> 3) We hook it up to Apache's LDAP, and only allow project committers
>> to write to the wiki?
>
> That doesn't make it much of a community project.
no -- it doesn't. The wiki should be much more community oriented, as a
wiki should! Good point "C".
The whole point of
> a Wiki is to allow anyone to edit and add content. Parts of the
> Documentation for example has been added by people who were not
> associated directly with the Doc project, (see
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Reference/Calc_functions_alpha
> for an example) and their contributions are pretty important. Another
> group that I haven't seen represented here on the Incubators list is a
> subset of the Russian OOo community that have created a massive
> documentation structure on the Wiki over the past 2 years or so (see
> http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpersonas.i-rs.ru%2Fblog%2Fnews%2F270.html
> for some info on this). I don't think they would be contributing
> their knowledge if we made them apply for and become Apache project
> committers... but maybe I'm too cynical.
No, you're not too cynical, you're right on. The point is this. There
are SOME areas of OO.o that are controlled by svn, like the main web
site pages,. But, at some point, various projects, like Documentation,
and the Brazil NL project, for example, decided they didn't want or need
the hassle of all this formal control, and went to the wiki specifically
to GET more community involvement. There is no need to impose control
where it's not really needed.
>
>
>> I think this boils down to: �is this a project wiki with project work
>> in it? �Or is it a community wiki? �What do we need to ensure that the
>> PPMC has oversight of project outputs and that our users have the
>> rights they think they have to those outputs, which is to say, that
>> new content remains under Apache 2.0?
>
> The OOo Wiki, as it is now, is a Community Wiki. It contains pages
> created by the projects for project use, pages created by the
> projects for users, and pages created by users for users. Some is old
> and could/should be trimmed out, but... there is also some very
> valuable and important information tucked away in the Wiki.
>
> C.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"If you can keep your head when all others around you
are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand
the situation!"
-- Unknown
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 7:25 PM, C <sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 00:43, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>> If you have 20,000 zombie accounts then I think that is a serious
>> argument for disabling all the existing accounts and starting fresh,
>> with controlled access.
>
> There are just over 35k accounts on the Wiki now. About half are
> "real" accounts... the rest were created and abandoned. This is
> normal for any wiki. There was a large number accounts that were
> created around 2006 by a spam bot (sequential numbered accounts etc).
> This was before spam controls were put in place as it is now.
>
> Disabling all accounts is really counter productive for a Wiki.
>
A wiki is a tool. Giving imperatives for how a tool should be used is
not going to get you anywhere. A wiki can be used for many things..
We should be talking about the function of the tool. If the function
of the tool is to create and edit documentation, including Admin
Guides, user FAQ's, developer build guides, etc., then access should
be controlled, and the PPMC should exercise oversight of the content.
This is true for any tool that allows changes to documentation,
whether it is SVN, the Apache CMS, or a wiki. The fact that it is
used for documentation is what requires the access controls.
That said, there may be other parts of the wiki that are not used for
documentation. If so we should define which projects these are, so
those can remain open for anyone to edit.
>
>> Don't delete content. Just disable accounts. If someone had one user
>> id back in 1999 and get a different one today, is that the end of the
>> world? If it is to many people, then we can either delete all
>> accounts and let project members get the accounts of their choice, or
>> we can reactive disabled accounts on request.
>
> It's not just about accounts. You've got a huge number of
> contributors that have edited content on the Wiki... you
> disable/delete all the accounts, and you have zero accreditation for
> their contribution... just "user unknown" (for deleted accounts). How
> is that fair to the thousands of past contributors? How does that
> meet the requirements of any licenses attributed to the content?
> Would you do something like this (remove all contributor history) in
> the source code repos? I don't thinks so... so why would you consider
> it for the Wiki?
>
You can't just disable the account and preserve the attribution? Not
delete. Just disable.
> Delete the dead accounts... OK, but you gain virtually zero from doing
> this (unless you're migrating to Apache LDAP or some centralized user
> account system)... but delete active accounts and tell people "just
> get a new one"? I can't see that going over too well.
>
Well, what can you do to encourage direct participation in this Apache project?
>
>> We don't allow everyone to change the code in the repositories. We
>> don't allow everyone to directly edit the project's website. The fact
>> that there is a community does not mean that we allow 20,000 people,
>> including spammers, to have accounts and give them the ability to edit
>> all resources.
>
> A Wiki is not source code, and no one expects everyone to be able to
> edit the website... Apples and radios (I can't say oranges because the
> two things are so far removed it's apples and radios). Editing on the
> OOoWiki is not editing all OOo resources. No one is saying the 35,000
> Wiki account holders should be source code committers as well.
>
A wiki is a tool. I don't care about the tool. The tool is not going
to tell us how we run the project. The PPMC provides oversight for
the project, not the tool.
>
>> Receiving contributions from contributors, reviewing them and merging
>> them into the project, this is a key function of any healthy Apache
>> project. Committers need to step up and help contributors get their
>> contributions merged in. And if the number and frequency of
>> contributions from a contributor is so high that it is annoying to be
>> always processing their patches, then it is a good sign that that
>> contributor should be voted in as a Committer !
>
> Apples and radios again. Wikis are not source code repositories.
>
Again, focusing on the tool will not resolve this. Focus on the role
of the tool. Should 35,000 people be able to edit documentation, even
if they have not signed the iCLA? That is the real question here.
>
>> It is more accurate to say that OOo did not make a distinction here
>> between a project wiki and a community wiki.
>
> It started as a public facing developer wiki, and the community jumped
> in there and made use of the resource. There are many issues that
> this history caused... like no Language Namespaces, everything is in
> Main which forced the use of Subpages to introduce some sanity to the
> myriad of languages... the mix of developer and user content and so
> on. There is no doubt that there is a LOT of room for improvement,
> but deleting all accounts?
>
> Anyway, I've said my bit. We're clearly on two different levels here :-P
>
I think some people may be projecting too much of the corporate-run
OOo into Apache. Remember, with OOo relatively few people had direct
access to the source code of the product, with the ability to directly
commit source changes. It was under the centralized control of a
corporation. The "community" was in other functions, such as
documentation, marketing and especially translation. These groups
formed as separate projects with the OOo umbrella project.
That is not the way Apache works. There is no central corporate
control. All commiters have access to the source code and can make
changes. All commmitters can review and veto changes as well. At the
same time, the committers are the ones who can change, review and veto
website changes and documentation. The community that developers the
bits and bytes of the project are the committers, under the oversight
of the PPMC, under the oversight of the IPMC, under the oversight of
the ASF Board.
There are no other communities that are developing the bits and bytes
of OpenOffice. The product development occurs here and now, on this
list and no where else. If there are groups that think they can
maintain an autonomous assistance, and directly change documentation
on the wiki, but not join the project, not sign the iCLA, not
participate on this list, then I think they will be risk a great
disappointment in the near future. We should be thinking now of how
we can reach out to them and explain to them that the community at
Apache OpenOffice is comprised of users, developers and committers,
that we work via a meritocracy, that we believe that the iCLA is
important, and that the way to have increased access to project
resources is to demonstrate commitment and merit and get voted in as a
committer.
-Rob
> C.
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by C <sm...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 00:43, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> If you have 20,000 zombie accounts then I think that is a serious
> argument for disabling all the existing accounts and starting fresh,
> with controlled access.
There are just over 35k accounts on the Wiki now. About half are
"real" accounts... the rest were created and abandoned. This is
normal for any wiki. There was a large number accounts that were
created around 2006 by a spam bot (sequential numbered accounts etc).
This was before spam controls were put in place as it is now.
Disabling all accounts is really counter productive for a Wiki.
> Don't delete content. Just disable accounts. If someone had one user
> id back in 1999 and get a different one today, is that the end of the
> world? If it is to many people, then we can either delete all
> accounts and let project members get the accounts of their choice, or
> we can reactive disabled accounts on request.
It's not just about accounts. You've got a huge number of
contributors that have edited content on the Wiki... you
disable/delete all the accounts, and you have zero accreditation for
their contribution... just "user unknown" (for deleted accounts). How
is that fair to the thousands of past contributors? How does that
meet the requirements of any licenses attributed to the content?
Would you do something like this (remove all contributor history) in
the source code repos? I don't thinks so... so why would you consider
it for the Wiki?
Delete the dead accounts... OK, but you gain virtually zero from doing
this (unless you're migrating to Apache LDAP or some centralized user
account system)... but delete active accounts and tell people "just
get a new one"? I can't see that going over too well.
> We don't allow everyone to change the code in the repositories. We
> don't allow everyone to directly edit the project's website. The fact
> that there is a community does not mean that we allow 20,000 people,
> including spammers, to have accounts and give them the ability to edit
> all resources.
A Wiki is not source code, and no one expects everyone to be able to
edit the website... Apples and radios (I can't say oranges because the
two things are so far removed it's apples and radios). Editing on the
OOoWiki is not editing all OOo resources. No one is saying the 35,000
Wiki account holders should be source code committers as well.
> Receiving contributions from contributors, reviewing them and merging
> them into the project, this is a key function of any healthy Apache
> project. Committers need to step up and help contributors get their
> contributions merged in. And if the number and frequency of
> contributions from a contributor is so high that it is annoying to be
> always processing their patches, then it is a good sign that that
> contributor should be voted in as a Committer !
Apples and radios again. Wikis are not source code repositories.
> It is more accurate to say that OOo did not make a distinction here
> between a project wiki and a community wiki.
It started as a public facing developer wiki, and the community jumped
in there and made use of the resource. There are many issues that
this history caused... like no Language Namespaces, everything is in
Main which forced the use of Subpages to introduce some sanity to the
myriad of languages... the mix of developer and user content and so
on. There is no doubt that there is a LOT of room for improvement,
but deleting all accounts?
Anyway, I've said my bit. We're clearly on two different levels here :-P
C.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 6:09 PM, C <sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 23:46, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>> Another key question is that of accounts. Who will have write access
>> to the wiki?
>>
>> 1) We preserve the accounts of the Oracle-hosted server and anyone who
>> has an account there has one at Apache?
>
> The accounts take up little "room" and are simply part of the OOoWiki
> backend.. not linked to any external LDAP. Should they be...
> probably. It would certainly be a nice to have if we could link the
> OOo Accounts to the main OOo accounts.. one log in for all bits of
> OOo.
>
> As an aside, there are more than 10k (probably more like 20k) of what
> I call zombie accounts, accounts that are more than 2 years old and
> never been used to edit a page, and never even logged into after they
> were created. A huge number of the zombie accounts are created by
> spammers.... it wouldn't be a bad thing if we purged the unused
> accounts, but it's not necessary.
>
If you have 20,000 zombie accounts then I think that is a serious
argument for disabling all the existing accounts and starting fresh,
with controlled access.
>> 2) We start fresh and allow anyone to sign up?
>
> How do you preserve the existing content and the continuity of the
> previous editors' work of you do that? If you start fresh, you no
> longer have any contributor history on the existing content.
>
Don't delete content. Just disable accounts. If someone had one user
id back in 1999 and get a different one today, is that the end of the
world? If it is to many people, then we can either delete all
accounts and let project members get the accounts of their choice, or
we can reactive disabled accounts on request.
>
>> 3) We hook it up to Apache's LDAP, and only allow project committers
>> to write to the wiki?
>
> That doesn't make it much of a community project. The whole point of
> a Wiki is to allow anyone to edit and add content. Parts of the
We don't allow everyone to change the code in the repositories. We
don't allow everyone to directly edit the project's website. The fact
that there is a community does not mean that we allow 20,000 people,
including spammers, to have accounts and give them the ability to edit
all resources.
There is certainly a good reason to have a community wiki, that anyone
can edit. There are also good reasons to have a development wiki that
only committers can edit. We have both of them today. OpenOffice.org
did not make that distinction. Apache does. We'll need to decide
what bucket the OOo wiki fits into. But from my examination I see
that there are parts that should have community write access, but
there are parts that should not.
> Documentation for example has been added by people who were not
> associated directly with the Doc project, (see
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Reference/Calc_functions_alpha
> for an example) and their contributions are pretty important. Another
Receiving contributions from contributors, reviewing them and merging
them into the project, this is a key function of any healthy Apache
project. Committers need to step up and help contributors get their
contributions merged in. And if the number and frequency of
contributions from a contributor is so high that it is annoying to be
always processing their patches, then it is a good sign that that
contributor should be voted in as a Committer !
> group that I haven't seen represented here on the Incubators list is a
> subset of the Russian OOo community that have created a massive
> documentation structure on the Wiki over the past 2 years or so (see
> http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpersonas.i-rs.ru%2Fblog%2Fnews%2F270.html
> for some info on this). I don't think they would be contributing
> their knowledge if we made them apply for and become Apache project
> committers... but maybe I'm too cynical.
I am more interested in enabling those who are committed to the
project to work effectively within the project. The PPMC cannot
exercise any oversight over a Russian language wiki edited by unknown
persons who have not signed the iCLA and have not signed up and active
on this list.
All things are possible to those who join the project. The same
cannot be promised to those who do not join.
>
>
>> I think this boils down to: is this a project wiki with project work
>> in it? Or is it a community wiki? What do we need to ensure that the
>> PPMC has oversight of project outputs and that our users have the
>> rights they think they have to those outputs, which is to say, that
>> new content remains under Apache 2.0?
>
> The OOo Wiki, as it is now, is a Community Wiki. It contains pages
> created by the projects for project use, pages created by the
> projects for users, and pages created by users for users. Some is old
> and could/should be trimmed out, but... there is also some very
> valuable and important information tucked away in the Wiki.
>
It is more accurate to say that OOo did not make a distinction here
between a project wiki and a community wiki.
> C.
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by C <sm...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 23:46, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> Another key question is that of accounts. Who will have write access
> to the wiki?
>
> 1) We preserve the accounts of the Oracle-hosted server and anyone who
> has an account there has one at Apache?
The accounts take up little "room" and are simply part of the OOoWiki
backend.. not linked to any external LDAP. Should they be...
probably. It would certainly be a nice to have if we could link the
OOo Accounts to the main OOo accounts.. one log in for all bits of
OOo.
As an aside, there are more than 10k (probably more like 20k) of what
I call zombie accounts, accounts that are more than 2 years old and
never been used to edit a page, and never even logged into after they
were created. A huge number of the zombie accounts are created by
spammers.... it wouldn't be a bad thing if we purged the unused
accounts, but it's not necessary.
> 2) We start fresh and allow anyone to sign up?
How do you preserve the existing content and the continuity of the
previous editors' work of you do that? If you start fresh, you no
longer have any contributor history on the existing content.
> 3) We hook it up to Apache's LDAP, and only allow project committers
> to write to the wiki?
That doesn't make it much of a community project. The whole point of
a Wiki is to allow anyone to edit and add content. Parts of the
Documentation for example has been added by people who were not
associated directly with the Doc project, (see
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Reference/Calc_functions_alpha
for an example) and their contributions are pretty important. Another
group that I haven't seen represented here on the Incubators list is a
subset of the Russian OOo community that have created a massive
documentation structure on the Wiki over the past 2 years or so (see
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpersonas.i-rs.ru%2Fblog%2Fnews%2F270.html
for some info on this). I don't think they would be contributing
their knowledge if we made them apply for and become Apache project
committers... but maybe I'm too cynical.
> I think this boils down to: is this a project wiki with project work
> in it? Or is it a community wiki? What do we need to ensure that the
> PPMC has oversight of project outputs and that our users have the
> rights they think they have to those outputs, which is to say, that
> new content remains under Apache 2.0?
The OOo Wiki, as it is now, is a Community Wiki. It contains pages
created by the projects for project use, pages created by the
projects for users, and pages created by users for users. Some is old
and could/should be trimmed out, but... there is also some very
valuable and important information tucked away in the Wiki.
C.
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> +1 to Terry's assessment.
>
> I favor the plan for setting up a VM and bringing over everything possible that we are allowed to preserve and make that the new location for openoffice.org.
>
> We can lock down some things that need to be continued on apache.org addresses, but the idea is to achieve continuity and make any breakage in a gradual and tidy way.
>
> I don't think there is any wholesale (1-2) case and we should be very selective about applying (2) to bits only when there is an alternative in operation and we are set up to guide people there in a smooth way.
>
> It looks like (4) then some (5 backed by 2) ideally. I see no reason to have up-front barriers induced by wiki conversions, forum conversions, or bug-list moves. I.e., all the interactive provisions of the site should be preserved except where an Apache counterpart must be used at once. (I suppose we stop handing out openoffice.org e-mail addresses but even things like registering to author public wiki pages should still work.)
>
> I think the key question is ensuring that we have folks to do the work and that it be sustainable. There are some finer-grained details, but this smells like a way to not create some sort of wholesale disruption.
>
Another key question is that of accounts. Who will have write access
to the wiki?
1) We preserve the accounts of the Oracle-hosted server and anyone who
has an account there has one at Apache?
2) We start fresh and allow anyone to sign up?
3) We hook it up to Apache's LDAP, and only allow project committers
to write to the wiki?
I think this boils down to: is this a project wiki with project work
in it? Or is it a community wiki? What do we need to ensure that the
PPMC has oversight of project outputs and that our users have the
rights they think they have to those outputs, which is to say, that
new content remains under Apache 2.0?
> I see no reason to over-think this, since there appear to be ways to do a full-dress simulation and confirmation that it works and we can keep it under wraps until we have the go-for-launch as part of the Oracle-to-Apache transfer. We should be looking for the *least* that has to be done to pull this off and to shed critical path like crazy.
>
> - Dennis, speaking from his armchair
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TerryE [mailto:ooo@ellisons.org.uk]
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 09:53
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
> Rob,
>
> <snip>
>>> As we've discussed, the current OOo maintains the codebase, development and
>>> release processes. It also provides a range of services in support of OOo
>>> and its community. One thing that does seem clear (at least as the forum
>>> and wiki are concened) is that as far as the servers running in Germany are
>>> running on borrowed time, and to be honest that was the situation years ago
>>> as they aren't housed in what I would regard as a data centre complying with
>>> Sun and now Oracle enterprise standards. Oracle shouldn't tolerate this
>>> continuance.
>>>
>> Thus, we need to migrate the services that we want to continue on at Apache.
>>
>>> We must now sentence each according to some broad strategy, which could
>>> include options such as:
>>>
>>> 1) shutting down the service, and removing access to its content
>>> 2) shutting down the service, but provide some form of frozen archive
>>> snapshot of content
>>> 3) rehosting the service on Apache infrastructure, but say on a Solaris
>>> zone
>>> 4) rehosting the service on Apache infrastructure, but moving to a
>>> preferred stack (Ubuntu VM or FreeBSD Jail).
>>> 5) migrating the content to the Apache-preferred application in this
>>> space.
>>>
>> That is a good way of looking at it.
>>
>>> In the case of (3) and (4), we also need to decide whether the project can
>>> continue to provide active support -- broadly to standard and resources of
>>> the pre-Apache OOo -- or whether we switch to a sustain level of support --
>>> that is keep the service up and running as-is but deprecate upgrades and
>>> extensions of use.
>>>
>>> I would think that for most services (1) and (2) are a matter of last
>>> resort. (5) would be wonderful, but in nearly all cases, it's going to be
>>> entirely impractical within the timescale that I suspect that Oracle will
>>> require. So I suggest that what we will be left with is rehosting (4) in
>>> the short term, with possible migration (5) if and when the project
>>> resources are secured. Since Apache seems to be in the process of retiring
>>> its Solaris infrastructure, this means that option (3) is also pretty much a
>>> last resort only to be considered if the application is heavily Solaris
>>> dependent.
>>>
>> I'm not assuming that everything gets moved over by default. That's
>> certainly the easiest thing for project members to think about, that
>> we'll just continue everything as it was before, but do it at Apache.
>> But was everything working well before? I'm looking now at dozens of
>> Kenai projects that have seen zero activity in a long, long time, or
>> only have spam in them. Personally I'm not interested in creating an
>> OpenOffice.org museum. I want a living, growing project, with no dead
>> wood.
>>
>> There is a natural tendency to segregate the project into dozens of
>> little boxes and to give every box and every person a title and create
>> a multi-tiered bureaucracy of steering committees and leads and
>> deputies to manage these dozens of boxes. That is a very easy thing
>> to do. Too easy. But Apache is not like that. Within a project
>> anyone can do anything. Projects are flat. There are no boxes. If a
>> committer wants to patch code one day, then modify the doc another
>> day, translate it into French and then after dinner update the
>> website, they can.
>>
>> I sensed that several project members, including myself, where
>> skeptical when this Apache project first started, and we had just a
>> single ooo-dev list. How could this possibly work, without a separate
>> marketing list, a QA list, a Doc list, a Support list, an
>> infrastructure list, and 145 different national language lists? We
>> must hurry and recreate the boxes from OpenOffice ASAP lest we
>> actually talk to each other as one project!
>>
>> But it has worked out pretty well, I think, having a single list.
>> We've all learned more about how the parts of the project work, and
>> what our collected concerns and priorities are. I think this is a
>> good thing. I realize that at some point we'll need to create some
>> additional lists and additional wikis. But I'd urge a minimalist
>> approach. Create only what is needed when it is needed. Let's not
>> rush to recreate the 200 boxes of OpenOffice.org. I think we can do
>> better than that.
>>
>> Obviously, this complicates the migration effort. We need to discuss
>> and decide which services are preserved and according to your 1-5
>> methods above. Luckily I think there is consensus that we must
>> preserve the phpBB user support forums, so maybe we start with that?
>>
> OK, so you see a lot more dead wood which would fall into (1) and (2).
> If that's the case, then the project needs to reach a consensus and we
> need to pass sentence explicitly rather than by default. I have
> profession experience of managing large migrations, but as to this one,
> I have no view other than my interests in the forums and wiki.
>>> As we've discussed elsewhere, the OOo forums and OOo wiki can easily fall
>>> into (4), though whether the wiki moves into sustain support is still an
>>> issue. In this case Apache will provide a hosting service which is directly
>>> supported by the infra team, but they will undoubtedly expect the project to
>>> provide in VM/Jail/Zone day-to-day administration, albiet compliant with
>>> wider operations and security standards.
>>>
>> The obvious question we'll get is whether our wiki content could be
>> migrated to confluence or moin moin, to run on existing
>> infrastructure. Has anyone investigated this? Saying that
>> translation is impossible due to X, Y and Z would be a great answer.
>> But saying we haven't really looked but it appears to be hard, is not
>> a great answer. Remember, getting MediaWiki supported at Apache will
>> be hard as well.
>>
> Rob, I think that I said here and elsewhere that *I* have looked at it
> and it *will* be hard. I didn't say impossible. That's a slightly
> different point Just look at
>
> * http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
> * http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Version
>
> for the volumetrics and MediaWiki extensions used. If you google
> "mediawiki confluence migration" then you will see that isn't a trivial
> exercise even for wiki using standard MW with no extensions: it would
> involve person-years of effort. I have suggested (4) rehosting but on a
> sustain basis for the wiki. I can set all of this up, if agreeable to
> the project. It doesn't need further material resources from the Apache
> team. This would at least buy us the time to do a proper migration plan
> and resource it.
>
> Regards Terry
>
>
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
+1 to Terry's assessment.
I favor the plan for setting up a VM and bringing over everything possible that we are allowed to preserve and make that the new location for openoffice.org.
We can lock down some things that need to be continued on apache.org addresses, but the idea is to achieve continuity and make any breakage in a gradual and tidy way.
I don't think there is any wholesale (1-2) case and we should be very selective about applying (2) to bits only when there is an alternative in operation and we are set up to guide people there in a smooth way.
It looks like (4) then some (5 backed by 2) ideally. I see no reason to have up-front barriers induced by wiki conversions, forum conversions, or bug-list moves. I.e., all the interactive provisions of the site should be preserved except where an Apache counterpart must be used at once. (I suppose we stop handing out openoffice.org e-mail addresses but even things like registering to author public wiki pages should still work.)
I think the key question is ensuring that we have folks to do the work and that it be sustainable. There are some finer-grained details, but this smells like a way to not create some sort of wholesale disruption.
I see no reason to over-think this, since there appear to be ways to do a full-dress simulation and confirmation that it works and we can keep it under wraps until we have the go-for-launch as part of the Oracle-to-Apache transfer. We should be looking for the *least* that has to be done to pull this off and to shed critical path like crazy.
- Dennis, speaking from his armchair
-----Original Message-----
From: TerryE [mailto:ooo@ellisons.org.uk]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 09:53
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Rob,
<snip>
>> As we've discussed, the current OOo maintains the codebase, development and
>> release processes. It also provides a range of services in support of OOo
>> and its community. One thing that does seem clear (at least as the forum
>> and wiki are concened) is that as far as the servers running in Germany are
>> running on borrowed time, and to be honest that was the situation years ago
>> as they aren't housed in what I would regard as a data centre complying with
>> Sun and now Oracle enterprise standards. Oracle shouldn't tolerate this
>> continuance.
>>
> Thus, we need to migrate the services that we want to continue on at Apache.
>
>> We must now sentence each according to some broad strategy, which could
>> include options such as:
>>
>> 1) shutting down the service, and removing access to its content
>> 2) shutting down the service, but provide some form of frozen archive
>> snapshot of content
>> 3) rehosting the service on Apache infrastructure, but say on a Solaris
>> zone
>> 4) rehosting the service on Apache infrastructure, but moving to a
>> preferred stack (Ubuntu VM or FreeBSD Jail).
>> 5) migrating the content to the Apache-preferred application in this
>> space.
>>
> That is a good way of looking at it.
>
>> In the case of (3) and (4), we also need to decide whether the project can
>> continue to provide active support -- broadly to standard and resources of
>> the pre-Apache OOo -- or whether we switch to a sustain level of support --
>> that is keep the service up and running as-is but deprecate upgrades and
>> extensions of use.
>>
>> I would think that for most services (1) and (2) are a matter of last
>> resort. (5) would be wonderful, but in nearly all cases, it's going to be
>> entirely impractical within the timescale that I suspect that Oracle will
>> require. So I suggest that what we will be left with is rehosting (4) in
>> the short term, with possible migration (5) if and when the project
>> resources are secured. Since Apache seems to be in the process of retiring
>> its Solaris infrastructure, this means that option (3) is also pretty much a
>> last resort only to be considered if the application is heavily Solaris
>> dependent.
>>
> I'm not assuming that everything gets moved over by default. That's
> certainly the easiest thing for project members to think about, that
> we'll just continue everything as it was before, but do it at Apache.
> But was everything working well before? I'm looking now at dozens of
> Kenai projects that have seen zero activity in a long, long time, or
> only have spam in them. Personally I'm not interested in creating an
> OpenOffice.org museum. I want a living, growing project, with no dead
> wood.
>
> There is a natural tendency to segregate the project into dozens of
> little boxes and to give every box and every person a title and create
> a multi-tiered bureaucracy of steering committees and leads and
> deputies to manage these dozens of boxes. That is a very easy thing
> to do. Too easy. But Apache is not like that. Within a project
> anyone can do anything. Projects are flat. There are no boxes. If a
> committer wants to patch code one day, then modify the doc another
> day, translate it into French and then after dinner update the
> website, they can.
>
> I sensed that several project members, including myself, where
> skeptical when this Apache project first started, and we had just a
> single ooo-dev list. How could this possibly work, without a separate
> marketing list, a QA list, a Doc list, a Support list, an
> infrastructure list, and 145 different national language lists? We
> must hurry and recreate the boxes from OpenOffice ASAP lest we
> actually talk to each other as one project!
>
> But it has worked out pretty well, I think, having a single list.
> We've all learned more about how the parts of the project work, and
> what our collected concerns and priorities are. I think this is a
> good thing. I realize that at some point we'll need to create some
> additional lists and additional wikis. But I'd urge a minimalist
> approach. Create only what is needed when it is needed. Let's not
> rush to recreate the 200 boxes of OpenOffice.org. I think we can do
> better than that.
>
> Obviously, this complicates the migration effort. We need to discuss
> and decide which services are preserved and according to your 1-5
> methods above. Luckily I think there is consensus that we must
> preserve the phpBB user support forums, so maybe we start with that?
>
OK, so you see a lot more dead wood which would fall into (1) and (2).
If that's the case, then the project needs to reach a consensus and we
need to pass sentence explicitly rather than by default. I have
profession experience of managing large migrations, but as to this one,
I have no view other than my interests in the forums and wiki.
>> As we've discussed elsewhere, the OOo forums and OOo wiki can easily fall
>> into (4), though whether the wiki moves into sustain support is still an
>> issue. In this case Apache will provide a hosting service which is directly
>> supported by the infra team, but they will undoubtedly expect the project to
>> provide in VM/Jail/Zone day-to-day administration, albiet compliant with
>> wider operations and security standards.
>>
> The obvious question we'll get is whether our wiki content could be
> migrated to confluence or moin moin, to run on existing
> infrastructure. Has anyone investigated this? Saying that
> translation is impossible due to X, Y and Z would be a great answer.
> But saying we haven't really looked but it appears to be hard, is not
> a great answer. Remember, getting MediaWiki supported at Apache will
> be hard as well.
>
Rob, I think that I said here and elsewhere that *I* have looked at it
and it *will* be hard. I didn't say impossible. That's a slightly
different point Just look at
* http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
* http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Version
for the volumetrics and MediaWiki extensions used. If you google
"mediawiki confluence migration" then you will see that isn't a trivial
exercise even for wiki using standard MW with no extensions: it would
involve person-years of effort. I have suggested (4) rehosting but on a
sustain basis for the wiki. I can set all of this up, if agreeable to
the project. It doesn't need further material resources from the Apache
team. This would at least buy us the time to do a proper migration plan
and resource it.
Regards Terry
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by TerryE <oo...@ellisons.org.uk>.
Rob,
<snip>
>> As we've discussed, the current OOo maintains the codebase, development and
>> release processes. It also provides a range of services in support of OOo
>> and its community. One thing that does seem clear (at least as the forum
>> and wiki are concened) is that as far as the servers running in Germany are
>> running on borrowed time, and to be honest that was the situation years ago
>> as they aren't housed in what I would regard as a data centre complying with
>> Sun and now Oracle enterprise standards. Oracle shouldn't tolerate this
>> continuance.
>>
> Thus, we need to migrate the services that we want to continue on at Apache.
>
>> We must now sentence each according to some broad strategy, which could
>> include options such as:
>>
>> 1) shutting down the service, and removing access to its content
>> 2) shutting down the service, but provide some form of frozen archive
>> snapshot of content
>> 3) rehosting the service on Apache infrastructure, but say on a Solaris
>> zone
>> 4) rehosting the service on Apache infrastructure, but moving to a
>> preferred stack (Ubuntu VM or FreeBSD Jail).
>> 5) migrating the content to the Apache-preferred application in this
>> space.
>>
> That is a good way of looking at it.
>
>> In the case of (3) and (4), we also need to decide whether the project can
>> continue to provide active support -- broadly to standard and resources of
>> the pre-Apache OOo -- or whether we switch to a sustain level of support --
>> that is keep the service up and running as-is but deprecate upgrades and
>> extensions of use.
>>
>> I would think that for most services (1) and (2) are a matter of last
>> resort. (5) would be wonderful, but in nearly all cases, it's going to be
>> entirely impractical within the timescale that I suspect that Oracle will
>> require. So I suggest that what we will be left with is rehosting (4) in
>> the short term, with possible migration (5) if and when the project
>> resources are secured. Since Apache seems to be in the process of retiring
>> its Solaris infrastructure, this means that option (3) is also pretty much a
>> last resort only to be considered if the application is heavily Solaris
>> dependent.
>>
> I'm not assuming that everything gets moved over by default. That's
> certainly the easiest thing for project members to think about, that
> we'll just continue everything as it was before, but do it at Apache.
> But was everything working well before? I'm looking now at dozens of
> Kenai projects that have seen zero activity in a long, long time, or
> only have spam in them. Personally I'm not interested in creating an
> OpenOffice.org museum. I want a living, growing project, with no dead
> wood.
>
> There is a natural tendency to segregate the project into dozens of
> little boxes and to give every box and every person a title and create
> a multi-tiered bureaucracy of steering committees and leads and
> deputies to manage these dozens of boxes. That is a very easy thing
> to do. Too easy. But Apache is not like that. Within a project
> anyone can do anything. Projects are flat. There are no boxes. If a
> committer wants to patch code one day, then modify the doc another
> day, translate it into French and then after dinner update the
> website, they can.
>
> I sensed that several project members, including myself, where
> skeptical when this Apache project first started, and we had just a
> single ooo-dev list. How could this possibly work, without a separate
> marketing list, a QA list, a Doc list, a Support list, an
> infrastructure list, and 145 different national language lists? We
> must hurry and recreate the boxes from OpenOffice ASAP lest we
> actually talk to each other as one project!
>
> But it has worked out pretty well, I think, having a single list.
> We've all learned more about how the parts of the project work, and
> what our collected concerns and priorities are. I think this is a
> good thing. I realize that at some point we'll need to create some
> additional lists and additional wikis. But I'd urge a minimalist
> approach. Create only what is needed when it is needed. Let's not
> rush to recreate the 200 boxes of OpenOffice.org. I think we can do
> better than that.
>
> Obviously, this complicates the migration effort. We need to discuss
> and decide which services are preserved and according to your 1-5
> methods above. Luckily I think there is consensus that we must
> preserve the phpBB user support forums, so maybe we start with that?
>
OK, so you see a lot more dead wood which would fall into (1) and (2).
If that's the case, then the project needs to reach a consensus and we
need to pass sentence explicitly rather than by default. I have
profession experience of managing large migrations, but as to this one,
I have no view other than my interests in the forums and wiki.
>> As we've discussed elsewhere, the OOo forums and OOo wiki can easily fall
>> into (4), though whether the wiki moves into sustain support is still an
>> issue. In this case Apache will provide a hosting service which is directly
>> supported by the infra team, but they will undoubtedly expect the project to
>> provide in VM/Jail/Zone day-to-day administration, albiet compliant with
>> wider operations and security standards.
>>
> The obvious question we'll get is whether our wiki content could be
> migrated to confluence or moin moin, to run on existing
> infrastructure. Has anyone investigated this? Saying that
> translation is impossible due to X, Y and Z would be a great answer.
> But saying we haven't really looked but it appears to be hard, is not
> a great answer. Remember, getting MediaWiki supported at Apache will
> be hard as well.
>
Rob, I think that I said here and elsewhere that *I* have looked at it
and it *will* be hard. I didn't say impossible. That's a slightly
different point Just look at
* http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
* http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Version
for the volumetrics and MediaWiki extensions used. If you google
"mediawiki confluence migration" then you will see that isn't a trivial
exercise even for wiki using standard MW with no extensions: it would
involve person-years of effort. I have suggested (4) rehosting but on a
sustain basis for the wiki. I can set all of this up, if agreeable to
the project. It doesn't need further material resources from the Apache
team. This would at least buy us the time to do a proper migration plan
and resource it.
Regards Terry
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:41 AM, TerryE <oo...@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
> Rob,
>
> Can I give my understanding on this issue of "Apache" being the answer to
> all Qs. Yes of course it is at one level because anything ongoing under the
> Apache banner must fail under and comply with Apache rules and procedures.
> However, if we ask the Q: are the Apache resources today able to take this
> over seamlessly then the answer is at best mixed.
>
Does Apache have finite server capacity? Of course. Does Apache as a
non-profit invest in far more server capacity than it needs at the
moment, just to have it sit around, idle? Of course not. Does Apache,
as a non-profit organization have the ability to accept donations of
money and/or hardware to create additional capacity when needed? Of
course.
So I'd recommend concentrating on what we want to do.
As for admin resources, there is not a large admin staff employed by
Apache. It is almost entirely volunteers. So for those resources,
this is certainly an issue.
> As we've discussed, the current OOo maintains the codebase, development and
> release processes. It also provides a range of services in support of OOo
> and its community. One thing that does seem clear (at least as the forum
> and wiki are concened) is that as far as the servers running in Germany are
> running on borrowed time, and to be honest that was the situation years ago
> as they aren't housed in what I would regard as a data centre complying with
> Sun and now Oracle enterprise standards. Oracle shouldn't tolerate this
> continuance.
>
Thus, we need to migrate the services that we want to continue on at Apache.
> We must now sentence each according to some broad strategy, which could
> include options such as:
>
> 1) shutting down the service, and removing access to its content
> 2) shutting down the service, but provide some form of frozen archive
> snapshot of content
> 3) rehosting the service on Apache infrastructure, but say on a Solaris
> zone
> 4) rehosting the service on Apache infrastructure, but moving to a
> preferred stack (Ubuntu VM or FreeBSD Jail).
> 5) migrating the content to the Apache-preferred application in this
> space.
>
That is a good way of looking at it.
> In the case of (3) and (4), we also need to decide whether the project can
> continue to provide active support -- broadly to standard and resources of
> the pre-Apache OOo -- or whether we switch to a sustain level of support --
> that is keep the service up and running as-is but deprecate upgrades and
> extensions of use.
>
> I would think that for most services (1) and (2) are a matter of last
> resort. (5) would be wonderful, but in nearly all cases, it's going to be
> entirely impractical within the timescale that I suspect that Oracle will
> require. So I suggest that what we will be left with is rehosting (4) in
> the short term, with possible migration (5) if and when the project
> resources are secured. Since Apache seems to be in the process of retiring
> its Solaris infrastructure, this means that option (3) is also pretty much a
> last resort only to be considered if the application is heavily Solaris
> dependent.
>
I'm not assuming that everything gets moved over by default. That's
certainly the easiest thing for project members to think about, that
we'll just continue everything as it was before, but do it at Apache.
But was everything working well before? I'm looking now at dozens of
Kenai projects that have seen zero activity in a long, long time, or
only have spam in them. Personally I'm not interested in creating an
OpenOffice.org museum. I want a living, growing project, with no dead
wood.
There is a natural tendency to segregate the project into dozens of
little boxes and to give every box and every person a title and create
a multi-tiered bureaucracy of steering committees and leads and
deputies to manage these dozens of boxes. That is a very easy thing
to do. Too easy. But Apache is not like that. Within a project
anyone can do anything. Projects are flat. There are no boxes. If a
committer wants to patch code one day, then modify the doc another
day, translate it into French and then after dinner update the
website, they can.
I sensed that several project members, including myself, where
skeptical when this Apache project first started, and we had just a
single ooo-dev list. How could this possibly work, without a separate
marketing list, a QA list, a Doc list, a Support list, an
infrastructure list, and 145 different national language lists? We
must hurry and recreate the boxes from OpenOffice ASAP lest we
actually talk to each other as one project!
But it has worked out pretty well, I think, having a single list.
We've all learned more about how the parts of the project work, and
what our collected concerns and priorities are. I think this is a
good thing. I realize that at some point we'll need to create some
additional lists and additional wikis. But I'd urge a minimalist
approach. Create only what is needed when it is needed. Let's not
rush to recreate the 200 boxes of OpenOffice.org. I think we can do
better than that.
Obviously, this complicates the migration effort. We need to discuss
and decide which services are preserved and according to your 1-5
methods above. Luckily I think there is consensus that we must
preserve the phpBB user support forums, so maybe we start with that?
> As we've discussed elsewhere, the OOo forums and OOo wiki can easily fall
> into (4), though whether the wiki moves into sustain support is still an
> issue. In this case Apache will provide a hosting service which is directly
> supported by the infra team, but they will undoubtedly expect the project to
> provide in VM/Jail/Zone day-to-day administration, albiet compliant with
> wider operations and security standards.
>
The obvious question we'll get is whether our wiki content could be
migrated to confluence or moin moin, to run on existing
infrastructure. Has anyone investigated this? Saying that
translation is impossible due to X, Y and Z would be a great answer.
But saying we haven't really looked but it appears to be hard, is not
a great answer. Remember, getting MediaWiki supported at Apache will
be hard as well.
-Rob
> I'll pick this up in detail in the cwiki pages, but I felt that this summary
> would be useful for the DL. //Terry Ellison
>
> On 01/08/11 14:07, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Andre Schnabel<An...@gmx.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>>> Von: Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, OK, but again, where will this and many other ancillary
>>>>> openoffice.org sites (like the forums etc.) actually live?
>>>>>
>>>> The goal would be to have then continue at www.openoffice.org.
>>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I know about this and have contributed to this but it doesn't
>>>>
>>>> really
>>>>>
>>>>> answer my question...where do we go?
>>>>>
>>>> If my answer still doesn't make sense, maybe you can try restating
>>>> your question. I might be answering a different question than you are
>>>> asking.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think, Kay is asking for the "physical" solution. Means:
>>> - who will be the owner of the website
>>
>> Apache
>>
>>> - who will pay for the servers and bandwith
>>
>> Apache
>>
>>> - who will be the admin of the servers
>>>
>> Apache
>>
>>> What seems to be unclear is, if Apache foundation will host content
>>> which is not directly under a *.apache.org domain.
>>>
>> Since the domain name is being transferred to Apache, openoffice.org
>> will in fact be an Apache domain.
>>
>> It remains to be seen what is redirected and what ends up being the
>> "canonical' URL for the various services. But the goal is to
>> preserve the thousands of linked and bookmarked URL's to various OOo
>> website services, so nothing breaks. That's the ideal. We can
>> certainly do that for the top level services, e.g., Bugzilla, support
>> forums, downloads, etc. It is unclear right now whether we'll be able
>> to preserve all of the deep links to individual pages, e.g., a link to
>> a specific archived message in a list repository.
>>
>>> André
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by TerryE <oo...@ellisons.org.uk>.
Rob,
Can I give my understanding on this issue of "Apache" being the answer
to all Qs. Yes of course it is at one level because anything ongoing
under the Apache banner must fail under and comply with Apache rules and
procedures. However, if we ask the Q: are the Apache resources today
able to take this over seamlessly then the answer is at best mixed.
As we've discussed, the current OOo maintains the codebase, development
and release processes. It also provides a range of services in support
of OOo and its community. One thing that does seem clear (at least as
the forum and wiki are concened) is that as far as the servers running
in Germany are running on borrowed time, and to be honest that was the
situation years ago as they aren't housed in what I would regard as a
data centre complying with Sun and now Oracle enterprise standards.
Oracle shouldn't tolerate this continuance.
We must now sentence each according to some broad strategy, which could
include options such as:
1) shutting down the service, and removing access to its content
2) shutting down the service, but provide some form of frozen archive
snapshot of content
3) rehosting the service on Apache infrastructure, but say on a
Solaris zone
4) rehosting the service on Apache infrastructure, but moving to a
preferred stack (Ubuntu VM or FreeBSD Jail).
5) migrating the content to the Apache-preferred application in this
space.
In the case of (3) and (4), we also need to decide whether the project
can continue to provide active support -- broadly to standard and
resources of the pre-Apache OOo -- or whether we switch to a sustain
level of support -- that is keep the service up and running as-is but
deprecate upgrades and extensions of use.
I would think that for most services (1) and (2) are a matter of last
resort. (5) would be wonderful, but in nearly all cases, it's going to
be entirely impractical within the timescale that I suspect that Oracle
will require. So I suggest that what we will be left with is rehosting
(4) in the short term, with possible migration (5) if and when the
project resources are secured. Since Apache seems to be in the process
of retiring its Solaris infrastructure, this means that option (3) is
also pretty much a last resort only to be considered if the application
is heavily Solaris dependent.
As we've discussed elsewhere, the OOo forums and OOo wiki can easily
fall into (4), though whether the wiki moves into sustain support is
still an issue. In this case Apache will provide a hosting service
which is directly supported by the infra team, but they will undoubtedly
expect the project to provide in VM/Jail/Zone day-to-day administration,
albiet compliant with wider operations and security standards.
I'll pick this up in detail in the cwiki pages, but I felt that this
summary would be useful for the DL. //Terry Ellison
On 01/08/11 14:07, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Andre Schnabel<An...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>>> Von: Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com>
>> ...
>>>> Right, OK, but again, where will this and many other ancillary
>>>> openoffice.org sites (like the forums etc.) actually live?
>>>>
>>> The goal would be to have then continue at www.openoffice.org.
>>>
>> ...
>>>> Yes, I know about this and have contributed to this but it doesn't
>>> really
>>>> answer my question...where do we go?
>>>>
>>> If my answer still doesn't make sense, maybe you can try restating
>>> your question. I might be answering a different question than you are
>>> asking.
>>>
>>
>> I think, Kay is asking for the "physical" solution. Means:
>> - who will be the owner of the website
> Apache
>
>> - who will pay for the servers and bandwith
> Apache
>
>> - who will be the admin of the servers
>>
> Apache
>
>> What seems to be unclear is, if Apache foundation will host content
>> which is not directly under a *.apache.org domain.
>>
> Since the domain name is being transferred to Apache, openoffice.org
> will in fact be an Apache domain.
>
> It remains to be seen what is redirected and what ends up being the
> "canonical' URL for the various services. But the goal is to
> preserve the thousands of linked and bookmarked URL's to various OOo
> website services, so nothing breaks. That's the ideal. We can
> certainly do that for the top level services, e.g., Bugzilla, support
> forums, downloads, etc. It is unclear right now whether we'll be able
> to preserve all of the deep links to individual pages, e.g., a link to
> a specific archived message in a list repository.
>
>> André
>>
>>
>>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
>> Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
> ...
>> >
>> > Right, OK, but again, where will this and many other ancillary
>> > openoffice.org sites (like the forums etc.) actually live?
>> >
>>
>> The goal would be to have then continue at www.openoffice.org.
>>
> ...
>> >
>> > Yes, I know about this and have contributed to this but it doesn't
>> really
>> > answer my question...where do we go?
>> >
>>
>> If my answer still doesn't make sense, maybe you can try restating
>> your question. I might be answering a different question than you are
>> asking.
>>
>
>
> I think, Kay is asking for the "physical" solution. Means:
> - who will be the owner of the website
Apache
> - who will pay for the servers and bandwith
Apache
> - who will be the admin of the servers
>
Apache
> What seems to be unclear is, if Apache foundation will host content
> which is not directly under a *.apache.org domain.
>
Since the domain name is being transferred to Apache, openoffice.org
will in fact be an Apache domain.
It remains to be seen what is redirected and what ends up being the
"canonical' URL for the various services. But the goal is to
preserve the thousands of linked and bookmarked URL's to various OOo
website services, so nothing breaks. That's the ideal. We can
certainly do that for the top level services, e.g., Bugzilla, support
forums, downloads, etc. It is unclear right now whether we'll be able
to preserve all of the deep links to individual pages, e.g., a link to
a specific archived message in a list repository.
> André
>
>
>
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Andre Schnabel <An...@gmx.net>.
Hi Rob,
> Von: Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>
...
> >
> > Right, OK, but again, where will this and many other ancillary
> > openoffice.org sites (like the forums etc.) actually live?
> >
>
> The goal would be to have then continue at www.openoffice.org.
>
...
> >
> > Yes, I know about this and have contributed to this but it doesn't
> really
> > answer my question...where do we go?
> >
>
> If my answer still doesn't make sense, maybe you can try restating
> your question. I might be answering a different question than you are
> asking.
>
I think, Kay is asking for the "physical" solution. Means:
- who will be the owner of the website
- who will pay for the servers and bandwith
- who will be the admin of the servers
What seems to be unclear is, if Apache foundation will host content
which is not directly under a *.apache.org domain.
André
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 07/30/2011 03:28 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/30/2011 11:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On another list, I saw a comment from Roy Fielding that resonated
>>>> with me. Others have mentioned it, but not here on ooo-dev.
>>>>
>>>> My interpretation is that we could have Apache ooo as the identifier
>>>> of the core Apache project built on what we factor out of the Oracle
>>>> grant, leaving OpenOffice.org as a web site and a family of
>>>> distributions and support for end-user and adopter/integrator
>>>> activities that reach out beyond the development of a buildable
>>>> open-source code base.
>>>
>>> This seems like a GREAT idea to me assuming it can be "done" vis a vis
>>> current conditions -- the Apache way, etc. Also see below
>>>
>>
>>
>> That has been the plan since the start. We eventually have an
>> openoffice.apache.org web site that has the project-facing website and
>> services, like source repositories, dev lists, work by translators,
>> documentation, etc. This is the web site where those who make OOo
>> work, the project community.
>
> Well OK, at some point I got very confused by what this meant I guess.
> Should I take this remark openoffice.apache.org will be primarily the stop
> off for what I'll call "code developers"?
>
Project contributors. So not just coders, but also QA, translation,
doc, marketing, all people that are directly involved in making the
product and making the project run.
Think of a cruise ship. There are all the public spaces, the dining
rooms, the pool area, the disco, etc. And then there are the service
hallways, the kitchens, the deck and the crew quarters.
openoffice.apache.org is the crew areas. www.openoffice.org is the
public area. Of course, there would be nothing that prevents users
from coming into the crew quarters. We'd even hope some will join the
crew.
>>
>> Then we have http:///www.openoffice.org, which remains the end-user
>> facing portal, the entry way to downloads, to support, to templates
>> and extensions, etc.
>
> Right, OK, but again, where will this and many other ancillary
> openoffice.org sites (like the forums etc.) actually live?
>
The goal would be to have then continue at www.openoffice.org.
>>
>> There are some services that have dual personalities, like bugzilla,
>> which is used by users as well as those on the project development
>> side.
>
> -- more below....
>
>>
>> This would not be an attempt to create an artificial division between
>> the project community and the users. I'm very sensitive to that. But
>> in this space, we really need an extremely easy-to-use, slee, sexy,
>> consumer-friendly portal for end users. This is the face of the
>> project to millions of current and potential users. We should have
>> hooks to draw them into the project community, for those with further
>> interest. But we can't scare them initially with the bare-bones
>> standard Apache look and feel project site.
>>
>>>>
>>>> I think we should consider that attempting to put OpenOffice.org atop
>>>> all of it is over-constraining and also confusing, even though the
>>>> result may be unrecognizably different at the end-user level.
>>>>
>>>> - Dennis
>>>>
>>>> MORE THOUGHTS BELOW THE QUOTATION
>>>>
>>>> [Disclaimer. This inspired my thinking but any misunderstanding of
>>>> what Roy was thinking is mine and mine alone.]
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Roy T. Fielding
>>>>> [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 09:51 [
>>>>> ... quoted by permission ] Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org branding
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, my personal preference is to call our product Apache OOo and
>>>>> leave the OpenOffice.org website as a joint forum and
>>>>> redistribution site for all variations of the suite, docs,
>>>>> tutorials, etc. However, such decisions are typically made by the
>>>>> people doing the work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> yes... +1
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ....Roy T. Fielding, Director, The Apache Software Foundation
>>>>> (fielding@apache.org)<http://www.apache.org/>
>>>>> (fielding@gbiv.com)<http://roy.gbiv.com/>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> MORE THOUGHTS
>>>>
>>>> I am not invested in the history or passion around OpenOffice.org as
>>>> an ongoing development. My perspective is as someone who works from
>>>> the open standards and architectural perspective. So I beg your
>>>> forbearance if I have been insensitive to the history and the
>>>> familiarity that there is in how things have been done over the
>>>> years. It is not my intention to offend but to see what we can see
>>>> by thinking outside of the box.
>>>>
>>>> I trust it is clear to all of us that it will be unlikely that we can
>>>> somehow revive OpenOffice.org to a place where it is a
>>>> business-as-usual continuation of the now-stalled effort.
>>>>
>>
>> Not business as usual. Business better than usual. But this is not
>> something for arguing. It is for doing.
>>
>>>> Furthermore, my attention is on the suitability of Apache ooo as a
>>>> reference implementation with respect to ODF, with less emphasis on
>>>> what it takes to continue OpenOffice.org a desirable and thriving
>>>> software distribution. I'm in favor of that. It is not what my
>>>> attention is on. So this is not a balanced perspective.
>>>>
>>
>>
>> And why can't we do both? Is there some reason why an application
>> cannot both be a good implementation of ODF and also be a thriving
>> product? There are not mutually exclusive outcomes.
>>
>>
>>>> Here are some loosely-conceived thoughts. I don't have a clear or
>>>> specific picture. But I think the conceptual separation of ooo and
>>>> OpenOffice.org is an opportunity that might unfreeze us from trying
>>>> to move ahead under one giant lump.
>>>
>>> I agree...but...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I favor the idea of separating the "pure Apache-way" project effort
>>>> and from the OpenOffice.org identity and "brand" as a broader
>>>> umbrella for all of the variations that go into making end-user
>>>> distributions, providing documentation materials, end-user support,
>>>> and especially the various native-language efforts that are part of
>>>> the OpenOffice.org ecosystem.
>>>
>>
>> I've heard this idea put forward by LibreOffice supports as well. The
>> brand name of OpenOffice.org is very strong. The web site gets a lot
>> of traffic. Far more than libreoffice.org. Far more than
>> symphony.lotus.com. I think we'd all love a link from that website.
>> Who wouldn't? If you look at other Apache projects you see that they
>> are quite liberal about providing links to distributions of downstream
>> consumers, including other ports, distros and derived applications.
>> This comes with a disclaimed that these are not official Apache
>> releases, but it does help give these other projects some greater
>> visibility and "link love". See, for example, this Subversion page:
>>
>> http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html
>>
>> As you can see, there is also some degree of co-branding. So there is
>> TortoiseSVN, uberSVN, visualSVN, etc
>>
>> I've always assumed we'd do something similar for Apache OpenOffice,
>> provide links to other releases. And if someone wants to call their
>> release "SuperDuper OpenOffice" or whatever, then we'd handle that
>> request via the normal process for Apache branding discussions.
>>
>>
>>> HOW to do this? I mean from a practical, pragmatic perspective. How will
>>> continued existence of what we might see as the "end user" OpenOffice.org
>>> architecture (servers, administration architecture) be carried out? What
>>> will we use, where will it be housed, how will it be administered it and
>>> who
>>> will finance it? I am QUITE concerned about the existence of the current
>>> site (on kenai). Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen a "drop dead" for
>>> removal of OpenOffice.org from this platform.
>>>
>>
>> We've had discussions on the list on migration, some details here
>> (look at the website transfer row of the table):
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Planning
>
> Yes, I know about this and have contributed to this but it doesn't really
> answer my question...where do we go?
>
If my answer still doesn't make sense, maybe you can try restating
your question. I might be answering a different question than you are
asking.
> The "user facing" sites are itemized in
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OOo-Sitemap
>
> assuming you exclude development, distribution, and api (maybe others
> related to direct development).
>
And marketing.
> What is the suggestion to place this architecture elsewhere?
>
Probably should prioritize. Realistically we're not going to migrate
over 146 Kenai projects. Think of it like moving to a new house. It
is a good opportunity to throw out stuff that isn't really used or
needed. A good sign that something is really needed is that someone
steps up to help migrate a service.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I also see separation as rather easy because at the moment we are
>>>> using "ooo" for these lists, for the podling's SVN repository branch,
>>>> for the two wikis, for the Apache Extras (although that has forked
>>>> already [;<), etc.
>>>
>>> um....see my last comments. Easy from a philosophical standpoint, but not
>>> necessarily from a practical one.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I favor the idea of a cleaner separation of the development of the
>>>> core ODF reference-implementation aspects from wider variations that
>>>> are typical and appropriate for a production-usable productivity
>>>> suite. A distribution will have incidental and discretionary
>>>> provisions that aren't particularly indicative of the "reference"
>>>> aspects and have not been the subject of standardization.
>>>>
>>>> Important Context: There is wide latitude for discretion in the ODF
>>>> specifications and even wider latitude for user-interface,
>>>> non-UI-based processors, etc., that are not the subject matter of the
>>>> ODF specification at all. It would be good to remove confusion
>>>> around that. Also, a reference implementation, to the extent it is
>>>> usable in practice, should not be taken as being in any sense
>>>> compelling with regard to anything but its conformant support for the
>>>> file format itself. A reference implementation that can be operated
>>>> needs to do something in discretionary areas. The incidental and
>>>> discretionary choices should be soundly done and well-narrated. But
>>>> there must be no suggestion that the approach to such incidental and
>>>> discretionary cases reflect requirements of ODF. The user interface
>>>> and its functionality is not subject matter for the ODF specification
>>>> as it now exists. One wants ways to produce features of the format.
>>>> One wants ways to deal with provisions of the format in any input
>>>> that is processed. But the gap from input to user presentation and
>>>> interaction and from there to output is not prescribed in the ODF
>>>> specification, nor are mappings between different formats and the
>>>> treatment of different formats as defaults.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how much the technology transfer/deployment would work
>>>> from Apache ooo to OpenOffice.org and that is something we need to
>>>> figure out.
>>>
>>> Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I'm confused.
>>>
>>> When we have the code and the collateral artifacts in
>>>>
>>>> hand, our inspection may provide insight into how we can get rolling
>>>> and also understand how the development can be modularized in a
>>>> productive way.
>>>>
>>>> - Dennis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> good discussion...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "If you can keep your head when all others around you
>>> are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand
>>> the situation!"
>>> -- Unknown
>>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "If you can keep your head when all others around you
> are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand
> the situation!"
> -- Unknown
>
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net]
> Sent: Monday, 1 August 2011 10:10 AM
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 'Kay Schenk'
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
> re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
> Hi Dennis,
>
> I went for a walk and shopped before replying to Kay. Between the two of
us
> we certainly have consensus.
>
> On Jul 31, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your follow-up Kay. Keep asking!
> >
> > No, I was thinking that Apache ooo would be the place for code
> developers.
> >
> > OpenOffice.org for public web, downloads, forums, wikis, etc., and end-
> user, power-user support in the ways it has come to be known and loved.
> Also the place to hook in the several language communities. That is, they
> would be where people already know where to look for them and those who
> support them already would also be able to continue doing that.
> >
> > See the recent conversation with Terry Ellison and Mark Thomas on LAMP,
> etc. as well.
> >
> > Some of the developer-centric content would migrate to apache.org but
> we can figure that out. I share your concern about fragmenting the
> community. But we know for certain that the code has to move and that the
> development on it will be under the Apache Way and the ooo [P]PMP. We
> also have to deal with the IP cleanups as part of that.
> >
> > What I am hoping for is that we can secure, preserve, and continue
> OpenOffice.org pretty much as is, with the developer impact being what it
> already is.
> >
> > I don't know what to do about bug-tracking. It really needs to move to
> apache.org, I think. More creative thinking required here.
>
> Yes, definitely. This may now be the biggest unknown to the migration.
> Raphael Bircher was investigating ...
>
> I guess we have three choices -
>
> (1) Preserve current bugzilla. Requires people to support directly.
>
> (2) Convert to Apache Bugzilla.
>
> (3) Convert to Apache JIRA.
>
> Perhaps we should preserve the old bugzilla in openoffice.org as a read /
> comment-only resource on an appropriate VM and redirect to Apache JIRA /
> Bugzilla in the project's site for new issues. In many ways this is
easier. We'll
> just need to assure we can support the infrastructure.
I think the plan is to migrate the current Bugzilla as it is to ASF hardware
and then at
some stage, over time, it can align itself to be more of a standard
Bugzilla install like the
other ASF ones are. Initially, anyway we should certainly plan to do the
migration and get
it running so as to not cause unnecessary interuptions to service. Then if
you guys decide
you want to move over to Jira, we can do that no problem.
Infrastructure folks will look after the Bugzilla instance itself,
performing the migration, the
upgrades etc. OOo admins can help look after the web faced aspects I expect.
If any of the current OOo admins who look after and know Bugzilla want to
help maintain
the instance on the machine (FreeBSD Jail is earmarked for it) then that's
something we
can organise. (Some of this is mute if you later want to move to Jira. Note
that Jira too is
maintained by Infra as a whole, with OOo admins looking after the GUI side
of things.)
HTH
Gav...
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> > - Dennis
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 15:18
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
> > re:OpenOffice.org branding)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 07/30/2011 03:28 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 07/30/2011 11:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On another list, I saw a comment from Roy Fielding that resonated
> >>>> with me. Others have mentioned it, but not here on ooo-dev.
> >>>>
> >>>> My interpretation is that we could have Apache ooo as the
> >>>> identifier of the core Apache project built on what we factor out
> >>>> of the Oracle grant, leaving OpenOffice.org as a web site and a
> >>>> family of distributions and support for end-user and
> >>>> adopter/integrator activities that reach out beyond the development
> >>>> of a buildable open-source code base.
> >>>
> >>> This seems like a GREAT idea to me assuming it can be "done" vis a
> >>> vis current conditions -- the Apache way, etc. Also see below
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> That has been the plan since the start. We eventually have an
> >> openoffice.apache.org web site that has the project-facing website
> >> and services, like source repositories, dev lists, work by
> >> translators, documentation, etc. This is the web site where those
> >> who make OOo work, the project community.
> >
> > Well OK, at some point I got very confused by what this meant I guess.
> > Should I take this remark openoffice.apache.org will be primarily the
> > stop off for what I'll call "code developers"?
> >
> >>
> >> Then we have http:///www.openoffice.org, which remains the end-user
> >> facing portal, the entry way to downloads, to support, to templates
> >> and extensions, etc.
> >
> > Right, OK, but again, where will this and many other ancillary
> > openoffice.org sites (like the forums etc.) actually live?
> >
> >>
> >> There are some services that have dual personalities, like bugzilla,
> >> which is used by users as well as those on the project development
> >> side.
> >
> > -- more below....
> >
> >>
> >> This would not be an attempt to create an artificial division between
> >> the project community and the users. I'm very sensitive to that.
> >> But in this space, we really need an extremely easy-to-use, slee,
> >> sexy, consumer-friendly portal for end users. This is the face of the
> >> project to millions of current and potential users. We should have
> >> hooks to draw them into the project community, for those with further
> >> interest. But we can't scare them initially with the bare-bones
> >> standard Apache look and feel project site.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we should consider that attempting to put OpenOffice.org
> >>>> atop all of it is over-constraining and also confusing, even though
> >>>> the result may be unrecognizably different at the end-user level.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Dennis
> >>>>
> >>>> MORE THOUGHTS BELOW THE QUOTATION
> >>>>
> >>>> [Disclaimer. This inspired my thinking but any misunderstanding of
> >>>> what Roy was thinking is mine and mine alone.]
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Roy T. Fielding
> >>>>> [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 09:51 [
> >>>>> ... quoted by permission ] Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org branding
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [ ... ]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BTW, my personal preference is to call our product Apache OOo and
> >>>>> leave the OpenOffice.org website as a joint forum and
> >>>>> redistribution site for all variations of the suite, docs,
> >>>>> tutorials, etc. However, such decisions are typically made by the
> >>>>> people doing the work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> yes... +1
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ....Roy T. Fielding, Director, The Apache Software Foundation
> >>>>> (fielding@apache.org)<http://www.apache.org/>
> >>>>> (fielding@gbiv.com)<http://roy.gbiv.com/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> MORE THOUGHTS
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not invested in the history or passion around OpenOffice.org
> >>>> as an ongoing development. My perspective is as someone who works
> >>>> from the open standards and architectural perspective. So I beg
> >>>> your forbearance if I have been insensitive to the history and the
> >>>> familiarity that there is in how things have been done over the
> >>>> years. It is not my intention to offend but to see what we can see
> >>>> by thinking outside of the box.
> >>>>
> >>>> I trust it is clear to all of us that it will be unlikely that we
> >>>> can somehow revive OpenOffice.org to a place where it is a
> >>>> business-as-usual continuation of the now-stalled effort.
> >>>>
> >>
> >> Not business as usual. Business better than usual. But this is not
> >> something for arguing. It is for doing.
> >>
> >>>> Furthermore, my attention is on the suitability of Apache ooo as a
> >>>> reference implementation with respect to ODF, with less emphasis on
> >>>> what it takes to continue OpenOffice.org a desirable and thriving
> >>>> software distribution. I'm in favor of that. It is not what my
> >>>> attention is on. So this is not a balanced perspective.
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> And why can't we do both? Is there some reason why an application
> >> cannot both be a good implementation of ODF and also be a thriving
> >> product? There are not mutually exclusive outcomes.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Here are some loosely-conceived thoughts. I don't have a clear or
> >>>> specific picture. But I think the conceptual separation of ooo and
> >>>> OpenOffice.org is an opportunity that might unfreeze us from trying
> >>>> to move ahead under one giant lump.
> >>>
> >>> I agree...but...
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I favor the idea of separating the "pure Apache-way" project effort
> >>>> and from the OpenOffice.org identity and "brand" as a broader
> >>>> umbrella for all of the variations that go into making end-user
> >>>> distributions, providing documentation materials, end-user support,
> >>>> and especially the various native-language efforts that are part of
> >>>> the OpenOffice.org ecosystem.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I've heard this idea put forward by LibreOffice supports as well.
> >> The brand name of OpenOffice.org is very strong. The web site gets a
> >> lot of traffic. Far more than libreoffice.org. Far more than
> >> symphony.lotus.com. I think we'd all love a link from that website.
> >> Who wouldn't? If you look at other Apache projects you see that they
> >> are quite liberal about providing links to distributions of
> >> downstream consumers, including other ports, distros and derived
> applications.
> >> This comes with a disclaimed that these are not official Apache
> >> releases, but it does help give these other projects some greater
> >> visibility and "link love". See, for example, this Subversion page:
> >>
> >> http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html
> >>
> >> As you can see, there is also some degree of co-branding. So there
> >> is TortoiseSVN, uberSVN, visualSVN, etc
> >>
> >> I've always assumed we'd do something similar for Apache OpenOffice,
> >> provide links to other releases. And if someone wants to call their
> >> release "SuperDuper OpenOffice" or whatever, then we'd handle that
> >> request via the normal process for Apache branding discussions.
> >>
> >>
> >>> HOW to do this? I mean from a practical, pragmatic perspective. How
> >>> will continued existence of what we might see as the "end user"
> >>> OpenOffice.org architecture (servers, administration architecture)
> >>> be carried out? What will we use, where will it be housed, how will
> >>> it be administered it and who will finance it? I am QUITE concerned
> >>> about the existence of the current site (on kenai). Maybe I missed
> >>> it, but I haven't seen a "drop dead" for removal of OpenOffice.org
from
> this platform.
> >>>
> >>
> >> We've had discussions on the list on migration, some details here
> >> (look at the website transfer row of the table):
> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Planning
> >
> > Yes, I know about this and have contributed to this but it doesn't
> > really answer my question...where do we go?
> >
> > The "user facing" sites are itemized in
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OOo-Sitemap
> >
> > assuming you exclude development, distribution, and api (maybe others
> > related to direct development).
> >
> > What is the suggestion to place this architecture elsewhere?
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> I also see separation as rather easy because at the moment we are
> >>>> using "ooo" for these lists, for the podling's SVN repository
> >>>> branch, for the two wikis, for the Apache Extras (although that has
> >>>> forked already [;<), etc.
> >>>
> >>> um....see my last comments. Easy from a philosophical standpoint,
> >>> but not necessarily from a practical one.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I favor the idea of a cleaner separation of the development of the
> >>>> core ODF reference-implementation aspects from wider variations
> >>>> that are typical and appropriate for a production-usable
> >>>> productivity suite. A distribution will have incidental and
> >>>> discretionary provisions that aren't particularly indicative of the
> "reference"
> >>>> aspects and have not been the subject of standardization.
> >>>>
> >>>> Important Context: There is wide latitude for discretion in the ODF
> >>>> specifications and even wider latitude for user-interface,
> >>>> non-UI-based processors, etc., that are not the subject matter of
> >>>> the ODF specification at all. It would be good to remove confusion
> >>>> around that. Also, a reference implementation, to the extent it is
> >>>> usable in practice, should not be taken as being in any sense
> >>>> compelling with regard to anything but its conformant support for
> >>>> the file format itself. A reference implementation that can be
> >>>> operated needs to do something in discretionary areas. The
> >>>> incidental and discretionary choices should be soundly done and
> >>>> well-narrated. But there must be no suggestion that the approach
> >>>> to such incidental and discretionary cases reflect requirements of
> >>>> ODF. The user interface and its functionality is not subject
> >>>> matter for the ODF specification as it now exists. One wants ways to
> produce features of the format.
> >>>> One wants ways to deal with provisions of the format in any input
> >>>> that is processed. But the gap from input to user presentation and
> >>>> interaction and from there to output is not prescribed in the ODF
> >>>> specification, nor are mappings between different formats and the
> >>>> treatment of different formats as defaults.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not sure how much the technology transfer/deployment would
> work
> >>>> from Apache ooo to OpenOffice.org and that is something we need to
> >>>> figure out.
> >>>
> >>> Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I'm confused.
> >>>
> >>> When we have the code and the collateral artifacts in
> >>>>
> >>>> hand, our inspection may provide insight into how we can get
> >>>> rolling and also understand how the development can be modularized
> >>>> in a productive way.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Dennis
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> good discussion...
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> ----
> >>> MzK
> >>>
> >>> "If you can keep your head when all others around you are losing
> >>> theirs - maybe you don't fully understand the situation!"
> >>> -- Unknown
> >>>
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "If you can keep your head when all others around you
> > are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand
> > the situation!"
> > -- Unknown
> >
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi Dennis,
I went for a walk and shopped before replying to Kay. Between the two of us we certainly have consensus.
On Jul 31, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Thanks for your follow-up Kay. Keep asking!
>
> No, I was thinking that Apache ooo would be the place for code developers.
>
> OpenOffice.org for public web, downloads, forums, wikis, etc., and end-user, power-user support in the ways it has come to be known and loved. Also the place to hook in the several language communities. That is, they would be where people already know where to look for them and those who support them already would also be able to continue doing that.
>
> See the recent conversation with Terry Ellison and Mark Thomas on LAMP, etc. as well.
>
> Some of the developer-centric content would migrate to apache.org but we can figure that out. I share your concern about fragmenting the community. But we know for certain that the code has to move and that the development on it will be under the Apache Way and the ooo [P]PMP. We also have to deal with the IP cleanups as part of that.
>
> What I am hoping for is that we can secure, preserve, and continue OpenOffice.org pretty much as is, with the developer impact being what it already is.
>
> I don't know what to do about bug-tracking. It really needs to move to apache.org, I think. More creative thinking required here.
Yes, definitely. This may now be the biggest unknown to the migration. Raphael Bircher was investigating ...
I guess we have three choices -
(1) Preserve current bugzilla. Requires people to support directly.
(2) Convert to Apache Bugzilla.
(3) Convert to Apache JIRA.
Perhaps we should preserve the old bugzilla in openoffice.org as a read / comment-only resource on an appropriate VM and redirect to Apache JIRA / Bugzilla in the project's site for new issues. In many ways this is easier. We'll just need to assure we can support the infrastructure.
Regards,
Dave
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 15:18
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
>
>
> On 07/30/2011 03:28 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/30/2011 11:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On another list, I saw a comment from Roy Fielding that resonated
>>>> with me. Others have mentioned it, but not here on ooo-dev.
>>>>
>>>> My interpretation is that we could have Apache ooo as the identifier
>>>> of the core Apache project built on what we factor out of the Oracle
>>>> grant, leaving OpenOffice.org as a web site and a family of
>>>> distributions and support for end-user and adopter/integrator
>>>> activities that reach out beyond the development of a buildable
>>>> open-source code base.
>>>
>>> This seems like a GREAT idea to me assuming it can be "done" vis a vis
>>> current conditions -- the Apache way, etc. Also see below
>>>
>>
>>
>> That has been the plan since the start. We eventually have an
>> openoffice.apache.org web site that has the project-facing website and
>> services, like source repositories, dev lists, work by translators,
>> documentation, etc. This is the web site where those who make OOo
>> work, the project community.
>
> Well OK, at some point I got very confused by what this meant I guess.
> Should I take this remark openoffice.apache.org will be primarily the
> stop off for what I'll call "code developers"?
>
>>
>> Then we have http:///www.openoffice.org, which remains the end-user
>> facing portal, the entry way to downloads, to support, to templates
>> and extensions, etc.
>
> Right, OK, but again, where will this and many other ancillary
> openoffice.org sites (like the forums etc.) actually live?
>
>>
>> There are some services that have dual personalities, like bugzilla,
>> which is used by users as well as those on the project development
>> side.
>
> -- more below....
>
>>
>> This would not be an attempt to create an artificial division between
>> the project community and the users. I'm very sensitive to that. But
>> in this space, we really need an extremely easy-to-use, slee, sexy,
>> consumer-friendly portal for end users. This is the face of the
>> project to millions of current and potential users. We should have
>> hooks to draw them into the project community, for those with further
>> interest. But we can't scare them initially with the bare-bones
>> standard Apache look and feel project site.
>>
>>>>
>>>> I think we should consider that attempting to put OpenOffice.org atop
>>>> all of it is over-constraining and also confusing, even though the
>>>> result may be unrecognizably different at the end-user level.
>>>>
>>>> - Dennis
>>>>
>>>> MORE THOUGHTS BELOW THE QUOTATION
>>>>
>>>> [Disclaimer. This inspired my thinking but any misunderstanding of
>>>> what Roy was thinking is mine and mine alone.]
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Roy T. Fielding
>>>>> [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 09:51 [
>>>>> ... quoted by permission ] Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org branding
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, my personal preference is to call our product Apache OOo and
>>>>> leave the OpenOffice.org website as a joint forum and
>>>>> redistribution site for all variations of the suite, docs,
>>>>> tutorials, etc. However, such decisions are typically made by the
>>>>> people doing the work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> yes... +1
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ....Roy T. Fielding, Director, The Apache Software Foundation
>>>>> (fielding@apache.org)<http://www.apache.org/>
>>>>> (fielding@gbiv.com)<http://roy.gbiv.com/>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> MORE THOUGHTS
>>>>
>>>> I am not invested in the history or passion around OpenOffice.org as
>>>> an ongoing development. My perspective is as someone who works from
>>>> the open standards and architectural perspective. So I beg your
>>>> forbearance if I have been insensitive to the history and the
>>>> familiarity that there is in how things have been done over the
>>>> years. It is not my intention to offend but to see what we can see
>>>> by thinking outside of the box.
>>>>
>>>> I trust it is clear to all of us that it will be unlikely that we can
>>>> somehow revive OpenOffice.org to a place where it is a
>>>> business-as-usual continuation of the now-stalled effort.
>>>>
>>
>> Not business as usual. Business better than usual. But this is not
>> something for arguing. It is for doing.
>>
>>>> Furthermore, my attention is on the suitability of Apache ooo as a
>>>> reference implementation with respect to ODF, with less emphasis on
>>>> what it takes to continue OpenOffice.org a desirable and thriving
>>>> software distribution. I'm in favor of that. It is not what my
>>>> attention is on. So this is not a balanced perspective.
>>>>
>>
>>
>> And why can't we do both? Is there some reason why an application
>> cannot both be a good implementation of ODF and also be a thriving
>> product? There are not mutually exclusive outcomes.
>>
>>
>>>> Here are some loosely-conceived thoughts. I don't have a clear or
>>>> specific picture. But I think the conceptual separation of ooo and
>>>> OpenOffice.org is an opportunity that might unfreeze us from trying
>>>> to move ahead under one giant lump.
>>>
>>> I agree...but...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I favor the idea of separating the "pure Apache-way" project effort
>>>> and from the OpenOffice.org identity and "brand" as a broader
>>>> umbrella for all of the variations that go into making end-user
>>>> distributions, providing documentation materials, end-user support,
>>>> and especially the various native-language efforts that are part of
>>>> the OpenOffice.org ecosystem.
>>>
>>
>> I've heard this idea put forward by LibreOffice supports as well. The
>> brand name of OpenOffice.org is very strong. The web site gets a lot
>> of traffic. Far more than libreoffice.org. Far more than
>> symphony.lotus.com. I think we'd all love a link from that website.
>> Who wouldn't? If you look at other Apache projects you see that they
>> are quite liberal about providing links to distributions of downstream
>> consumers, including other ports, distros and derived applications.
>> This comes with a disclaimed that these are not official Apache
>> releases, but it does help give these other projects some greater
>> visibility and "link love". See, for example, this Subversion page:
>>
>> http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html
>>
>> As you can see, there is also some degree of co-branding. So there is
>> TortoiseSVN, uberSVN, visualSVN, etc
>>
>> I've always assumed we'd do something similar for Apache OpenOffice,
>> provide links to other releases. And if someone wants to call their
>> release "SuperDuper OpenOffice" or whatever, then we'd handle that
>> request via the normal process for Apache branding discussions.
>>
>>
>>> HOW to do this? I mean from a practical, pragmatic perspective. How will
>>> continued existence of what we might see as the "end user" OpenOffice.org
>>> architecture (servers, administration architecture) be carried out? What
>>> will we use, where will it be housed, how will it be administered it and who
>>> will finance it? I am QUITE concerned about the existence of the current
>>> site (on kenai). Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen a "drop dead" for
>>> removal of OpenOffice.org from this platform.
>>>
>>
>> We've had discussions on the list on migration, some details here
>> (look at the website transfer row of the table):
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Planning
>
> Yes, I know about this and have contributed to this but it doesn't
> really answer my question...where do we go?
>
> The "user facing" sites are itemized in
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OOo-Sitemap
>
> assuming you exclude development, distribution, and api (maybe others
> related to direct development).
>
> What is the suggestion to place this architecture elsewhere?
>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I also see separation as rather easy because at the moment we are
>>>> using "ooo" for these lists, for the podling's SVN repository branch,
>>>> for the two wikis, for the Apache Extras (although that has forked
>>>> already [;<), etc.
>>>
>>> um....see my last comments. Easy from a philosophical standpoint, but not
>>> necessarily from a practical one.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I favor the idea of a cleaner separation of the development of the
>>>> core ODF reference-implementation aspects from wider variations that
>>>> are typical and appropriate for a production-usable productivity
>>>> suite. A distribution will have incidental and discretionary
>>>> provisions that aren't particularly indicative of the "reference"
>>>> aspects and have not been the subject of standardization.
>>>>
>>>> Important Context: There is wide latitude for discretion in the ODF
>>>> specifications and even wider latitude for user-interface,
>>>> non-UI-based processors, etc., that are not the subject matter of the
>>>> ODF specification at all. It would be good to remove confusion
>>>> around that. Also, a reference implementation, to the extent it is
>>>> usable in practice, should not be taken as being in any sense
>>>> compelling with regard to anything but its conformant support for the
>>>> file format itself. A reference implementation that can be operated
>>>> needs to do something in discretionary areas. The incidental and
>>>> discretionary choices should be soundly done and well-narrated. But
>>>> there must be no suggestion that the approach to such incidental and
>>>> discretionary cases reflect requirements of ODF. The user interface
>>>> and its functionality is not subject matter for the ODF specification
>>>> as it now exists. One wants ways to produce features of the format.
>>>> One wants ways to deal with provisions of the format in any input
>>>> that is processed. But the gap from input to user presentation and
>>>> interaction and from there to output is not prescribed in the ODF
>>>> specification, nor are mappings between different formats and the
>>>> treatment of different formats as defaults.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how much the technology transfer/deployment would work
>>>> from Apache ooo to OpenOffice.org and that is something we need to
>>>> figure out.
>>>
>>> Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I'm confused.
>>>
>>> When we have the code and the collateral artifacts in
>>>>
>>>> hand, our inspection may provide insight into how we can get rolling
>>>> and also understand how the development can be modularized in a
>>>> productive way.
>>>>
>>>> - Dennis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> good discussion...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "If you can keep your head when all others around you
>>> are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand
>>> the situation!"
>>> -- Unknown
>>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "If you can keep your head when all others around you
> are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand
> the situation!"
> -- Unknown
>
RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Thanks for your follow-up Kay. Keep asking!
No, I was thinking that Apache ooo would be the place for code developers.
OpenOffice.org for public web, downloads, forums, wikis, etc., and end-user, power-user support in the ways it has come to be known and loved. Also the place to hook in the several language communities. That is, they would be where people already know where to look for them and those who support them already would also be able to continue doing that.
See the recent conversation with Terry Ellison and Mark Thomas on LAMP, etc. as well.
Some of the developer-centric content would migrate to apache.org but we can figure that out. I share your concern about fragmenting the community. But we know for certain that the code has to move and that the development on it will be under the Apache Way and the ooo [P]PMP. We also have to deal with the IP cleanups as part of that.
What I am hoping for is that we can secure, preserve, and continue OpenOffice.org pretty much as is, with the developer impact being what it already is.
I don't know what to do about bug-tracking. It really needs to move to apache.org, I think. More creative thinking required here.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 15:18
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On 07/30/2011 03:28 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07/30/2011 11:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>> On another list, I saw a comment from Roy Fielding that resonated
>>> with me. Others have mentioned it, but not here on ooo-dev.
>>>
>>> My interpretation is that we could have Apache ooo as the identifier
>>> of the core Apache project built on what we factor out of the Oracle
>>> grant, leaving OpenOffice.org as a web site and a family of
>>> distributions and support for end-user and adopter/integrator
>>> activities that reach out beyond the development of a buildable
>>> open-source code base.
>>
>> This seems like a GREAT idea to me assuming it can be "done" vis a vis
>> current conditions -- the Apache way, etc. Also see below
>>
>
>
> That has been the plan since the start. We eventually have an
> openoffice.apache.org web site that has the project-facing website and
> services, like source repositories, dev lists, work by translators,
> documentation, etc. This is the web site where those who make OOo
> work, the project community.
Well OK, at some point I got very confused by what this meant I guess.
Should I take this remark openoffice.apache.org will be primarily the
stop off for what I'll call "code developers"?
>
> Then we have http:///www.openoffice.org, which remains the end-user
> facing portal, the entry way to downloads, to support, to templates
> and extensions, etc.
Right, OK, but again, where will this and many other ancillary
openoffice.org sites (like the forums etc.) actually live?
>
> There are some services that have dual personalities, like bugzilla,
> which is used by users as well as those on the project development
> side.
-- more below....
>
> This would not be an attempt to create an artificial division between
> the project community and the users. I'm very sensitive to that. But
> in this space, we really need an extremely easy-to-use, slee, sexy,
> consumer-friendly portal for end users. This is the face of the
> project to millions of current and potential users. We should have
> hooks to draw them into the project community, for those with further
> interest. But we can't scare them initially with the bare-bones
> standard Apache look and feel project site.
>
>>>
>>> I think we should consider that attempting to put OpenOffice.org atop
>>> all of it is over-constraining and also confusing, even though the
>>> result may be unrecognizably different at the end-user level.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> MORE THOUGHTS BELOW THE QUOTATION
>>>
>>> [Disclaimer. This inspired my thinking but any misunderstanding of
>>> what Roy was thinking is mine and mine alone.]
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Roy T. Fielding
>>>> [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 09:51 [
>>>> ... quoted by permission ] Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org branding
>>>>
>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>
>>>> BTW, my personal preference is to call our product Apache OOo and
>>>> leave the OpenOffice.org website as a joint forum and
>>>> redistribution site for all variations of the suite, docs,
>>>> tutorials, etc. However, such decisions are typically made by the
>>>> people doing the work.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>
>> yes... +1
>>
>>>>
>>>> ....Roy T. Fielding, Director, The Apache Software Foundation
>>>> (fielding@apache.org)<http://www.apache.org/>
>>>> (fielding@gbiv.com)<http://roy.gbiv.com/>
>>>>
>>>
>>> MORE THOUGHTS
>>>
>>> I am not invested in the history or passion around OpenOffice.org as
>>> an ongoing development. My perspective is as someone who works from
>>> the open standards and architectural perspective. So I beg your
>>> forbearance if I have been insensitive to the history and the
>>> familiarity that there is in how things have been done over the
>>> years. It is not my intention to offend but to see what we can see
>>> by thinking outside of the box.
>>>
>>> I trust it is clear to all of us that it will be unlikely that we can
>>> somehow revive OpenOffice.org to a place where it is a
>>> business-as-usual continuation of the now-stalled effort.
>>>
>
> Not business as usual. Business better than usual. But this is not
> something for arguing. It is for doing.
>
>>> Furthermore, my attention is on the suitability of Apache ooo as a
>>> reference implementation with respect to ODF, with less emphasis on
>>> what it takes to continue OpenOffice.org a desirable and thriving
>>> software distribution. I'm in favor of that. It is not what my
>>> attention is on. So this is not a balanced perspective.
>>>
>
>
> And why can't we do both? Is there some reason why an application
> cannot both be a good implementation of ODF and also be a thriving
> product? There are not mutually exclusive outcomes.
>
>
>>> Here are some loosely-conceived thoughts. I don't have a clear or
>>> specific picture. But I think the conceptual separation of ooo and
>>> OpenOffice.org is an opportunity that might unfreeze us from trying
>>> to move ahead under one giant lump.
>>
>> I agree...but...
>>
>>>
>>> I favor the idea of separating the "pure Apache-way" project effort
>>> and from the OpenOffice.org identity and "brand" as a broader
>>> umbrella for all of the variations that go into making end-user
>>> distributions, providing documentation materials, end-user support,
>>> and especially the various native-language efforts that are part of
>>> the OpenOffice.org ecosystem.
>>
>
> I've heard this idea put forward by LibreOffice supports as well. The
> brand name of OpenOffice.org is very strong. The web site gets a lot
> of traffic. Far more than libreoffice.org. Far more than
> symphony.lotus.com. I think we'd all love a link from that website.
> Who wouldn't? If you look at other Apache projects you see that they
> are quite liberal about providing links to distributions of downstream
> consumers, including other ports, distros and derived applications.
> This comes with a disclaimed that these are not official Apache
> releases, but it does help give these other projects some greater
> visibility and "link love". See, for example, this Subversion page:
>
> http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html
>
> As you can see, there is also some degree of co-branding. So there is
> TortoiseSVN, uberSVN, visualSVN, etc
>
> I've always assumed we'd do something similar for Apache OpenOffice,
> provide links to other releases. And if someone wants to call their
> release "SuperDuper OpenOffice" or whatever, then we'd handle that
> request via the normal process for Apache branding discussions.
>
>
>> HOW to do this? I mean from a practical, pragmatic perspective. How will
>> continued existence of what we might see as the "end user" OpenOffice.org
>> architecture (servers, administration architecture) be carried out? What
>> will we use, where will it be housed, how will it be administered it and who
>> will finance it? I am QUITE concerned about the existence of the current
>> site (on kenai). Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen a "drop dead" for
>> removal of OpenOffice.org from this platform.
>>
>
> We've had discussions on the list on migration, some details here
> (look at the website transfer row of the table):
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Planning
Yes, I know about this and have contributed to this but it doesn't
really answer my question...where do we go?
The "user facing" sites are itemized in
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OOo-Sitemap
assuming you exclude development, distribution, and api (maybe others
related to direct development).
What is the suggestion to place this architecture elsewhere?
>
>>>
>>> I also see separation as rather easy because at the moment we are
>>> using "ooo" for these lists, for the podling's SVN repository branch,
>>> for the two wikis, for the Apache Extras (although that has forked
>>> already [;<), etc.
>>
>> um....see my last comments. Easy from a philosophical standpoint, but not
>> necessarily from a practical one.
>>
>>>
>>> I favor the idea of a cleaner separation of the development of the
>>> core ODF reference-implementation aspects from wider variations that
>>> are typical and appropriate for a production-usable productivity
>>> suite. A distribution will have incidental and discretionary
>>> provisions that aren't particularly indicative of the "reference"
>>> aspects and have not been the subject of standardization.
>>>
>>> Important Context: There is wide latitude for discretion in the ODF
>>> specifications and even wider latitude for user-interface,
>>> non-UI-based processors, etc., that are not the subject matter of the
>>> ODF specification at all. It would be good to remove confusion
>>> around that. Also, a reference implementation, to the extent it is
>>> usable in practice, should not be taken as being in any sense
>>> compelling with regard to anything but its conformant support for the
>>> file format itself. A reference implementation that can be operated
>>> needs to do something in discretionary areas. The incidental and
>>> discretionary choices should be soundly done and well-narrated. But
>>> there must be no suggestion that the approach to such incidental and
>>> discretionary cases reflect requirements of ODF. The user interface
>>> and its functionality is not subject matter for the ODF specification
>>> as it now exists. One wants ways to produce features of the format.
>>> One wants ways to deal with provisions of the format in any input
>>> that is processed. But the gap from input to user presentation and
>>> interaction and from there to output is not prescribed in the ODF
>>> specification, nor are mappings between different formats and the
>>> treatment of different formats as defaults.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how much the technology transfer/deployment would work
>>> from Apache ooo to OpenOffice.org and that is something we need to
>>> figure out.
>>
>> Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I'm confused.
>>
>> When we have the code and the collateral artifacts in
>>>
>>> hand, our inspection may provide insight into how we can get rolling
>>> and also understand how the development can be modularized in a
>>> productive way.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>>
>>
>> good discussion...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> "If you can keep your head when all others around you
>> are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand
>> the situation!"
>> -- Unknown
>>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"If you can keep your head when all others around you
are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand
the situation!"
-- Unknown
Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 07/30/2011 03:28 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07/30/2011 11:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>> On another list, I saw a comment from Roy Fielding that resonated
>>> with me. Others have mentioned it, but not here on ooo-dev.
>>>
>>> My interpretation is that we could have Apache ooo as the identifier
>>> of the core Apache project built on what we factor out of the Oracle
>>> grant, leaving OpenOffice.org as a web site and a family of
>>> distributions and support for end-user and adopter/integrator
>>> activities that reach out beyond the development of a buildable
>>> open-source code base.
>>
>> This seems like a GREAT idea to me assuming it can be "done" vis a vis
>> current conditions -- the Apache way, etc. Also see below
>>
>
>
> That has been the plan since the start. We eventually have an
> openoffice.apache.org web site that has the project-facing website and
> services, like source repositories, dev lists, work by translators,
> documentation, etc. This is the web site where those who make OOo
> work, the project community.
Well OK, at some point I got very confused by what this meant I guess.
Should I take this remark openoffice.apache.org will be primarily the
stop off for what I'll call "code developers"?
>
> Then we have http:///www.openoffice.org, which remains the end-user
> facing portal, the entry way to downloads, to support, to templates
> and extensions, etc.
Right, OK, but again, where will this and many other ancillary
openoffice.org sites (like the forums etc.) actually live?
>
> There are some services that have dual personalities, like bugzilla,
> which is used by users as well as those on the project development
> side.
-- more below....
>
> This would not be an attempt to create an artificial division between
> the project community and the users. I'm very sensitive to that. But
> in this space, we really need an extremely easy-to-use, slee, sexy,
> consumer-friendly portal for end users. This is the face of the
> project to millions of current and potential users. We should have
> hooks to draw them into the project community, for those with further
> interest. But we can't scare them initially with the bare-bones
> standard Apache look and feel project site.
>
>>>
>>> I think we should consider that attempting to put OpenOffice.org atop
>>> all of it is over-constraining and also confusing, even though the
>>> result may be unrecognizably different at the end-user level.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> MORE THOUGHTS BELOW THE QUOTATION
>>>
>>> [Disclaimer. This inspired my thinking but any misunderstanding of
>>> what Roy was thinking is mine and mine alone.]
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Roy T. Fielding
>>>> [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 09:51 [
>>>> ... quoted by permission ] Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org branding
>>>>
>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>
>>>> BTW, my personal preference is to call our product Apache OOo and
>>>> leave the OpenOffice.org website as a joint forum and
>>>> redistribution site for all variations of the suite, docs,
>>>> tutorials, etc. However, such decisions are typically made by the
>>>> people doing the work.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>
>> yes... +1
>>
>>>>
>>>> ....Roy T. Fielding, Director, The Apache Software Foundation
>>>> (fielding@apache.org)<http://www.apache.org/>
>>>> (fielding@gbiv.com)<http://roy.gbiv.com/>
>>>>
>>>
>>> MORE THOUGHTS
>>>
>>> I am not invested in the history or passion around OpenOffice.org as
>>> an ongoing development. My perspective is as someone who works from
>>> the open standards and architectural perspective. So I beg your
>>> forbearance if I have been insensitive to the history and the
>>> familiarity that there is in how things have been done over the
>>> years. It is not my intention to offend but to see what we can see
>>> by thinking outside of the box.
>>>
>>> I trust it is clear to all of us that it will be unlikely that we can
>>> somehow revive OpenOffice.org to a place where it is a
>>> business-as-usual continuation of the now-stalled effort.
>>>
>
> Not business as usual. Business better than usual. But this is not
> something for arguing. It is for doing.
>
>>> Furthermore, my attention is on the suitability of Apache ooo as a
>>> reference implementation with respect to ODF, with less emphasis on
>>> what it takes to continue OpenOffice.org a desirable and thriving
>>> software distribution. I'm in favor of that. It is not what my
>>> attention is on. So this is not a balanced perspective.
>>>
>
>
> And why can't we do both? Is there some reason why an application
> cannot both be a good implementation of ODF and also be a thriving
> product? There are not mutually exclusive outcomes.
>
>
>>> Here are some loosely-conceived thoughts. I don't have a clear or
>>> specific picture. But I think the conceptual separation of ooo and
>>> OpenOffice.org is an opportunity that might unfreeze us from trying
>>> to move ahead under one giant lump.
>>
>> I agree...but...
>>
>>>
>>> I favor the idea of separating the "pure Apache-way" project effort
>>> and from the OpenOffice.org identity and "brand" as a broader
>>> umbrella for all of the variations that go into making end-user
>>> distributions, providing documentation materials, end-user support,
>>> and especially the various native-language efforts that are part of
>>> the OpenOffice.org ecosystem.
>>
>
> I've heard this idea put forward by LibreOffice supports as well. The
> brand name of OpenOffice.org is very strong. The web site gets a lot
> of traffic. Far more than libreoffice.org. Far more than
> symphony.lotus.com. I think we'd all love a link from that website.
> Who wouldn't? If you look at other Apache projects you see that they
> are quite liberal about providing links to distributions of downstream
> consumers, including other ports, distros and derived applications.
> This comes with a disclaimed that these are not official Apache
> releases, but it does help give these other projects some greater
> visibility and "link love". See, for example, this Subversion page:
>
> http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html
>
> As you can see, there is also some degree of co-branding. So there is
> TortoiseSVN, uberSVN, visualSVN, etc
>
> I've always assumed we'd do something similar for Apache OpenOffice,
> provide links to other releases. And if someone wants to call their
> release "SuperDuper OpenOffice" or whatever, then we'd handle that
> request via the normal process for Apache branding discussions.
>
>
>> HOW to do this? I mean from a practical, pragmatic perspective. How will
>> continued existence of what we might see as the "end user" OpenOffice.org
>> architecture (servers, administration architecture) be carried out? What
>> will we use, where will it be housed, how will it be administered it and who
>> will finance it? I am QUITE concerned about the existence of the current
>> site (on kenai). Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen a "drop dead" for
>> removal of OpenOffice.org from this platform.
>>
>
> We've had discussions on the list on migration, some details here
> (look at the website transfer row of the table):
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Planning
Yes, I know about this and have contributed to this but it doesn't
really answer my question...where do we go?
The "user facing" sites are itemized in
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OOo-Sitemap
assuming you exclude development, distribution, and api (maybe others
related to direct development).
What is the suggestion to place this architecture elsewhere?
>
>>>
>>> I also see separation as rather easy because at the moment we are
>>> using "ooo" for these lists, for the podling's SVN repository branch,
>>> for the two wikis, for the Apache Extras (although that has forked
>>> already [;<), etc.
>>
>> um....see my last comments. Easy from a philosophical standpoint, but not
>> necessarily from a practical one.
>>
>>>
>>> I favor the idea of a cleaner separation of the development of the
>>> core ODF reference-implementation aspects from wider variations that
>>> are typical and appropriate for a production-usable productivity
>>> suite. A distribution will have incidental and discretionary
>>> provisions that aren't particularly indicative of the "reference"
>>> aspects and have not been the subject of standardization.
>>>
>>> Important Context: There is wide latitude for discretion in the ODF
>>> specifications and even wider latitude for user-interface,
>>> non-UI-based processors, etc., that are not the subject matter of the
>>> ODF specification at all. It would be good to remove confusion
>>> around that. Also, a reference implementation, to the extent it is
>>> usable in practice, should not be taken as being in any sense
>>> compelling with regard to anything but its conformant support for the
>>> file format itself. A reference implementation that can be operated
>>> needs to do something in discretionary areas. The incidental and
>>> discretionary choices should be soundly done and well-narrated. But
>>> there must be no suggestion that the approach to such incidental and
>>> discretionary cases reflect requirements of ODF. The user interface
>>> and its functionality is not subject matter for the ODF specification
>>> as it now exists. One wants ways to produce features of the format.
>>> One wants ways to deal with provisions of the format in any input
>>> that is processed. But the gap from input to user presentation and
>>> interaction and from there to output is not prescribed in the ODF
>>> specification, nor are mappings between different formats and the
>>> treatment of different formats as defaults.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how much the technology transfer/deployment would work
>>> from Apache ooo to OpenOffice.org and that is something we need to
>>> figure out.
>>
>> Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I'm confused.
>>
>> When we have the code and the collateral artifacts in
>>>
>>> hand, our inspection may provide insight into how we can get rolling
>>> and also understand how the development can be modularized in a
>>> productive way.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>>
>>
>> good discussion...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> "If you can keep your head when all others around you
>> are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand
>> the situation!"
>> -- Unknown
>>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"If you can keep your head when all others around you
are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand
the situation!"
-- Unknown