You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> on 2012/01/02 17:18:24 UTC
What if any responsibility will Apache OpenOffice have with
regards to legacy software
Hi,
I own a couple of HP computers, one of which a Mini 110 includes a HP
specific Linux distro (Mi) which came pre-installed.
The other day the system performed an update from the Mi reposotories,
including a new version of OpenOffice.org - an update to version 2.4...
So, back to my subject line.
Just a general question.
Thanks
//drew
Re: What if any responsibility will Apache OpenOffice have with regards to legacy software
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jan 2, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Jan 2, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:31 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:18 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I own a couple of HP computers, one of which a Mini 110 includes a HP
>>>>>>> specific Linux distro (Mi) which came pre-installed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other day the system performed an update from the Mi reposotories,
>>>>>>> including a new version of OpenOffice.org - an update to version 2.4...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, back to my subject line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just a general question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Responsibility in what sense? Anyone is welcome to ask questions on
>>>>>> the user list and support forums for questions related to OOo and
>>>>>> related products. This is a free service, provided by the community,
>>>>>> not a "responsibility".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no warranty provided with OOo or AOO releases, unless that
>>>>>> warranty comes from some company. If so, that company may have
>>>>>> responsibilities with regards to legacy OOo releases. But that is not
>>>>>> our concern.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From a community perspective, not a contractual one, I think we "owe
>>>>>> it to the community" to provide an upgrade path for as many legacy
>>>>>> users as possible. This probably includes a clean upgrade path for
>>>>>> 2.4 users as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see any reason that we would drop access to legacy releases on openoffice.org and we have been allowed to put legacy distros into archives.apache.org.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think we update www.openoffice.org to full Apache OpenOffice branding until we either have a long term plan or we have an AOO 3.4 release.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is that then why we have nonsensical statements on the website, like:
>>>>
>>>> 'Apache "OpenOffice.org" is an effort undergoing incubation at The
>>>> Apache Software Foundation (ASF)'
>>>
>>> This language is required Apache branding.
>>>
>>
>> I believe you are misinterpreting the Podling branding page [1]
>>
>> When it says 'Apache "Podling-Name" is currently undergoing Incubation
>> at the Apache Software Foundation' is puts "Polding-Name" in double
>> quotes merely as notation to indicate that you substitute the real
>> podling name there. You see this used purely as a notation on the
>> next bullet item where it says:
>>
>> Inclusion of the http://incubator.apache.org/"podling-name"
>>
>> Obviously they are not saying that we put the podling name in quotes in the URL.
>>
>> Also, if you look a paragraph later to the example disclaimer you see
>> that you do not actually include the quotes in the disclaimer.
>>
>> So I think we're out-of-policy with the way the disclaimer currently reads.
>>
>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
>>
>>>>
>>>> Whether we have had a release or not, or regardless of whether you
>>>> personally think we have a plan or not, I don't what we have now on
>>>> the website makes any sense. If you look at every other podling at
>>>> Apache, they are encouraged to have and maintain a consistent branding
>>>> from day 1. It is not predicated on a release or a "long term plan".
>>>>
>>>> Why should we be different?
>>>
>>> Where I am going with the CMS is towards convergence on the layout.
>>>
>>> By "long term plan" I mean when the project thinks we should make branding changes to the OpenOffice.org logo. We need to have a clear consensus on changing the logo. We may need oversight from the IPMC and trademarks. Once we do then changes are trivial.
>>>
>>> So, changing the logo on openoffice.org is something that I am not willing to JFDI nor am I willing to CTR. In this case we need to RTC - review then commit.
>>>
>>> It's my opinion that the general community will interpret this logo change and the project message should be clear about the change if and when it occurs.
>>>
>>
>> We voted to adopt the name Apache OpenOffice. I think necessary steps
>> to implement the agreed upon rebranding can be done on a CTR basis.
>> But I'd agree that the exact logo we adopt should be RTC. However,
>> there are other aspects of branding, noncontroversial and reversible,
>> that are candidates for JFDI.
>
> Fine with me. Should anyone JFDI on ooo-site's skeleton.html keep in mind that it will take up to two hours to make it into production. Last night's changes were larger and took perhaps three hours - not sure I fell asleep.
FYI - I found a problem with the search box on FF. The fix is being committed now along with a rephrase of the footer from Apache "OpenOffice.org" to Apache OpenOffice.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>> REgards,
>>>>> DAve
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> //drew
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
Re: What if any responsibility will Apache OpenOffice have with regards to legacy software
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jan 2, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:31 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:18 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I own a couple of HP computers, one of which a Mini 110 includes a HP
>>>>>> specific Linux distro (Mi) which came pre-installed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The other day the system performed an update from the Mi reposotories,
>>>>>> including a new version of OpenOffice.org - an update to version 2.4...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, back to my subject line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a general question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Responsibility in what sense? Anyone is welcome to ask questions on
>>>>> the user list and support forums for questions related to OOo and
>>>>> related products. This is a free service, provided by the community,
>>>>> not a "responsibility".
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no warranty provided with OOo or AOO releases, unless that
>>>>> warranty comes from some company. If so, that company may have
>>>>> responsibilities with regards to legacy OOo releases. But that is not
>>>>> our concern.
>>>>>
>>>>> From a community perspective, not a contractual one, I think we "owe
>>>>> it to the community" to provide an upgrade path for as many legacy
>>>>> users as possible. This probably includes a clean upgrade path for
>>>>> 2.4 users as well.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see any reason that we would drop access to legacy releases on openoffice.org and we have been allowed to put legacy distros into archives.apache.org.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we update www.openoffice.org to full Apache OpenOffice branding until we either have a long term plan or we have an AOO 3.4 release.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is that then why we have nonsensical statements on the website, like:
>>>
>>> 'Apache "OpenOffice.org" is an effort undergoing incubation at The
>>> Apache Software Foundation (ASF)'
>>
>> This language is required Apache branding.
>>
>
> I believe you are misinterpreting the Podling branding page [1]
>
> When it says 'Apache "Podling-Name" is currently undergoing Incubation
> at the Apache Software Foundation' is puts "Polding-Name" in double
> quotes merely as notation to indicate that you substitute the real
> podling name there. You see this used purely as a notation on the
> next bullet item where it says:
>
> Inclusion of the http://incubator.apache.org/"podling-name"
>
> Obviously they are not saying that we put the podling name in quotes in the URL.
>
> Also, if you look a paragraph later to the example disclaimer you see
> that you do not actually include the quotes in the disclaimer.
>
> So I think we're out-of-policy with the way the disclaimer currently reads.
>
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
>
>>>
>>> Whether we have had a release or not, or regardless of whether you
>>> personally think we have a plan or not, I don't what we have now on
>>> the website makes any sense. If you look at every other podling at
>>> Apache, they are encouraged to have and maintain a consistent branding
>>> from day 1. It is not predicated on a release or a "long term plan".
>>>
>>> Why should we be different?
>>
>> Where I am going with the CMS is towards convergence on the layout.
>>
>> By "long term plan" I mean when the project thinks we should make branding changes to the OpenOffice.org logo. We need to have a clear consensus on changing the logo. We may need oversight from the IPMC and trademarks. Once we do then changes are trivial.
>>
>> So, changing the logo on openoffice.org is something that I am not willing to JFDI nor am I willing to CTR. In this case we need to RTC - review then commit.
>>
>> It's my opinion that the general community will interpret this logo change and the project message should be clear about the change if and when it occurs.
>>
>
> We voted to adopt the name Apache OpenOffice. I think necessary steps
> to implement the agreed upon rebranding can be done on a CTR basis.
> But I'd agree that the exact logo we adopt should be RTC. However,
> there are other aspects of branding, noncontroversial and reversible,
> that are candidates for JFDI.
Fine with me. Should anyone JFDI on ooo-site's skeleton.html keep in mind that it will take up to two hours to make it into production. Last night's changes were larger and took perhaps three hours - not sure I fell asleep.
Regards,
Dave
>
> -Rob
>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>> REgards,
>>>> DAve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> //drew
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: What if any responsibility will Apache OpenOffice have with
regards to legacy software
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:31 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:18 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I own a couple of HP computers, one of which a Mini 110 includes a HP
>>>>> specific Linux distro (Mi) which came pre-installed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The other day the system performed an update from the Mi reposotories,
>>>>> including a new version of OpenOffice.org - an update to version 2.4...
>>>>>
>>>>> So, back to my subject line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a general question.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Responsibility in what sense? Anyone is welcome to ask questions on
>>>> the user list and support forums for questions related to OOo and
>>>> related products. This is a free service, provided by the community,
>>>> not a "responsibility".
>>>>
>>>> There is no warranty provided with OOo or AOO releases, unless that
>>>> warranty comes from some company. If so, that company may have
>>>> responsibilities with regards to legacy OOo releases. But that is not
>>>> our concern.
>>>>
>>>> From a community perspective, not a contractual one, I think we "owe
>>>> it to the community" to provide an upgrade path for as many legacy
>>>> users as possible. This probably includes a clean upgrade path for
>>>> 2.4 users as well.
>>>
>>> I don't see any reason that we would drop access to legacy releases on openoffice.org and we have been allowed to put legacy distros into archives.apache.org.
>>>
>>> I don't think we update www.openoffice.org to full Apache OpenOffice branding until we either have a long term plan or we have an AOO 3.4 release.
>>>
>>
>> Is that then why we have nonsensical statements on the website, like:
>>
>> 'Apache "OpenOffice.org" is an effort undergoing incubation at The
>> Apache Software Foundation (ASF)'
>
> This language is required Apache branding.
>
I believe you are misinterpreting the Podling branding page [1]
When it says 'Apache "Podling-Name" is currently undergoing Incubation
at the Apache Software Foundation' is puts "Polding-Name" in double
quotes merely as notation to indicate that you substitute the real
podling name there. You see this used purely as a notation on the
next bullet item where it says:
Inclusion of the http://incubator.apache.org/"podling-name"
Obviously they are not saying that we put the podling name in quotes in the URL.
Also, if you look a paragraph later to the example disclaimer you see
that you do not actually include the quotes in the disclaimer.
So I think we're out-of-policy with the way the disclaimer currently reads.
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
>>
>> Whether we have had a release or not, or regardless of whether you
>> personally think we have a plan or not, I don't what we have now on
>> the website makes any sense. If you look at every other podling at
>> Apache, they are encouraged to have and maintain a consistent branding
>> from day 1. It is not predicated on a release or a "long term plan".
>>
>> Why should we be different?
>
> Where I am going with the CMS is towards convergence on the layout.
>
> By "long term plan" I mean when the project thinks we should make branding changes to the OpenOffice.org logo. We need to have a clear consensus on changing the logo. We may need oversight from the IPMC and trademarks. Once we do then changes are trivial.
>
> So, changing the logo on openoffice.org is something that I am not willing to JFDI nor am I willing to CTR. In this case we need to RTC - review then commit.
>
> It's my opinion that the general community will interpret this logo change and the project message should be clear about the change if and when it occurs.
>
We voted to adopt the name Apache OpenOffice. I think necessary steps
to implement the agreed upon rebranding can be done on a CTR basis.
But I'd agree that the exact logo we adopt should be RTC. However,
there are other aspects of branding, noncontroversial and reversible,
that are candidates for JFDI.
-Rob
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> REgards,
>>> DAve
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> //drew
>>>>>
>>>
>
Re: What if any responsibility will Apache OpenOffice have with regards to legacy software
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:31 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:18 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I own a couple of HP computers, one of which a Mini 110 includes a HP
>>>> specific Linux distro (Mi) which came pre-installed.
>>>>
>>>> The other day the system performed an update from the Mi reposotories,
>>>> including a new version of OpenOffice.org - an update to version 2.4...
>>>>
>>>> So, back to my subject line.
>>>>
>>>> Just a general question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Responsibility in what sense? Anyone is welcome to ask questions on
>>> the user list and support forums for questions related to OOo and
>>> related products. This is a free service, provided by the community,
>>> not a "responsibility".
>>>
>>> There is no warranty provided with OOo or AOO releases, unless that
>>> warranty comes from some company. If so, that company may have
>>> responsibilities with regards to legacy OOo releases. But that is not
>>> our concern.
>>>
>>> From a community perspective, not a contractual one, I think we "owe
>>> it to the community" to provide an upgrade path for as many legacy
>>> users as possible. This probably includes a clean upgrade path for
>>> 2.4 users as well.
>>
>> I don't see any reason that we would drop access to legacy releases on openoffice.org and we have been allowed to put legacy distros into archives.apache.org.
>>
>> I don't think we update www.openoffice.org to full Apache OpenOffice branding until we either have a long term plan or we have an AOO 3.4 release.
>>
>
> Is that then why we have nonsensical statements on the website, like:
>
> 'Apache "OpenOffice.org" is an effort undergoing incubation at The
> Apache Software Foundation (ASF)'
This language is required Apache branding.
>
> Whether we have had a release or not, or regardless of whether you
> personally think we have a plan or not, I don't what we have now on
> the website makes any sense. If you look at every other podling at
> Apache, they are encouraged to have and maintain a consistent branding
> from day 1. It is not predicated on a release or a "long term plan".
>
> Why should we be different?
Where I am going with the CMS is towards convergence on the layout.
By "long term plan" I mean when the project thinks we should make branding changes to the OpenOffice.org logo. We need to have a clear consensus on changing the logo. We may need oversight from the IPMC and trademarks. Once we do then changes are trivial.
So, changing the logo on openoffice.org is something that I am not willing to JFDI nor am I willing to CTR. In this case we need to RTC - review then commit.
It's my opinion that the general community will interpret this logo change and the project message should be clear about the change if and when it occurs.
Regards,
Dave
>
> -Rob
>
>> REgards,
>> DAve
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> //drew
>>>>
>>
Re: What if any responsibility will Apache OpenOffice have with
regards to legacy software
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:31 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:18 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I own a couple of HP computers, one of which a Mini 110 includes a HP
>>> specific Linux distro (Mi) which came pre-installed.
>>>
>>> The other day the system performed an update from the Mi reposotories,
>>> including a new version of OpenOffice.org - an update to version 2.4...
>>>
>>> So, back to my subject line.
>>>
>>> Just a general question.
>>>
>>
>> Responsibility in what sense? Anyone is welcome to ask questions on
>> the user list and support forums for questions related to OOo and
>> related products. This is a free service, provided by the community,
>> not a "responsibility".
>>
>> There is no warranty provided with OOo or AOO releases, unless that
>> warranty comes from some company. If so, that company may have
>> responsibilities with regards to legacy OOo releases. But that is not
>> our concern.
>>
>> From a community perspective, not a contractual one, I think we "owe
>> it to the community" to provide an upgrade path for as many legacy
>> users as possible. This probably includes a clean upgrade path for
>> 2.4 users as well.
>
> I don't see any reason that we would drop access to legacy releases on openoffice.org and we have been allowed to put legacy distros into archives.apache.org.
>
> I don't think we update www.openoffice.org to full Apache OpenOffice branding until we either have a long term plan or we have an AOO 3.4 release.
>
Is that then why we have nonsensical statements on the website, like:
'Apache "OpenOffice.org" is an effort undergoing incubation at The
Apache Software Foundation (ASF)'
Whether we have had a release or not, or regardless of whether you
personally think we have a plan or not, I don't what we have now on
the website makes any sense. If you look at every other podling at
Apache, they are encouraged to have and maintain a consistent branding
from day 1. It is not predicated on a release or a "long term plan".
Why should we be different?
-Rob
> REgards,
> DAve
>
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> //drew
>>>
>
Re: What if any responsibility will Apache OpenOffice have with regards to legacy software
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:31 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:18 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I own a couple of HP computers, one of which a Mini 110 includes a HP
>> specific Linux distro (Mi) which came pre-installed.
>>
>> The other day the system performed an update from the Mi reposotories,
>> including a new version of OpenOffice.org - an update to version 2.4...
>>
>> So, back to my subject line.
>>
>> Just a general question.
>>
>
> Responsibility in what sense? Anyone is welcome to ask questions on
> the user list and support forums for questions related to OOo and
> related products. This is a free service, provided by the community,
> not a "responsibility".
>
> There is no warranty provided with OOo or AOO releases, unless that
> warranty comes from some company. If so, that company may have
> responsibilities with regards to legacy OOo releases. But that is not
> our concern.
>
> From a community perspective, not a contractual one, I think we "owe
> it to the community" to provide an upgrade path for as many legacy
> users as possible. This probably includes a clean upgrade path for
> 2.4 users as well.
I don't see any reason that we would drop access to legacy releases on openoffice.org and we have been allowed to put legacy distros into archives.apache.org.
I don't think we update www.openoffice.org to full Apache OpenOffice branding until we either have a long term plan or we have an AOO 3.4 release.
REgards,
DAve
>
> -Rob
>
>> Thanks
>>
>> //drew
>>
Re: What if any responsibility will Apache OpenOffice have with
regards to legacy software
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:18 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I own a couple of HP computers, one of which a Mini 110 includes a HP
> specific Linux distro (Mi) which came pre-installed.
>
> The other day the system performed an update from the Mi reposotories,
> including a new version of OpenOffice.org - an update to version 2.4...
>
> So, back to my subject line.
>
> Just a general question.
>
Responsibility in what sense? Anyone is welcome to ask questions on
the user list and support forums for questions related to OOo and
related products. This is a free service, provided by the community,
not a "responsibility".
There is no warranty provided with OOo or AOO releases, unless that
warranty comes from some company. If so, that company may have
responsibilities with regards to legacy OOo releases. But that is not
our concern.
>From a community perspective, not a contractual one, I think we "owe
it to the community" to provide an upgrade path for as many legacy
users as possible. This probably includes a clean upgrade path for
2.4 users as well.
-Rob
> Thanks
>
> //drew
>