You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> on 2012/03/13 17:25:51 UTC
Clarifying facts
Hi all,
Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I have been getting an increasing number of enquiries about the status of Apache OpenOffice from a variety of sources. I'm attempting, in good faith, to maintain an objective status summary the Apache OpenOffice incubator project to report to these enquiries.
I've had a commentator assert that the statements below are uninformed and made-up. I believe based on my observations all of the following statements to be true about the Apache project; can you let me know if they are not, please, so I can present a factual status of the project when asked?
The Apache OpenOffice project will be releasing a new binary under the new name "Apache OpenOffice" at some point soon, which will probably be numbered v3.4.
The release is being developed by a subset of the original developers augmented by others.
There have been no updates to OpenOffice.org binaries released for users since Oracle stopped development.
There will be no new versions of a binary program called OpenOffice.org released.
No downloads of OpenOffice.org containing bug fixes or security updates have been made available for end users since Oracle stopped development.
The Apache OpenOffice project now controls the original OpenOffice.org domain (via the ASF) and plans to use it for future promotion of the Apache OpenOffice project.
The Apache OpenOffice project is still in incubation and has not yet requested graduation to a TLP.
Thanks for your help with this.
S.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
Maybe, but it is better socially to be generous
with credit for non-committers who are volunteering
actual work for the project (sending email does
not qualify).
>________________________________
> From: Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; andrew@pitonyak.org
>Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:53 PM
>Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
>
>
>
>--- Mar 13/3/12, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org> ha scritto:
>...
>>
>> If YOU (the reader) disagree with a specific statement in
>> the original post (shown below if you really need to see
>> it), please be specific about which statement and how you
>> would fix the statement. As an example, some clarification
>> was provided that left me less confused with respect to the
>> developers currently working on the project.
>>
>
>Done.
>
>> Off hand, I agree with the general facts of the statements.
>> I see that some take issue with the tenor; I disagree with
>> that but I also see it as mostly irrelevant with respect to
>> the facts.
>>
>> Oh, and I tip my hat to you Mr. Phipps for your starting
>> this:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Current+Status+FAQ
>>
>> Seems you digested this much better than I.
>>
>
>Give me some credit too ... I caused it ;-).
>
>Pedro.
>
>
>
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Sorry,
I thought he was an initial committer. My apologies !!
I drop back my comment but I will still clarify the
issue in the wiki.
Pedro.
--- Mar 13/3/12, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> ha scritto:
> Da: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> Oggetto: Re: Clarifying facts
> A: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>, "pfg@apache.org" <pf...@apache.org>
> Data: Martedì 13 marzo 2012, 16:33
> Since when is Simon a committer and
> PPMC member?
> Can't we get over the parochialism here and just
> provide some practical advice to users that isn't
> distorted one way or another?
>
> At Apache we aren't in competition with other projects,
> we provide our work for the public benefit and leave
> discretion about adoption to the public. Please keep
> that in mind, and stick to providing resources that
> benefit general members of the public.
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>
> >To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>
> >Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:28 PM
> >Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
> >
> >
> >
> >--- Mar 13/3/12, eric b <er...@free.fr>
> ha scritto:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main
> page ?
> >> (e.g. just put the name of the derivated software)
> ?
> >>
> >+1
> >
> >Simon added the mention to libreoffice, and he removed
> my line explaining that Oracle had chosen to given the
> project to a Foundation with the governance and credibility
> to maintain it (Apache).
> >
> >Simon; we know you are very fond of the LibreOffice guys
> and most of us are OK with that but you are committer and
> PPMC member and you are expected to wear your Apache hat
> here.
> >
> >Pedro.
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Eric
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 13 mars 12 à 21:53, Pedro Giffuni a écrit :
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --- Mar 13/3/12, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
> <an...@pitonyak.org>
> >> ha scritto:
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> If YOU (the reader) disagree with a
> specific
> >> statement in
> >> >> the original post (shown below if you
> really need
> >> to see
> >> >> it), please be specific about which
> statement and
> >> how you
> >> >> would fix the statement. As an example,
> some
> >> clarification
> >> >> was provided that left me less confused
> with
> >> respect to the
> >> >> developers currently working on the
> project.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Done.
> >> >
> >> >> Off hand, I agree with the general facts
> of the
> >> statements.
> >> >> I see that some take issue with the tenor;
> I
> >> disagree with
> >> >> that but I also see it as mostly
> irrelevant with
> >> respect to
> >> >> the facts.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, and I tip my hat to you Mr. Phipps for
> your
> >> starting
> >> >> this:
> >> >>
> >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Current+Status+FAQ
> >> >>
> >> >> Seems you digested this much better than
> I.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Give me some credit too ... I caused it ;-).
> >> >
> >> > Pedro.
> >> >
> >>
> >> --qɔᴉɹə
> >> Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
> >> L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
> >> Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
Since when is Simon a committer and PPMC member?
Can't we get over the parochialism here and just
provide some practical advice to users that isn't
distorted one way or another?
At Apache we aren't in competition with other projects,
we provide our work for the public benefit and leave
discretion about adoption to the public. Please keep
that in mind, and stick to providing resources that
benefit general members of the public.
>________________________________
> From: Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:28 PM
>Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
>
>
>
>--- Mar 13/3/12, eric b <er...@free.fr> ha scritto:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ?
>> (e.g. just put the name of the derivated software) ?
>>
>+1
>
>Simon added the mention to libreoffice, and he removed my line explaining that Oracle had chosen to given the project to a Foundation with the governance and credibility to maintain it (Apache).
>
>Simon; we know you are very fond of the LibreOffice guys and most of us are OK with that but you are committer and PPMC member and you are expected to wear your Apache hat here.
>
>Pedro.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 13 mars 12 à 21:53, Pedro Giffuni a écrit :
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > --- Mar 13/3/12, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>
>> ha scritto:
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> If YOU (the reader) disagree with a specific
>> statement in
>> >> the original post (shown below if you really need
>> to see
>> >> it), please be specific about which statement and
>> how you
>> >> would fix the statement. As an example, some
>> clarification
>> >> was provided that left me less confused with
>> respect to the
>> >> developers currently working on the project.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Done.
>> >
>> >> Off hand, I agree with the general facts of the
>> statements.
>> >> I see that some take issue with the tenor; I
>> disagree with
>> >> that but I also see it as mostly irrelevant with
>> respect to
>> >> the facts.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, and I tip my hat to you Mr. Phipps for your
>> starting
>> >> this:
>> >>
>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Current+Status+FAQ
>> >>
>> >> Seems you digested this much better than I.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Give me some credit too ... I caused it ;-).
>> >
>> > Pedro.
>> >
>>
>> --qɔᴉɹə
>> Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
>> L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
>> Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> --- Mar 13/3/12, eric b <er...@free.fr> ha scritto:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ?
>> (e.g. just put the name of the derivated software) ?
>>
> +1
>
> Simon added the mention to libreoffice, and he removed my line explaining that Oracle had chosen to given the project to a Foundation with the governance and credibility to maintain it (Apache).
>
> Simon; we know you are very fond of the LibreOffice guys and most of us are OK with that but you are committer and PPMC member and you are expected to wear your Apache hat here.
>
Just consider that page to be brainstorming on possible FAQ's and
answers. In the end the PMC will determine the questions that are
included in the FAQ's as well as the responses. But I am already
concerned that some of the questions are inappropriate and will need
to be removed. For example, we should not be answering questions
about what Oracle has or hasn't done. That is not our palce. At most
we should refer to Oracle press releases or other authoritative
statements.
In any case, I encourage you all to brainstorm freely, try not to
censor yourself or others too much or too early. Brainstorming is
best when unhindered.
I volunteer, when things are cooled down, to edit the FAQ's, convert
them to MDText and seek PMC approval for including them in our
website's Community FAQ items. I've done most of the other FAQ's. It
will be easy enough to get these added.
-Rob
> Pedro.
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 13 mars 12 à 21:53, Pedro Giffuni a écrit :
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > --- Mar 13/3/12, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>
>> ha scritto:
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> If YOU (the reader) disagree with a specific
>> statement in
>> >> the original post (shown below if you really need
>> to see
>> >> it), please be specific about which statement and
>> how you
>> >> would fix the statement. As an example, some
>> clarification
>> >> was provided that left me less confused with
>> respect to the
>> >> developers currently working on the project.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Done.
>> >
>> >> Off hand, I agree with the general facts of the
>> statements.
>> >> I see that some take issue with the tenor; I
>> disagree with
>> >> that but I also see it as mostly irrelevant with
>> respect to
>> >> the facts.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, and I tip my hat to you Mr. Phipps for your
>> starting
>> >> this:
>> >>
>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Current+Status+FAQ
>> >>
>> >> Seems you digested this much better than I.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Give me some credit too ... I caused it ;-).
>> >
>> > Pedro.
>> >
>>
>> --qɔᴉɹə
>> Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
>> L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
>> Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Mar 13, 2012, at 6:37 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> I've updated the FAQ, a bit.
>
> - I made some of the answers more prominent by using bold italic. This adds to the more wait to answers. I am thinking the questions should be italic and not bold.
s/the more wait/more weight/
Sorry.
>
> - I added a couple of points.
>
> Larry, I've seen you on the user lists answering questions. Are there any that you think should be added to this FAQ?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>
>> On 2012-03-13 6:25 PM Rob Weir wrote:
>>> Of course, I'm pretty sure this FAQ thing is all just a berserker
>>> tactic, intending to distract us from productive work. We've seen it
>>> before; we'll see it again. Some of us will even learn.
>>
>> If you want to do productive work, quit making these insulting posts.
>>
>> --
>> _________________________________
>>
>> Larry I. Gusaas
>> Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
>> Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
>> "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
>>
>>
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Larry Gusaas <la...@gmail.com>.
On 2012-03-13 7:37 PM Dave Fisher wrote:
> Larry, I've seen you on the user lists answering questions. Are there any that you think should be added to this FAQ?
Where can I get support?
forum – http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php
mailing list – ooo-users@incubator.apache.org
Perhaps a link to the forums Tutorials page.
--
_________________________________
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
I've updated the FAQ, a bit.
- I made some of the answers more prominent by using bold italic. This adds to the more wait to answers. I am thinking the questions should be italic and not bold.
- I added a couple of points.
Larry, I've seen you on the user lists answering questions. Are there any that you think should be added to this FAQ?
Regards,
Dave
On Mar 13, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
> On 2012-03-13 6:25 PM Rob Weir wrote:
>> Of course, I'm pretty sure this FAQ thing is all just a berserker
>> tactic, intending to distract us from productive work. We've seen it
>> before; we'll see it again. Some of us will even learn.
>
> If you want to do productive work, quit making these insulting posts.
>
> --
> _________________________________
>
> Larry I. Gusaas
> Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
> Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
> "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
>
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Larry Gusaas <la...@gmail.com>.
On 2012-03-13 6:25 PM Rob Weir wrote:
> Of course, I'm pretty sure this FAQ thing is all just a berserker
> tactic, intending to distract us from productive work. We've seen it
> before; we'll see it again. Some of us will even learn.
If you want to do productive work, quit making these insulting posts.
--
_________________________________
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:08, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:54, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:25, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It may be better to emphasize the questions that will have a useful
>>>>> lifetime of much more than the time it will take to achieve consensus
>>>>> on the responses.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it's looking pretty good already. My experience of FAQs is that a good FAQ starts small and is dynamic, changing with the questions that are current in the project. I see no reason to assume it will take weeks of delay to have a stable set of questions and answers that can then form the core of future activity.
>>>>
>>>
>>> With 22 of 33 revisions coming from you, I assume it would meet with
>>> your satisfaction. But if you are happy with it now, maybe take a
>>> break and let someone else get in and edit?
>>
>> First you complain I do nothing, now you're unhappy I do too much. Impossible to please :-)
>>
>> Seriously though, getting a page started in a wiki in public is like that; you don't perfect it offline, you hack it online and every "save" looks like a revision to the outsider. It's quiesced now, knock yourself out.
>>
>
> So Simon, why after 4 hours of editing and 22 revisions, and you
> saying that I could edit, why am I now finding myself locked out
> because you are editing again?
Actually I am not as you have the file locked for edit, so I cancelled my attempt to fix some bugs I saw. I'll do it later.
But I was going to, yes. Contribution is good, and I am getting weary of your discouragement.
S.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:54, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:25, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It may be better to emphasize the questions that will have a useful
>>>> lifetime of much more than the time it will take to achieve consensus
>>>> on the responses.
>>>
>>> Actually, it's looking pretty good already. My experience of FAQs is that a good FAQ starts small and is dynamic, changing with the questions that are current in the project. I see no reason to assume it will take weeks of delay to have a stable set of questions and answers that can then form the core of future activity.
>>>
>>
>> With 22 of 33 revisions coming from you, I assume it would meet with
>> your satisfaction. But if you are happy with it now, maybe take a
>> break and let someone else get in and edit?
>
> First you complain I do nothing, now you're unhappy I do too much. Impossible to please :-)
>
> Seriously though, getting a page started in a wiki in public is like that; you don't perfect it offline, you hack it online and every "save" looks like a revision to the outsider. It's quiesced now, knock yourself out.
>
So Simon, why after 4 hours of editing and 22 revisions, and you
saying that I could edit, why am I now finding myself locked out
because you are editing again?
> S.
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
Sorry Simon. Thanks for trying, better luck in the future.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
>
>
> On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose. Remember,
> FAQ's
>> are not intended to be read as an article, one after another.
>> Typically they are things we we link to and point users to for
>> specific questions.
>
> Since you have essentially eliminated my contributions and replaced them with
> something different, I'll withdraw from this activity until the partisan
> style you've chosen changes. A pity as we genuinely had some collaboration
> sparking between unlike minds.
>
> As an added bonus you'll not have to worry about any edit locks :-)
>
> S.
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Larry Gusaas <la...@gmail.com>.
On 2012-03-13 8:53 PM Simon Phipps wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote:
>> Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose. Remember, FAQ's
>> are not intended to be read as an article, one after another.
>> Typically they are things we we link to and point users to for
>> specific questions.
> Since you have essentially eliminated my contributions and replaced them with something different, I'll withdraw from this activity until the partisan style you've chosen changes. A pity as we genuinely had some collaboration sparking between unlike minds.
>
> As an added bonus you'll not have to worry about any edit locks :-)
>
> S.
I'm am sorry to see you give up. I am fed up with the wannbe grand poobah's bullying tactics.
--
_________________________________
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi Joe,
While I agree that Rob may have been heavy handed and aggressive with his edits of this wiki page and general tone. I reviewed each of his 6 (or so) edits and must admit that each of them is not objectionable individually.
I think that this FAQ is valuable and all have contributed. Thanks to Simon for starting it.
We could all be more gentle and less "bitchy" about the process.
Take a deep breath! We've come a long way in less than a year at Apache!
Regards,
Dave
(Joe, you're a rock too!)
On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> It was a WIKI PAGE and there was NO NEED to ensure it conformed
> to the standards of SITE DOCUMENTS. You just decided to play
> the ass card again and there's one less active volunteer working
> on the wiki now as a result.
>
>
> The world isn't black and white Rob, there are shades of grey
> that you should start factoring in before you scare off more
> potential collaborators that don't see eye-to-eye with you.
> At Apache the "plays well with others" attribute trumps just
> about everything else, and you are missing that by a country
> mile again.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose. Remember,
>> FAQ's
>>>> are not intended to be read as an article, one after another.
>>>> Typically they are things we we link to and point users to for
>>>> specific questions.
>>>
>>> Since you have essentially eliminated my contributions and replaced them
>> with something different, I'll withdraw from this activity until the
>> partisan style you've chosen changes. A pity as we genuinely had some
>> collaboration sparking between unlike minds.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry you think it is partisan for new FAQ's to adopt the style of
>> existing ones. In school we had a different word for this. We called
>> it "editing". It would probably have been worth the effort to check
>> the existing FAQ's before spending four hours of your evening writing
>> in a contrasting style. Fortunately I was able to clean it up into a
>> uniform style, add supplemental information, useful links for the
>> reader, etc.
>>
>> In any case, your edits are not holy writ, and neither are mine. If
>> there was a presumption against bold editing, then that presumption
>> was in error. So let's have someone else take a pass, e.g., not you
>> and not me, and see if they can improve it even further.
>>
>> And if your "client" has a specific question that you think is still
>> not answered on the wiki, then please speak up.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> As an added bonus you'll not have to worry about any edit locks :-)
>>>
>>> S.
>>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Simon, do you have suggestions on how we can better update
the AOOo site so that the questions be directed to the "right"
people?
And feel free to put Ross, Shane, etc. in touch with those
who contacted you... I'm sure they'd be happy to close the
loop.
Thanks!
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 2012-03-14 1:23 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>
> On 2012-03-13 10:43 PM Rob Weir wrote:
>> I disagree entirely. Simon was the one apply the blunt instrument
>> here. He started the day by posting on Google+:
>>
>> "Since there is no currently maintained version of OpenOffice.org
>> following Oracle disbanding the team, and since the new Apache
>> OpenOffice hasn't shipped, defaulting to LibreOffice is the only
>> responsible thing to do at the moment."
>
> Link please. I couldn't find it.
The quote above comes from Simon on this Google+ comment thread:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107646708505179576030/posts/ViuT8bLgz2p
It seems like that thread is public so you should be able to click
through and see some more arguments over the issue as well.
- Shane
P.S. For those who might actually be reading this but are otherwise new
to open source projects at Apache, please realize that AOO is not the
norm for Apache projects in terms of the incredible volume of mail
traffic, nor in terms of continued poor behavior patterns played out
here with some regularity.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Larry Gusaas <la...@gmail.com>.
On 2012-03-13 10:43 PM Rob Weir wrote:
> I disagree entirely. Simon was the one apply the blunt instrument
> here. He started the day by posting on Google+:
>
> "Since there is no currently maintained version of OpenOffice.org
> following Oracle disbanding the team, and since the new Apache
> OpenOffice hasn't shipped, defaulting to LibreOffice is the only
> responsible thing to do at the moment."
Link please. I couldn't find it.
> I called FUD on him and responded with a list of of assertions about
> OpenOffice and challenged me to find deny any of them. I denied the
> bait.
Link please.
> He them brought this list to ooo-dev,posted them and demanded
> answers and was kindly told that no one was interested in debating
> this. No one took the bait.
Do you mean his post starting the thread "Clarifying facts"? If so, none
of the points he listed are false. He did not demand answers.
> So he then decided to put this into an
> official-looking FAQ form and answer his own questions with his own
> answers. This all to back up a petty FUD on Google+ from earlier in
> the day.
Several people, except for you, carried on a reasonable discussion which led to a
useful wiki article until you messed it up with your verbose rewrite.
> This was not a honest attempt at collaboration. It was just a tirade
> from Simon, spread over three sites/lists. I'm sorry if you can't see
> that.
Are you referring to the same discussion I read? The only tirade I see is from you. Why don't you carry out your personal vendetta against Simon elsewhere instead of continually alienating people here.
--
_________________________________
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm not the first person to have noticed that you can leave
> no stone unturned in your quest for being in the right, no
> matter whose feelings happen to get in the way.
>
> And yes removing someone's contributions to a foundation resource
> in the manner you have done is a form of bullying. There is a
> world of difference between email banter most of which aren't
> contributions in any way and signing up to a wiki and using
> it properly in the way Simon had done. Your claims that his
> work was always intended to become an official site document
> are a load of crap. He started off by asking those questions
> about his own perspective and as Pedro challenged him to
>
> work it out on the wiki- other participants made modest
> adjustments to the document in a collaborative spirit. You
> made no such effort to work with Simon on the document he created.
>
>
> You couldhave discussed Simon's work over email, and took
> the approach that he needed to be "mentored" a bit in terms
> of his writing style and answers, but you opted to just be
> aggressive again and completely edit his words out of the
> document. That is not the Apache way- better to provide
> *alternative* wording in places you disagreed with the prose
> and let some time pass so people, including Simon, could
> factor those alternatives into the ongoing collaboration.
>
> Options and preferences are always easier to digest over
> time than when applied with blunt force.
>
I disagree entirely. Simon was the one apply the blunt instrument
here. He started the day by posting on Google+:
"Since there is no currently maintained version of OpenOffice.org
following Oracle disbanding the team, and since the new Apache
OpenOffice hasn't shipped, defaulting to LibreOffice is the only
responsible thing to do at the moment."
I called FUD on him and responded with a list of of assertions about
OpenOffice and challenged me to find deny any of them. I denied the
bait. He them brought this list to ooo-dev,posted them and demanded
answers and was kindly told that no one was interested in debating
this. No one took the bait. So he then decided to put this into an
official-looking FAQ form and answer his own questions with his own
answers. This all to back up a petty FUD on Google+ from earlier in
the day.
This was not a honest attempt at collaboration. It was just a tirade
from Simon, spread over three sites/lists. I'm sorry if you can't see
that.
-Rob
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:07 AM
>> Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> You are still not learning anything from what I am saying
>>> which is a shame for both yourself and the project. This
>>> document wasn't 24 hours old before you completely wrote
>>> off Simon's contributions to it. No person that comes to
>>> the ASF seeking to contribute to a foundation resource should
>>> ever be subjected to bullying like that by project members.
>>> The fact is you're attitude sucked about what he was doing
>>>
>>
>> Joe, you are using inflammatory language here. Shame, bullying, etc.
>> I'll ask you to please cease. Editing a wiki is not bullying.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
I'm not the first person to have noticed that you can leave
no stone unturned in your quest for being in the right, no
matter whose feelings happen to get in the way.
And yes removing someone's contributions to a foundation resource
in the manner you have done is a form of bullying. There is a
world of difference between email banter most of which aren't
contributions in any way and signing up to a wiki and using
it properly in the way Simon had done. Your claims that his
work was always intended to become an official site document
are a load of crap. He started off by asking those questions
about his own perspective and as Pedro challenged him to
work it out on the wiki- other participants made modest
adjustments to the document in a collaborative spirit. You
made no such effort to work with Simon on the document he created.
You couldhave discussed Simon's work over email, and took
the approach that he needed to be "mentored" a bit in terms
of his writing style and answers, but you opted to just be
aggressive again and completely edit his words out of the
document. That is not the Apache way- better to provide
*alternative* wording in places you disagreed with the prose
and let some time pass so people, including Simon, could
factor those alternatives into the ongoing collaboration.
Options and preferences are always easier to digest over
time than when applied with blunt force.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> You are still not learning anything from what I am saying
>> which is a shame for both yourself and the project. This
>> document wasn't 24 hours old before you completely wrote
>> off Simon's contributions to it. No person that comes to
>> the ASF seeking to contribute to a foundation resource should
>> ever be subjected to bullying like that by project members.
>> The fact is you're attitude sucked about what he was doing
>>
>
> Joe, you are using inflammatory language here. Shame, bullying, etc.
> I'll ask you to please cease. Editing a wiki is not bullying.
>
> -Rob
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You are still not learning anything from what I am saying
> which is a shame for both yourself and the project. This
> document wasn't 24 hours old before you completely wrote
> off Simon's contributions to it. No person that comes to
> the ASF seeking to contribute to a foundation resource should
> ever be subjected to bullying like that by project members.
> The fact is you're attitude sucked about what he was doing
>
Joe, you are using inflammatory language here. Shame, bullying, etc.
I'll ask you to please cease. Editing a wiki is not bullying.
-Rob
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
You are still not learning anything from what I am saying
which is a shame for both yourself and the project. This
document wasn't 24 hours old before you completely wrote
off Simon's contributions to it. No person that comes to
the ASF seeking to contribute to a foundation resource should
ever be subjected to bullying like that by project members.
The fact is you're attitude sucked about what he was doing
the entire time he was at it, and that the end result looks
nothing like the original effort is not an accident.
Some things take time, patience, and tolerance for non-conformity.
Go read some Ralph Waldo Emerson some time, you'll be better for it.
So will the rest of us if you can ever learn to relax.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> It was a WIKI PAGE and there was NO NEED to ensure it conformed
>> to the standards of SITE DOCUMENTS. You just decided to play
>> the ass card again and there's one less active volunteer working
>> on the wiki now as a result.
>>
>
> Of course, there is no reason why the wiki CANNOT conform to the site
> style. If you followed the discussion from the start, it was clear
> that the use of the wiki was merely a collaborative convenience. It
> was not intended to be there permanently. If we want users to find
> FAQ's then of course we'll put them were the other FAQ's are.
>
>>
>> The world isn't black and white Rob, there are shades of grey
>> that you should start factoring in before you scare off more
>> potential collaborators that don't see eye-to-eye with you.
>> At Apache the "plays well with others" attribute trumps just
>> about everything else, and you are missing that by a country
>> mile again.
>>
>
> Simon hasn't gone anywhere, Joe. He'll be back in the morning.
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:14 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Simon Phipps
> <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose.
> Remember,
>>> FAQ's
>>>>> are not intended to be read as an article, one after another.
>>>>> Typically they are things we we link to and point users to for
>>>>> specific questions.
>>>>
>>>> Since you have essentially eliminated my contributions and
> replaced them
>>> with something different, I'll withdraw from this activity until
> the
>>> partisan style you've chosen changes. A pity as we genuinely had
> some
>>> collaboration sparking between unlike minds.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sorry you think it is partisan for new FAQ's to adopt the
> style of
>>> existing ones. In school we had a different word for this. We called
>>> it "editing". It would probably have been worth the effort
> to check
>>> the existing FAQ's before spending four hours of your evening
> writing
>>> in a contrasting style. Fortunately I was able to clean it up into a
>>> uniform style, add supplemental information, useful links for the
>>> reader, etc.
>>>
>>> In any case, your edits are not holy writ, and neither are mine. If
>>> there was a presumption against bold editing, then that presumption
>>> was in error. So let's have someone else take a pass, e.g., not
> you
>>> and not me, and see if they can improve it even further.
>>>
>>> And if your "client" has a specific question that you think
> is still
>>> not answered on the wiki, then please speak up.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>> As an added bonus you'll not have to worry about any edit
> locks :-)
>>>>
>>>> S.
>>>
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It was a WIKI PAGE and there was NO NEED to ensure it conformed
> to the standards of SITE DOCUMENTS. You just decided to play
> the ass card again and there's one less active volunteer working
> on the wiki now as a result.
>
Of course, there is no reason why the wiki CANNOT conform to the site
style. If you followed the discussion from the start, it was clear
that the use of the wiki was merely a collaborative convenience. It
was not intended to be there permanently. If we want users to find
FAQ's then of course we'll put them were the other FAQ's are.
>
> The world isn't black and white Rob, there are shades of grey
> that you should start factoring in before you scare off more
> potential collaborators that don't see eye-to-eye with you.
> At Apache the "plays well with others" attribute trumps just
> about everything else, and you are missing that by a country
> mile again.
>
Simon hasn't gone anywhere, Joe. He'll be back in the morning.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose. Remember,
>> FAQ's
>>>> are not intended to be read as an article, one after another.
>>>> Typically they are things we we link to and point users to for
>>>> specific questions.
>>>
>>> Since you have essentially eliminated my contributions and replaced them
>> with something different, I'll withdraw from this activity until the
>> partisan style you've chosen changes. A pity as we genuinely had some
>> collaboration sparking between unlike minds.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry you think it is partisan for new FAQ's to adopt the style of
>> existing ones. In school we had a different word for this. We called
>> it "editing". It would probably have been worth the effort to check
>> the existing FAQ's before spending four hours of your evening writing
>> in a contrasting style. Fortunately I was able to clean it up into a
>> uniform style, add supplemental information, useful links for the
>> reader, etc.
>>
>> In any case, your edits are not holy writ, and neither are mine. If
>> there was a presumption against bold editing, then that presumption
>> was in error. So let's have someone else take a pass, e.g., not you
>> and not me, and see if they can improve it even further.
>>
>> And if your "client" has a specific question that you think is still
>> not answered on the wiki, then please speak up.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> As an added bonus you'll not have to worry about any edit locks :-)
>>>
>>> S.
>>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
It was a WIKI PAGE and there was NO NEED to ensure it conformed
to the standards of SITE DOCUMENTS. You just decided to play
the ass card again and there's one less active volunteer working
on the wiki now as a result.
The world isn't black and white Rob, there are shades of grey
that you should start factoring in before you scare off more
potential collaborators that don't see eye-to-eye with you.
At Apache the "plays well with others" attribute trumps just
about everything else, and you are missing that by a country
mile again.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose. Remember,
> FAQ's
>>> are not intended to be read as an article, one after another.
>>> Typically they are things we we link to and point users to for
>>> specific questions.
>>
>> Since you have essentially eliminated my contributions and replaced them
> with something different, I'll withdraw from this activity until the
> partisan style you've chosen changes. A pity as we genuinely had some
> collaboration sparking between unlike minds.
>>
>
> I'm sorry you think it is partisan for new FAQ's to adopt the style of
> existing ones. In school we had a different word for this. We called
> it "editing". It would probably have been worth the effort to check
> the existing FAQ's before spending four hours of your evening writing
> in a contrasting style. Fortunately I was able to clean it up into a
> uniform style, add supplemental information, useful links for the
> reader, etc.
>
> In any case, your edits are not holy writ, and neither are mine. If
> there was a presumption against bold editing, then that presumption
> was in error. So let's have someone else take a pass, e.g., not you
> and not me, and see if they can improve it even further.
>
> And if your "client" has a specific question that you think is still
> not answered on the wiki, then please speak up.
>
> -Rob
>
>> As an added bonus you'll not have to worry about any edit locks :-)
>>
>> S.
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose. Remember, FAQ's
>> are not intended to be read as an article, one after another.
>> Typically they are things we we link to and point users to for
>> specific questions.
>
> Since you have essentially eliminated my contributions and replaced them with something different, I'll withdraw from this activity until the partisan style you've chosen changes. A pity as we genuinely had some collaboration sparking between unlike minds.
>
I'm sorry you think it is partisan for new FAQ's to adopt the style of
existing ones. In school we had a different word for this. We called
it "editing". It would probably have been worth the effort to check
the existing FAQ's before spending four hours of your evening writing
in a contrasting style. Fortunately I was able to clean it up into a
uniform style, add supplemental information, useful links for the
reader, etc.
In any case, your edits are not holy writ, and neither are mine. If
there was a presumption against bold editing, then that presumption
was in error. So let's have someone else take a pass, e.g., not you
and not me, and see if they can improve it even further.
And if your "client" has a specific question that you think is still
not answered on the wiki, then please speak up.
-Rob
> As an added bonus you'll not have to worry about any edit locks :-)
>
> S.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose. Remember, FAQ's
> are not intended to be read as an article, one after another.
> Typically they are things we we link to and point users to for
> specific questions.
Since you have essentially eliminated my contributions and replaced them with something different, I'll withdraw from this activity until the partisan style you've chosen changes. A pity as we genuinely had some collaboration sparking between unlike minds.
As an added bonus you'll not have to worry about any edit locks :-)
S.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 14 Mar 2012, at 01:35, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> Allowing a few more brushes in there is a great idea.
>
> You've made quite a few edits I see - thanks.
>
6 to be exact.
> With respect, I think you are making it rather verbose and losing the easy-to-read bulleted approach.
> You are also introducing a style that external readers will consider to be interpreting the facts.
>
Of course we're going to interpret facts. That is one way in which we
are helpful for users. And remember, your start was hardly neutral.
The choice even of what questions to ask, and which ones not to ask,
is also an editorial judgment, and one that comes with a point of
view.
> Perhaps a link to the forums Tutorials page.
>
Something to keep in mind is that we already have several FAQ's for the project.
We have Community, Developer and PPMC FAQs here:
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/community-faqs.html
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/developer-faqs.html
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html
And we have a much larger set of FAQ's, mostly product related, here:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/FAQ
The nature of most of the new questions I'm seeing suggest they will
ultimately end up in the "general FAQ" section of the main website,
here;
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/FAQ/General
if you look at those responses they are bullet lists when they are
enumerating a set of instructions for the user to follow. Otherwise
they use complete sentences. They are also conversational, speaking
in first person plural (we/our) perspective. So let's try to adhere
to that style, if you can. Otherwise, I'm happy to edit it later.
> One of the key starting points was to avoid that and I suggest you seek another author you respect (obviously not me!) to help preserve the concise style the rest of us were using.
>
Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose. Remember, FAQ's
are not intended to be read as an article, one after another.
Typically they are things we we link to and point users to for
specific questions.
-Rob
> Thanks
>
> S.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 14 Mar 2012, at 01:35, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> Allowing a few more brushes in there is a great idea.
You've made quite a few edits I see - thanks.
With respect, I think you are making it rather verbose and losing the easy-to-read bulleted approach.
You are also introducing a style that external readers will consider to be interpreting the facts.
One of the key starting points was to avoid that and I suggest you seek another author you respect (obviously not me!) to help preserve the concise style the rest of us were using.
Thanks
S.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:54, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:25, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It may be better to emphasize the questions that will have a useful
>>>> lifetime of much more than the time it will take to achieve consensus
>>>> on the responses.
>>>
>>> Actually, it's looking pretty good already. My experience of FAQs is that a good FAQ starts small and is dynamic, changing with the questions that are current in the project. I see no reason to assume it will take weeks of delay to have a stable set of questions and answers that can then form the core of future activity.
>>>
>>
>> With 22 of 33 revisions coming from you, I assume it would meet with
>> your satisfaction. But if you are happy with it now, maybe take a
>> break and let someone else get in and edit?
>
> First you complain I do nothing, now you're unhappy I do too much. Impossible to please :-)
>
> Seriously though, getting a page started in a wiki in public is like that; you don't perfect it offline, you hack it online and every "save" looks like a revision to the outsider. It's quiesced now, knock yourself out.
>
That's fine. Until you step back it can be hard to tell whether that
painting you're admiring is actually a painting, or a mirror ;-)
Allowing a few more brushes in there is a great idea.
> S.
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:54, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:25, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> It may be better to emphasize the questions that will have a useful
>>> lifetime of much more than the time it will take to achieve consensus
>>> on the responses.
>>
>> Actually, it's looking pretty good already. My experience of FAQs is that a good FAQ starts small and is dynamic, changing with the questions that are current in the project. I see no reason to assume it will take weeks of delay to have a stable set of questions and answers that can then form the core of future activity.
>>
>
> With 22 of 33 revisions coming from you, I assume it would meet with
> your satisfaction. But if you are happy with it now, maybe take a
> break and let someone else get in and edit?
First you complain I do nothing, now you're unhappy I do too much. Impossible to please :-)
Seriously though, getting a page started in a wiki in public is like that; you don't perfect it offline, you hack it online and every "save" looks like a revision to the outsider. It's quiesced now, knock yourself out.
S.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:25, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> It may be better to emphasize the questions that will have a useful
>> lifetime of much more than the time it will take to achieve consensus
>> on the responses.
>
> Actually, it's looking pretty good already. My experience of FAQs is that a good FAQ starts small and is dynamic, changing with the questions that are current in the project. I see no reason to assume it will take weeks of delay to have a stable set of questions and answers that can then form the core of future activity.
>
With 22 of 33 revisions coming from you, I assume it would meet with
your satisfaction. But if you are happy with it now, maybe take a
break and let someone else get in and edit?
-Rob
>
> S.
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:25, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> It may be better to emphasize the questions that will have a useful
> lifetime of much more than the time it will take to achieve consensus
> on the responses.
Actually, it's looking pretty good already. My experience of FAQs is that a good FAQ starts small and is dynamic, changing with the questions that are current in the project. I see no reason to assume it will take weeks of delay to have a stable set of questions and answers that can then form the core of future activity.
S.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Larry Gusaas <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2012-03-13 3:38 PM Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>>
>> Hi *,
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:15:29PM +0100, eric b wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ? (e.g. just
>>> put the name of the derivated software) ?
>>>
>>> (
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Current+Status+FAQ
>>> )
>>>
>>> Such link should not appear on the first line : I remember NeoOffice
>>> who derivated the Mac version this exact way ...
>>
>> all the 6th point "Where can I get updates to the copy of OpenOffice.org
>> that I am running?" sounds like FUD.
>
>
> That is a very common question on the user forum and support lists. It
> deserves an answer
>
It may be better to emphasize the questions that will have a useful
lifetime of much more than the time it will take to achieve consensus
on the responses. In other words, spending weeks discussing the
release date for 3.4 is a fool's errand, since 3.4 is quite close.
Of course, I'm pretty sure this FAQ thing is all just a berserker
tactic, intending to distract us from productive work. We've seen it
before; we'll see it again. Some of us will even learn.
Remember, having a satisfied OOo 3.3 users drop on to our list and ask
us about AOO 3.4 is not a bad thing. We're connecting with a user.
We can introduce ourselves to them,. Wwe can direct them the
ooo-announce list. And so on. I hope no one sees these questions as
an inconvenience. Trust me, once we have AOO 3.4 out, we'll still get
these questions, only they will be about AOO 4.0, and so on. This
isn't the kind of thing that goes away, at least in a healthy project.
-Rob
>
> --
> _________________________________
>
> Larry I. Gusaas
> Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
> Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
> "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind
> theirs." - Edgard Varese
>
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:07, drew wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 17:53 -0600, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>> On 2012-03-13 3:38 PM Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>>> all the 6th point "Where can I get updates to the copy of OpenOffice.org
>>> that I am running?" sounds like FUD.
>>
>> That is a very common question on the user forum and support lists. It deserves an answer
>
> They have always had an answer available - there are some folks that for
> whatever reason will not accept the answer ( for some they want a hard
> date for a release, and that is not available).
Writing it down clearly, calmly and factually in an FAQ makes it both more final and easier to accept. That helps build trust while also answering questions. I like this (developer-focussed by generally applicable) FAQ FAQ: http://rich-sands.com/the-faq-faq/
S.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 17:53 -0600, Larry Gusaas wrote:
> On 2012-03-13 3:38 PM Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> > Hi *,
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:15:29PM +0100, eric b wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ? (e.g. just
> >> put the name of the derivated software) ?
> >>
> >> (
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Current+Status+FAQ
> >> )
> >>
> >> Such link should not appear on the first line : I remember NeoOffice
> >> who derivated the Mac version this exact way ...
> > all the 6th point "Where can I get updates to the copy of OpenOffice.org
> > that I am running?" sounds like FUD.
>
> That is a very common question on the user forum and support lists. It deserves an answer
>
>
They have always had an answer available - there are some folks that for
whatever reason will not accept the answer ( for some they want a hard
date for a release, and that is not available).
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Larry Gusaas <la...@gmail.com>.
On 2012-03-13 3:38 PM Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:15:29PM +0100, eric b wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ? (e.g. just
>> put the name of the derivated software) ?
>>
>> (
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Current+Status+FAQ
>> )
>>
>> Such link should not appear on the first line : I remember NeoOffice
>> who derivated the Mac version this exact way ...
> all the 6th point "Where can I get updates to the copy of OpenOffice.org
> that I am running?" sounds like FUD.
That is a very common question on the user forum and support lists. It deserves an answer
--
_________________________________
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Mar 13, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 13 Mar 2012, at 21:46, drew jensen wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Simon,
>>
>> I took up your offer and removed the line completely.
>
> I'll not put it back, but I still believe it is appropriate to include the reference to LibreOffice if not the link. I'd welcome another contributor editing an appropriate non-partisan comment to that space to help end-users.
>
> By the way, you broke the numbering when you removed the - Confluence will only apply list numbering when there is no line break between consecutive bullets.
Simon,
Thanks for starting this discussion.
Regards,
Dave
>
> S.
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 13 Mar 2012, at 21:46, drew jensen wrote:
>
> Thanks Simon,
>
> I took up your offer and removed the line completely.
I'll not put it back, but I still believe it is appropriate to include the reference to LibreOffice if not the link. I'd welcome another contributor editing an appropriate non-partisan comment to that space to help end-users.
By the way, you broke the numbering when you removed the - Confluence will only apply list numbering when there is no line break between consecutive bullets.
S.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by drew jensen <dr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 21:42 +0000, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2012, at 21:38, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>
> > Hi *,
> >
> > all the 6th point "Where can I get updates to the copy of OpenOffice.org
> > that I am running?" sounds like FUD.
> > "... there will be no patches to those earlier binary programs released"
> > ... well, there were *never* patches for previous OpenOffice.org
> > binary versions, OpenOffice.org only released full versions that worked
> > as an update to the installed version.
> >
> > Although many people seem to misunderstand the fact, Apache OpenOffice
> > has the right and the power to present itself to the user as *the*
> > update to the installed version, via the update mechanism. So, yes,
> > there will be an update to the copy of OpenOffice.org you are running, it
> > will be Apache OpenOffice :)
>
> Honestly, I am doing my best here and object to my work being called FUD. The question is a genuine end-user question and I'm sorry you don't like my attempt at answering it. Please either edit it directly, or propose alternate wording and I will edit it for you.
Thanks Simon,
I took up your offer and removed the line completely.
//drew
>
> S.
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 13 Mar 2012, at 21:38, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> all the 6th point "Where can I get updates to the copy of OpenOffice.org
> that I am running?" sounds like FUD.
> "... there will be no patches to those earlier binary programs released"
> ... well, there were *never* patches for previous OpenOffice.org
> binary versions, OpenOffice.org only released full versions that worked
> as an update to the installed version.
>
> Although many people seem to misunderstand the fact, Apache OpenOffice
> has the right and the power to present itself to the user as *the*
> update to the installed version, via the update mechanism. So, yes,
> there will be an update to the copy of OpenOffice.org you are running, it
> will be Apache OpenOffice :)
Honestly, I am doing my best here and object to my work being called FUD. The question is a genuine end-user question and I'm sorry you don't like my attempt at answering it. Please either edit it directly, or propose alternate wording and I will edit it for you.
S.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
Hi *,
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:15:29PM +0100, eric b wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ? (e.g. just
> put the name of the derivated software) ?
>
> (
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Current+Status+FAQ
> )
>
> Such link should not appear on the first line : I remember NeoOffice
> who derivated the Mac version this exact way ...
all the 6th point "Where can I get updates to the copy of OpenOffice.org
that I am running?" sounds like FUD.
"... there will be no patches to those earlier binary programs released"
... well, there were *never* patches for previous OpenOffice.org
binary versions, OpenOffice.org only released full versions that worked
as an update to the installed version.
Although many people seem to misunderstand the fact, Apache OpenOffice
has the right and the power to present itself to the user as *the*
update to the installed version, via the update mechanism. So, yes,
there will be an update to the copy of OpenOffice.org you are running, it
will be Apache OpenOffice :)
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 13 Mar 2012, at 21:28, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
>
> --- Mar 13/3/12, eric b <er...@free.fr> ha scritto:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ?
>> (e.g. just put the name of the derivated software) ?
>>
> +1
>
> Simon added the mention to libreoffice,
I felt it was appropriate in context, yes. Pretending it doesn't exist is unrealistic. Including it helps the general user and establishes our credibility.
> and he removed my line explaining that Oracle had chosen to given the project to a Foundation with the governance and credibility to maintain it (Apache).
I replaced your rather long and subjective statement with something simpler and objective, yes. No reflection on the content, it just isn't appropriate to the document. We all know about Apache's strengths.
S.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Mar 13/3/12, eric b <er...@free.fr> ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ?
> (e.g. just put the name of the derivated software) ?
>
+1
Simon added the mention to libreoffice, and he removed my line explaining that Oracle had chosen to given the project to a Foundation with the governance and credibility to maintain it (Apache).
Simon; we know you are very fond of the LibreOffice guys and most of us are OK with that but you are committer and PPMC member and you are expected to wear your Apache hat here.
Pedro.
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
>
>
> Le 13 mars 12 à 21:53, Pedro Giffuni a écrit :
>
> >
> >
> > --- Mar 13/3/12, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>
> ha scritto:
> > ...
> >>
> >> If YOU (the reader) disagree with a specific
> statement in
> >> the original post (shown below if you really need
> to see
> >> it), please be specific about which statement and
> how you
> >> would fix the statement. As an example, some
> clarification
> >> was provided that left me less confused with
> respect to the
> >> developers currently working on the project.
> >>
> >
> > Done.
> >
> >> Off hand, I agree with the general facts of the
> statements.
> >> I see that some take issue with the tenor; I
> disagree with
> >> that but I also see it as mostly irrelevant with
> respect to
> >> the facts.
> >>
> >> Oh, and I tip my hat to you Mr. Phipps for your
> starting
> >> this:
> >>
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Current+Status+FAQ
> >>
> >> Seems you digested this much better than I.
> >>
> >
> > Give me some credit too ... I caused it ;-).
> >
> > Pedro.
> >
>
> --qɔᴉɹə
> Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
> L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
> Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Hi,
Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ? (e.g. just
put the name of the derivated software) ?
( https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Current+Status
+FAQ )
Such link should not appear on the first line : I remember NeoOffice
who derivated the Mac version this exact way ...
Thanks,
Eric
Le 13 mars 12 à 21:53, Pedro Giffuni a écrit :
>
>
> --- Mar 13/3/12, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org> ha
> scritto:
> ...
>>
>> If YOU (the reader) disagree with a specific statement in
>> the original post (shown below if you really need to see
>> it), please be specific about which statement and how you
>> would fix the statement. As an example, some clarification
>> was provided that left me less confused with respect to the
>> developers currently working on the project.
>>
>
> Done.
>
>> Off hand, I agree with the general facts of the statements.
>> I see that some take issue with the tenor; I disagree with
>> that but I also see it as mostly irrelevant with respect to
>> the facts.
>>
>> Oh, and I tip my hat to you Mr. Phipps for your starting
>> this:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Current+Status
>> +FAQ
>>
>> Seems you digested this much better than I.
>>
>
> Give me some credit too ... I caused it ;-).
>
> Pedro.
>
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Mar 13/3/12, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org> ha scritto:
...
>
> If YOU (the reader) disagree with a specific statement in
> the original post (shown below if you really need to see
> it), please be specific about which statement and how you
> would fix the statement. As an example, some clarification
> was provided that left me less confused with respect to the
> developers currently working on the project.
>
Done.
> Off hand, I agree with the general facts of the statements.
> I see that some take issue with the tenor; I disagree with
> that but I also see it as mostly irrelevant with respect to
> the facts.
>
> Oh, and I tip my hat to you Mr. Phipps for your starting
> this:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Current+Status+FAQ
>
> Seems you digested this much better than I.
>
Give me some credit too ... I caused it ;-).
Pedro.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>.
If YOU (the reader) disagree with a specific statement in the original
post (shown below if you really need to see it), please be specific
about which statement and how you would fix the statement. As an
example, some clarification was provided that left me less confused with
respect to the developers currently working on the project.
Off hand, I agree with the general facts of the statements. I see that
some take issue with the tenor; I disagree with that but I also see it
as mostly irrelevant with respect to the facts.
Oh, and I tip my hat to you Mr. Phipps for your starting this:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Current+Status+FAQ
Seems you digested this much better than I.
On 03/13/2012 12:25 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I have been getting an increasing number of enquiries about the status of Apache OpenOffice from a variety of sources. I'm attempting, in good faith, to maintain an objective status summary the Apache OpenOffice incubator project to report to these enquiries.
>
> I've had a commentator assert that the statements below are uninformed and made-up. I believe based on my observations all of the following statements to be true about the Apache project; can you let me know if they are not, please, so I can present a factual status of the project when asked?
> The Apache OpenOffice project will be releasing a new binary under the new name "Apache OpenOffice" at some point soon, which will probably be numbered v3.4.
> The release is being developed by a subset of the original developers augmented by others.
> There have been no updates to OpenOffice.org binaries released for users since Oracle stopped development.
> There will be no new versions of a binary program called OpenOffice.org released.
> No downloads of OpenOffice.org containing bug fixes or security updates have been made available for end users since Oracle stopped development.
> The Apache OpenOffice project now controls the original OpenOffice.org domain (via the ASF) and plans to use it for future promotion of the Apache OpenOffice project.
> The Apache OpenOffice project is still in incubation and has not yet requested graduation to a TLP.
> Thanks for your help with this.
>
> S.
>
>
--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:45:19 +0000
Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 13 Mar 2012, at 19:02, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
> > I really think this posting is very valuable though.
> >
> > I propose that you write them into a FAQ and that after fixing
> > it according to the consensus in this list we publish it in
> > the openoffice.org website.
>
> The public Wiki is probably a better place.
>
> >>>> No downloads of OpenOffice.org containing bug fixes or
> >>>> security updates have been made available for end users
> >>>> since Oracle stopped development.
> >
> > I find this statement particularly dangerous: Apache
> > OpenOffice is by all means the official source of bug fixes
> > and security updates for OpenOffice.org.
>
> Well, it will be. But right now there's nothing to download so
> the statement is factual, surely? As Rory has pointed out, AOO
> 3.4 is the focus of development.
One doesn't want to say openly that AOO 3.4 is the only focus of
development and support, although we know it is.
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
On 03/13/12 14:45, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2012, at 19:02, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
>> I really think this posting is very valuable though.
>>
>> I propose that you write them into a FAQ and that after fixing
>> it according to the consensus in this list we publish it in the
>> openoffice.org website.
> The public Wiki is probably a better place.
>
I would like it in an even more public place, but the Wiki is
fine for the time being.
>>>>> No downloads of OpenOffice.org containing bug fixes or security updates have been made available for end users since Oracle stopped development.
>> I find this statement particularly dangerous: Apache OpenOffice is
>> by all means the official source of bug fixes and security updates
>> for OpenOffice.org.
> Well, it will be. But right now there's nothing to download so the statement is factual, surely? As Rory has pointed out, AOO 3.4 is the focus of development.
>
This is free software, not vaporware.
We have developer snapshots and we appreciate feedback:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots
Pedro.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 13 Mar 2012, at 19:02, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> I really think this posting is very valuable though.
>
> I propose that you write them into a FAQ and that after fixing
> it according to the consensus in this list we publish it in the
> openoffice.org website.
The public Wiki is probably a better place.
>>>> No downloads of OpenOffice.org containing bug fixes or security updates have been made available for end users since Oracle stopped development.
>
> I find this statement particularly dangerous: Apache OpenOffice is
> by all means the official source of bug fixes and security updates
> for OpenOffice.org.
Well, it will be. But right now there's nothing to download so the statement is factual, surely? As Rory has pointed out, AOO 3.4 is the focus of development.
S.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:02:59 -0500
Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 03/13/12 12:42, Simon Phipps wrote:
> >>> No downloads of OpenOffice.org containing bug fixes or
> >>> security updates have been made available for end users
> >>> since Oracle stopped development.
It needs to be said that AOO 3.4 is the focus of the continuing
programming effort and that will be the actively supported
version.
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 13 Mar 2012, at 19:02, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
> I propose that you write them into a FAQ and that after fixing
> it according to the consensus in this list we publish it in the
> openoffice.org website.
OK, I've pulled a first alpha draft together just from this thread at:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Current+Status+FAQ
S.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
On 03/13/12 12:42, Simon Phipps wrote:
> Thanks, Dave, very helpful.
>
> On 13 Mar 2012, at 17:17, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> These are all "facts" - however they do have a certain "negative spin". You need to be "informed".
> :-) No better place to come. I'm sorry you found them spun; I felt they were concise answers to the questions I was being asked.
>
Don't take this personally but I think the statements you made
clearly represent *your* misunderstandings with this project
from the start. In particular your futile resistance to the idea
that, independently of any forks, for good or for bad
OpenOffice.org lives here.
I really think this posting is very valuable though.
I propose that you write them into a FAQ and that after fixing
it according to the consensus in this list we publish it in the
openoffice.org website.
>
>>> No downloads of OpenOffice.org containing bug fixes or security updates have been made available for end users since Oracle stopped development.
I find this statement particularly dangerous: Apache OpenOffice is
by all means the official source of bug fixes and security updates
for OpenOffice.org. Also please note that it has been found that
OOo was *not* GPL compatible so we strongly recommend
developers to upgrade to AOO to avoid IP risks.
Considering we own the trademark I guess we actually could dual
name this release OpenOffice.org 3.4 and Apache OpenOffice 3.4
to make this clear (for this time only). Would that be acceptable to
the ASF?
Pedro.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Kevin Sisco <ke...@gmail.com>.
Pavel:
I don't think anybody is arguing that apache open office is, in fact,
open office. Is it really worth splitting hairs over? Just asking.
On 3/13/12, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 13 Mar 2012, at 17:45, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:42:01 +0000
>> Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> The AOO project team includes a large number of the original
>>>> developers, Symphony developers, community developers and new
>>>> developers.
>>>
>>> The original population was much much larger so "large" seems
>>> hyperbolic here. How about:
>>>
>>> * The AOO project team includes a number of the original
>>> developers plus developers from IBM Symphony and community
>>> developers old and new.
>>
>> How about "many" or "very many"
>
> The actual situation I think is close to: "of the hundred or so developers
> once employed by Sun on OpenOffice.org, about 15 of them are still
> participating in open source development derived from the OpenOffice.org
> codebase. Of those about half work on Apache OpenOffice and half on
> LibreOffice" (corrections giving actual numbers and ratios welcome BTW).
> Thus words like "large" or "many" seem overstatement in connection with
> either AOO or LO.
>
> S.
>
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 13 Mar 2012, at 17:45, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:42:01 +0000
> Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> The AOO project team includes a large number of the original
>>> developers, Symphony developers, community developers and new
>>> developers.
>>
>> The original population was much much larger so "large" seems
>> hyperbolic here. How about:
>>
>> * The AOO project team includes a number of the original
>> developers plus developers from IBM Symphony and community
>> developers old and new.
>
> How about "many" or "very many"
The actual situation I think is close to: "of the hundred or so developers once employed by Sun on OpenOffice.org, about 15 of them are still participating in open source development derived from the OpenOffice.org codebase. Of those about half work on Apache OpenOffice and half on LibreOffice" (corrections giving actual numbers and ratios welcome BTW). Thus words like "large" or "many" seem overstatement in connection with either AOO or LO.
S.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:42:01 +0000
Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > The AOO project team includes a large number of the original
> > developers, Symphony developers, community developers and new
> > developers.
>
> The original population was much much larger so "large" seems
> hyperbolic here. How about:
>
> * The AOO project team includes a number of the original
> developers plus developers from IBM Symphony and community
> developers old and new.
How about "many" or "very many"
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
Thanks, Dave, very helpful.
On 13 Mar 2012, at 17:17, Dave Fisher wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> These are all "facts" - however they do have a certain "negative spin". You need to be "informed".
:-) No better place to come. I'm sorry you found them spun; I felt they were concise answers to the questions I was being asked.
>
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I have been getting an increasing number of enquiries about the status of Apache OpenOffice from a variety of sources. I'm attempting, in good faith, to maintain an objective status summary the Apache OpenOffice incubator project to report to these enquiries.
>>
>> I've had a commentator assert that the statements below are uninformed and made-up. I believe based on my observations all of the following statements to be true about the Apache project; can you let me know if they are not, please, so I can present a factual status of the project when asked?
>
> Try rewriting the statements
Absolutely, although I do want to avoid any apologetics, positive or negative, as I've found people are quick to condemn expression of opinions in this area, especially by me!
>
>> The Apache OpenOffice project will be releasing a new binary under the new name "Apache OpenOffice" at some point soon, which will probably be numbered v3.4.
>
> The Apache OpenOffice project will be releasing a new binary called Apache OpenOffice v3.4 soon. All GPL code has been replaced or eliminated. Please ask ooo-dev for a list of improvements like a native SVG implementation.
I'd probably make the second part of that a separate bullet, thus:
* The Apache OpenOffice project will be releasing a new binary called Apache OpenOffice v3.4 soon.
* Major features of this release will include removal and in some cases replacement of GPL code, plus a native SVG implementation. A full list of improvements is at $URL
I'd probably like a second highlight to accompany the SVG feature; which would you suggest?
>
>> The release is being developed by a subset of the original developers augmented by others.
>
> The AOO project team includes a large number of the original developers, Symphony developers, community developers and new developers.
The original population was much much larger so "large" seems hyperbolic here. How about:
* The AOO project team includes a number of the original developers plus developers from IBM Symphony and community developers old and new.
>
>> There have been no updates to OpenOffice.org binaries released for users since Oracle stopped development.
>
> The project has focused on moving the project to the Apache License and off of Oracle Infrastructure. Continuing to release OOo binaries was not an option.
>
>> There will be no new versions of a binary program called OpenOffice.org released.
>
> We are now calling it Apache OpenOffice. It is still OpenOffice.org.
That wasn't my point in either case or in the point below; the point was that my clients wanted to know where to get updates to the code they were running and needed telling that there weren't any. Do you have a better objective way to say that?
>
>> No downloads of OpenOffice.org containing bug fixes or security updates have been made available for end users since Oracle stopped development.
>
> We are prevented at the ASF from releasing GPL code. This was discussed in June/July 2011. Subsequently, TeamOO never fully engaged with ooo-dev about bug fix versions. The TOO individuals were on the Initial Committer list and are members of the AOO PPMC.
>
>> The Apache OpenOffice project now controls the original OpenOffice.org domain (via the ASF) and plans to use it for future promotion of the Apache OpenOffice project.
>
> We are using the domain, it is now Apache's trademark. ALL of the legacy OOo site has been migrated, saved and available for further development. The NLC communities are welcome to return and work on NL versions of Apache OpenOffice and the openoffice.org website.
>
>> The Apache OpenOffice project is still in incubation and has not yet requested graduation to a TLP.
>
> A release is a prerequisite to graduation. Once a release has been made graduation is next on the agenda. Our mentors can correct me if I am wrong, but we have likely met all of the other requirements.
Those are all useful gloss if there are "why" questions but I think I'd leave the original statements as "what" answers.
Thanks again - this will also be useful when the time comes to write about the release.
S.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 3/16/12 4:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> On 03/16/12 10:03, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> FWIW,
>>>
>>> I suspended some rather cool but drastic updates
>>> that I was planning, including updating the internal
>>> python and Apache Commons, to ensure a softer
>>> landing of the release. Expect a lot of chaos
>>> afterwards ;).
>>>
>> Would it help if we "branched for stabilization" at some point?
>
> That's an interesting issue. I do think we should start defining
> some branching scheme, especially to setup a procedure
> for future releases.
>
> I would think after a Release Candidate is the best time, but
> there is no hurry.
exactly, and that will hopefully happen next week ;-)
At the moment we have only one serious issue
Bug 118895 - aoo3.4 r1240836: some contextmenu entries are not localized
It sounds not a big issue but with my pootle/translation tests I updated
the relevant strings and thought it would be fixed. Unfortunately it's
not and it either depends on a build/dependency problem (I am currently
building it again) or we have potentially a serious problem. Some
resource strings were moved and maybe we have a problem here.
But anyway if we have a general problem here with the localized strings
I tend to prepare a RC for en-US only. I think it would make sense to
start it next week to collect the necessary feedback if we are Apache
conform or if we have further open issues here.
The localization issue would be addressed next week together with
finally setup the pootle server with up-to-date data etc. and hopefully
integrating some returned localizations.
I tested fro example the returned pt-BR and it looks good so far ...
What do others think about this proposed approach?
Juergen
>
>> But if we did, where do we point the buildbots: 3.4 branch or trunk?
>
> No direct commits should be done on the 3.4 branch: all the
> commits should go to trunk first and then merged to the
> branch after some testing period.
>
> Since it's desirable to detect breakage before merging anything,
> we would keep pointing the buildbots to the trunk. Defining where
> the binary packages for the release are created is another issue,
> specially since we will be bundling some dictionaries
>
> Pedro.
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
On 03/16/12 10:03, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> FWIW,
>>
>> I suspended some rather cool but drastic updates
>> that I was planning, including updating the internal
>> python and Apache Commons, to ensure a softer
>> landing of the release. Expect a lot of chaos
>> afterwards ;).
>>
> Would it help if we "branched for stabilization" at some point?
That's an interesting issue. I do think we should start defining
some branching scheme, especially to setup a procedure
for future releases.
I would think after a Release Candidate is the best time, but
there is no hurry.
> But if we did, where do we point the buildbots: 3.4 branch or trunk?
No direct commits should be done on the 3.4 branch: all the
commits should go to trunk first and then merged to the
branch after some testing period.
Since it's desirable to detect breakage before merging anything,
we would keep pointing the buildbots to the trunk. Defining where
the binary packages for the release are created is another issue,
specially since we will be bundling some dictionaries
Pedro.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yes!
>
>
> On 03/16/12 03:19, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> On 3/13/12 6:40 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes it's looking pretty good now Ross. I am
>>> still concerned about the level of commit activity
>>> being on the low-side but I'm hoping post-release
>>> things will pick up as the project starts to push
>>> towards 4.0.
>>
>>
>> Do you have noticed that we are in stabilization phase? From my pov a low
>> commit rate is very good in such a phase and everything else would make me
>> nervous ;-).
>>
>> Juergen
>>
> FWIW,
>
> I suspended some rather cool but drastic updates
> that I was planning, including updating the internal
> python and Apache Commons, to ensure a softer
> landing of the release. Expect a lot of chaos
> afterwards ;).
>
Would it help if we "branched for stabilization" at some point?
But if we did, where do we point the buildbots: 3.4 branch or trunk?
-Rob
> Pedro.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Yes!
On 03/16/12 03:19, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 3/13/12 6:40 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Yes it's looking pretty good now Ross. I am
>> still concerned about the level of commit activity
>> being on the low-side but I'm hoping post-release
>> things will pick up as the project starts to push
>> towards 4.0.
>
> Do you have noticed that we are in stabilization phase? From my pov a
> low commit rate is very good in such a phase and everything else would
> make me nervous ;-).
>
> Juergen
>
FWIW,
I suspended some rather cool but drastic updates
that I was planning, including updating the internal
python and Apache Commons, to ensure a softer
landing of the release. Expect a lot of chaos
afterwards ;).
Pedro.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 3/13/12 6:40 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Yes it's looking pretty good now Ross. I am
> still concerned about the level of commit activity
> being on the low-side but I'm hoping post-release
> things will pick up as the project starts to push
> towards 4.0.
Do you have noticed that we are in stabilization phase? From my pov a
low commit rate is very good in such a phase and everything else would
make me nervous ;-).
Juergen
>
>
>
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Ross Gardler<rg...@opendirective.com>
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:36 PM
>> Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
>>
>> On 13 March 2012 17:17, Dave Fisher<da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> The Apache OpenOffice project is still in incubation and has not yet requested graduation to a TLP.
>>>
>>> A release is a prerequisite to graduation. Once a release has been made graduation is next on the agenda. Our mentors can correct me if I am wrong, but we have likely met all of the other requirements.
>>
>> Speaking as just one mentor I believe the PPMC is now functioning as a
>> healthy Apache PMC. Specifically:
>>
>> - the diversity requirement of the project has been met (in fact this
>> was the case on day one)
>>
>> - all discussions relating to project strategy now take place on the
>> public mailing lists
>>
>> - the voice of the lone contributor is as loud as the voice of any
>> other contributor
>>
>> - decisions are being taken by those who are ready, willing and able
>> to implement them
>>
>> - the community is rewarding those who earn merit with committership
>> in the project
>>
>> - participants are finding their natural place within the community
>> (this includes coders, testers, technical writers, forum admins,
>> translators and many more)
>>
>> - the community is learning to respect and reward non-code contributions
>>
>> - there is evidence of cross-project collaboration both into and out of AOO
>>
>> - AOO project members are appearing in the appropriate places around
>> the ASF to ensure full engagement with the foundation
>>
>> - mentors very rarely interject, unless specifically called upon
>>
>> - community members are learning not to feed trolls
>>
>> In summary, yes I think the AOO project is well on its way to
>> graduation. A release is a pre-requisite to graduation as that is the
>> point at which the ASF is able to assert that the code is fully
>> license compliant. Once the first release is complete I imagine
>> graduation will not be far behind.
>>
>> I look forward to seeing AOO code allowing the further adoption of ODF
>> alongside other great ODF related projects.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>
>>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
Yes it's looking pretty good now Ross. I am
still concerned about the level of commit activity
being on the low-side but I'm hoping post-release
things will pick up as the project starts to push
towards 4.0.
>________________________________
> From: Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:36 PM
>Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
>
>On 13 March 2012 17:17, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>...
>
>>> The Apache OpenOffice project is still in incubation and has not yet requested graduation to a TLP.
>>
>> A release is a prerequisite to graduation. Once a release has been made graduation is next on the agenda. Our mentors can correct me if I am wrong, but we have likely met all of the other requirements.
>
>Speaking as just one mentor I believe the PPMC is now functioning as a
>healthy Apache PMC. Specifically:
>
>- the diversity requirement of the project has been met (in fact this
>was the case on day one)
>
>- all discussions relating to project strategy now take place on the
>public mailing lists
>
>- the voice of the lone contributor is as loud as the voice of any
>other contributor
>
>- decisions are being taken by those who are ready, willing and able
>to implement them
>
>- the community is rewarding those who earn merit with committership
>in the project
>
>- participants are finding their natural place within the community
>(this includes coders, testers, technical writers, forum admins,
>translators and many more)
>
>- the community is learning to respect and reward non-code contributions
>
>- there is evidence of cross-project collaboration both into and out of AOO
>
>- AOO project members are appearing in the appropriate places around
>the ASF to ensure full engagement with the foundation
>
>- mentors very rarely interject, unless specifically called upon
>
>- community members are learning not to feed trolls
>
>In summary, yes I think the AOO project is well on its way to
>graduation. A release is a pre-requisite to graduation as that is the
>point at which the ASF is able to assert that the code is fully
>license compliant. Once the first release is complete I imagine
>graduation will not be far behind.
>
>I look forward to seeing AOO code allowing the further adoption of ODF
>alongside other great ODF related projects.
>
>Ross
>
>
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 14 March 2012 08:02, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> Seems I spoke a little to early on some of the points below (see Joe's
> observations later in this thread)
>
> The project is generally doing very well, but learning to play nice with
> those not fully aligned to "the one true vision" is Spongebob that needs
> work.
s/Spogdebob/something
A while ago I read a tweet that had been auto corrected to something
like "Feel terrible this morning. Bad case of the Man Boobs"
(s/Boobs/Flu)
>
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2012 5:36 PM, "Ross Gardler" <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 13 March 2012 17:17, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> The Apache OpenOffice project is still in incubation and has not yet
>> >> requested graduation to a TLP.
>> >
>> > A release is a prerequisite to graduation. Once a release has been made
>> > graduation is next on the agenda. Our mentors can correct me if I am wrong,
>> > but we have likely met all of the other requirements.
>>
>> Speaking as just one mentor I believe the PPMC is now functioning as a
>> healthy Apache PMC. Specifically:
>>
>> - the diversity requirement of the project has been met (in fact this
>> was the case on day one)
>>
>> - all discussions relating to project strategy now take place on the
>> public mailing lists
>>
>> - the voice of the lone contributor is as loud as the voice of any
>> other contributor
>>
>> - decisions are being taken by those who are ready, willing and able
>> to implement them
>>
>> - the community is rewarding those who earn merit with committership
>> in the project
>>
>> - participants are finding their natural place within the community
>> (this includes coders, testers, technical writers, forum admins,
>> translators and many more)
>>
>> - the community is learning to respect and reward non-code contributions
>>
>> - there is evidence of cross-project collaboration both into and out of
>> AOO
>>
>> - AOO project members are appearing in the appropriate places around
>> the ASF to ensure full engagement with the foundation
>>
>> - mentors very rarely interject, unless specifically called upon
>>
>> - community members are learning not to feed trolls
>>
>> In summary, yes I think the AOO project is well on its way to
>> graduation. A release is a pre-requisite to graduation as that is the
>> point at which the ASF is able to assert that the code is fully
>> license compliant. Once the first release is complete I imagine
>> graduation will not be far behind.
>>
>> I look forward to seeing AOO code allowing the further adoption of ODF
>> alongside other great ODF related projects.
>>
>> Ross
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Seems I spoke a little to early on some of the points below (see Joe's
observations later in this thread)
The project is generally doing very well, but learning to play nice with
those not fully aligned to "the one true vision" is Spongebob that needs
work.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Mar 13, 2012 5:36 PM, "Ross Gardler" <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>
> On 13 March 2012 17:17, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> The Apache OpenOffice project is still in incubation and has not yet
requested graduation to a TLP.
> >
> > A release is a prerequisite to graduation. Once a release has been made
graduation is next on the agenda. Our mentors can correct me if I am wrong,
but we have likely met all of the other requirements.
>
> Speaking as just one mentor I believe the PPMC is now functioning as a
> healthy Apache PMC. Specifically:
>
> - the diversity requirement of the project has been met (in fact this
> was the case on day one)
>
> - all discussions relating to project strategy now take place on the
> public mailing lists
>
> - the voice of the lone contributor is as loud as the voice of any
> other contributor
>
> - decisions are being taken by those who are ready, willing and able
> to implement them
>
> - the community is rewarding those who earn merit with committership
> in the project
>
> - participants are finding their natural place within the community
> (this includes coders, testers, technical writers, forum admins,
> translators and many more)
>
> - the community is learning to respect and reward non-code contributions
>
> - there is evidence of cross-project collaboration both into and out of
AOO
>
> - AOO project members are appearing in the appropriate places around
> the ASF to ensure full engagement with the foundation
>
> - mentors very rarely interject, unless specifically called upon
>
> - community members are learning not to feed trolls
>
> In summary, yes I think the AOO project is well on its way to
> graduation. A release is a pre-requisite to graduation as that is the
> point at which the ASF is able to assert that the code is fully
> license compliant. Once the first release is complete I imagine
> graduation will not be far behind.
>
> I look forward to seeing AOO code allowing the further adoption of ODF
> alongside other great ODF related projects.
>
> Ross
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 13 March 2012 17:17, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
...
>> The Apache OpenOffice project is still in incubation and has not yet requested graduation to a TLP.
>
> A release is a prerequisite to graduation. Once a release has been made graduation is next on the agenda. Our mentors can correct me if I am wrong, but we have likely met all of the other requirements.
Speaking as just one mentor I believe the PPMC is now functioning as a
healthy Apache PMC. Specifically:
- the diversity requirement of the project has been met (in fact this
was the case on day one)
- all discussions relating to project strategy now take place on the
public mailing lists
- the voice of the lone contributor is as loud as the voice of any
other contributor
- decisions are being taken by those who are ready, willing and able
to implement them
- the community is rewarding those who earn merit with committership
in the project
- participants are finding their natural place within the community
(this includes coders, testers, technical writers, forum admins,
translators and many more)
- the community is learning to respect and reward non-code contributions
- there is evidence of cross-project collaboration both into and out of AOO
- AOO project members are appearing in the appropriate places around
the ASF to ensure full engagement with the foundation
- mentors very rarely interject, unless specifically called upon
- community members are learning not to feed trolls
In summary, yes I think the AOO project is well on its way to
graduation. A release is a pre-requisite to graduation as that is the
point at which the ASF is able to assert that the code is fully
license compliant. Once the first release is complete I imagine
graduation will not be far behind.
I look forward to seeing AOO code allowing the further adoption of ODF
alongside other great ODF related projects.
Ross
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi Simon,
These are all "facts" - however they do have a certain "negative spin". You need to be "informed".
On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I have been getting an increasing number of enquiries about the status of Apache OpenOffice from a variety of sources. I'm attempting, in good faith, to maintain an objective status summary the Apache OpenOffice incubator project to report to these enquiries.
>
> I've had a commentator assert that the statements below are uninformed and made-up. I believe based on my observations all of the following statements to be true about the Apache project; can you let me know if they are not, please, so I can present a factual status of the project when asked?
Try rewriting the statements
> The Apache OpenOffice project will be releasing a new binary under the new name "Apache OpenOffice" at some point soon, which will probably be numbered v3.4.
The Apache OpenOffice project will be releasing a new binary called Apache OpenOffice v3.4 soon. All GPL code has been replaced or eliminated. Please ask ooo-dev for a list of improvements like a native SVG implementation.
> The release is being developed by a subset of the original developers augmented by others.
The AOO project team includes a large number of the original developers, Symphony developers, community developers and new developers.
> There have been no updates to OpenOffice.org binaries released for users since Oracle stopped development.
The project has focused on moving the project to the Apache License and off of Oracle Infrastructure. Continuing to release OOo binaries was not an option.
> There will be no new versions of a binary program called OpenOffice.org released.
We are now calling it Apache OpenOffice. It is still OpenOffice.org.
> No downloads of OpenOffice.org containing bug fixes or security updates have been made available for end users since Oracle stopped development.
We are prevented at the ASF from releasing GPL code. This was discussed in June/July 2011. Subsequently, TeamOO never fully engaged with ooo-dev about bug fix versions. The TOO individuals were on the Initial Committer list and are members of the AOO PPMC.
> The Apache OpenOffice project now controls the original OpenOffice.org domain (via the ASF) and plans to use it for future promotion of the Apache OpenOffice project.
We are using the domain, it is now Apache's trademark. ALL of the legacy OOo site has been migrated, saved and available for further development. The NLC communities are welcome to return and work on NL versions of Apache OpenOffice and the openoffice.org website.
> The Apache OpenOffice project is still in incubation and has not yet requested graduation to a TLP.
A release is a prerequisite to graduation. Once a release has been made graduation is next on the agenda. Our mentors can correct me if I am wrong, but we have likely met all of the other requirements.
> Thanks for your help with this.
Regards,
Dave
>
> S.
>
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
Thanks for the comments so far.
On 13 Mar 2012, at 16:36, drew wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 16:25 +0000, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I have been getting an increasing number of enquiries about the status of Apache OpenOffice from a variety of sources. I'm attempting, in good faith, to maintain an objective status summary the Apache OpenOffice incubator project to report to these enquiries.
>>
>> I've had a commentator assert that the statements below are uninformed and made-up. I believe based on my observations all of the following statements to be true about the Apache project; can you let me know if they are not, please, so I can present a factual status of the project when asked?
>> The Apache OpenOffice project will be releasing a new binary under the new name "Apache OpenOffice" at some point soon, which will probably be numbered v3.4.
>> The release is being developed by a subset of the original developers augmented by others.
>> There have been no updates to OpenOffice.org binaries released for users since Oracle stopped development.
>> There will be no new versions of a binary program called OpenOffice.org released.
>> No downloads of OpenOffice.org containing bug fixes or security updates have been made available for end users since Oracle stopped development.
>> The Apache OpenOffice project now controls the original OpenOffice.org domain (via the ASF) and plans to use it for future promotion of the Apache OpenOffice project.
>> The Apache OpenOffice project is still in incubation and has not yet requested graduation to a TLP.
>> Thanks for your help with this.
>>
>> S.
>>
>
> hi
>
> Maybe it would be best to direct those with questions to the project and
> not to try and answer for questions about it at all.
The clients who have approached me have in fact read the list and found it to be very difficult to digest. The statements above reflect their core interests, and I believe are factual. I am doing exactly what you propose and coming to the list to check their factual basis. My apologies if you feel this is inappropriate but having been challenged on the subject I felt it was better to ask an open question.
On 13 Mar 2012, at 16:38, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> You still say it in a way that I can't support and I think you simply don't want to accept the reality. Apache OpenOffice is OpenOffice. If you don't accept this fact I am really asking what your intention is?
My comments above make no statement on that subject. The naming of the project has proved slightly confusing for my clients so it's been necessary to distinguish between the work conducted before and after Apache was involved. If you can think of a better way of making this distinction I'd be interested in it.
Thanks
S.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 16:25 +0000, Simon Phipps wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I have been getting an increasing number of enquiries about the status of Apache OpenOffice from a variety of sources. I'm attempting, in good faith, to maintain an objective status summary the Apache OpenOffice incubator project to report to these enquiries.
>
> I've had a commentator assert that the statements below are uninformed and made-up. I believe based on my observations all of the following statements to be true about the Apache project; can you let me know if they are not, please, so I can present a factual status of the project when asked?
> The Apache OpenOffice project will be releasing a new binary under the new name "Apache OpenOffice" at some point soon, which will probably be numbered v3.4.
> The release is being developed by a subset of the original developers augmented by others.
> There have been no updates to OpenOffice.org binaries released for users since Oracle stopped development.
> There will be no new versions of a binary program called OpenOffice.org released.
> No downloads of OpenOffice.org containing bug fixes or security updates have been made available for end users since Oracle stopped development.
> The Apache OpenOffice project now controls the original OpenOffice.org domain (via the ASF) and plans to use it for future promotion of the Apache OpenOffice project.
> The Apache OpenOffice project is still in incubation and has not yet requested graduation to a TLP.
> Thanks for your help with this.
>
> S.
>
hi
Maybe it would be best to direct those with questions to the project and
not to try and answer for questions about it at all.
//drew
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Pavel Janík <Pa...@Janik.cz>.
> You still say it in a way that I can't support and I think you simply don't want to accept the reality. Apache OpenOffice is OpenOffice. If you don't accept this fact I am really asking what your intention is?
+1
--
Pavel Janík
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Simon,
On 3/13/12 5:25 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I have been getting an increasing number of enquiries about the status of Apache OpenOffice from a variety of sources. I'm attempting, in good faith, to maintain an objective status summary the Apache OpenOffice incubator project to report to these enquiries.
>
> I've had a commentator assert that the statements below are uninformed and made-up. I believe based on my observations all of the following statements to be true about the Apache project; can you let me know if they are not, please, so I can present a factual status of the project when asked?
> The Apache OpenOffice project will be releasing a new binary under the new name "Apache OpenOffice" at some point soon, which will probably be numbered v3.4.
> The release is being developed by a subset of the original developers augmented by others.
> There have been no updates to OpenOffice.org binaries released for users since Oracle stopped development.
> There will be no new versions of a binary program called OpenOffice.org released.
> No downloads of OpenOffice.org containing bug fixes or security updates have been made available for end users since Oracle stopped development.
> The Apache OpenOffice project now controls the original OpenOffice.org domain (via the ASF) and plans to use it for future promotion of the Apache OpenOffice project.
> The Apache OpenOffice project is still in incubation and has not yet requested graduation to a TLP.
> Thanks for your help with this.
>
I personally would very much appreciate if you simply guide this people
to the ooo-dev mailing list directly to get first hand information.
To be honest I think they can get much better information if they seek
the dialog with the project directly and we know which information they
will receive.
You still say it in a way that I can't support and I think you simply
don't want to accept the reality. Apache OpenOffice is OpenOffice. If
you don't accept this fact I am really asking what your intention is?
Regards
Juergen
PS: offline for the rest of the day and I am looking forward to a
probably another annoying thread where I have already said enough now.
Re: Clarifying facts
Posted by Kevin Sisco <ke...@gmail.com>.
After really looking into the project thus far, everything seems
acurate to me. I hope I haven't overlooked something.
On 3/13/12, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I
> have been getting an increasing number of enquiries about the status of
> Apache OpenOffice from a variety of sources. I'm attempting, in good faith,
> to maintain an objective status summary the Apache OpenOffice incubator
> project to report to these enquiries.
>
> I've had a commentator assert that the statements below are uninformed and
> made-up. I believe based on my observations all of the following statements
> to be true about the Apache project; can you let me know if they are not,
> please, so I can present a factual status of the project when asked?
> The Apache OpenOffice project will be releasing a new binary under the new
> name "Apache OpenOffice" at some point soon, which will probably be numbered
> v3.4.
> The release is being developed by a subset of the original developers
> augmented by others.
> There have been no updates to OpenOffice.org binaries released for users
> since Oracle stopped development.
> There will be no new versions of a binary program called OpenOffice.org
> released.
> No downloads of OpenOffice.org containing bug fixes or security updates have
> been made available for end users since Oracle stopped development.
> The Apache OpenOffice project now controls the original OpenOffice.org
> domain (via the ASF) and plans to use it for future promotion of the Apache
> OpenOffice project.
> The Apache OpenOffice project is still in incubation and has not yet
> requested graduation to a TLP.
> Thanks for your help with this.
>
> S.
>
>