You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> on 2012/06/24 05:31:54 UTC
Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"
Hi Nick,
I'm top posting because it is clear to me what is happening here:
(1) The Title of the AOO blog is "Apache OpenOffice (Incubating)"
(2) The Title of various blog entries includes the phrase "Apache OpenOffice", but not the phrase "Apache OpenOffice (incubating)".
I have the karma and will fix these blog entry titles except for the Japanese one, but I'm going to wait 24 hours.
Regards,
Dave
On Jun 23, 2012, at 12:03 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> @Nick,
>
> Ross offered to come to the AOOi PPMC to fix it. I'm not clear what the PPMC has to do with it.
>
> Specifically, @TheASF is not of AOOi PPMC origin. The question is, who is expected to do something about that and how is it to be communicated to them? Someone else is responsible for those tweets and their aggregation on the ASF home page.
>
> Also, you refer to a blog post by Rob Weir on his own site. It is true that Rob Weir is a member of the AOOi PPMC, but that blog site is not a product of the AOOi PPMC and its aggregation into Roller is no different than the aggregation of any Apache committer posts that a committer arranges to include in the feed picked-up by Roller. (I believe the PPMC did authorize that "Get it Here" image and link to be used by sites that wanted to promote the availability of the software. If there should have been greater formality before doing that, there are places to raise that specific problem.)
>
> My concern is how to determine what the infractions are that someone can do something about and also being clear who that someone is expected to be. The general claim just has us running around like headless chickens over on ooo-dev.
>
> - Dennis
>
> PS: I'm now in time-penalty and will check back anon.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Kew [mailto:niq@apache.org]
> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:38
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"
>
>
> On 23 Jun 2012, at 18:48, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> Nick, the AOOi project does not write those tweets from @TheASF and they are not under AOOi control.
>>
>> Are these and blog text occurrences the ones that attracted your attention or are there others?
>>
>> If you follow the links to the referenced blog posts you will see that the full term is used in the blog title. E.g., <https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache>.
>
> So what appears on www.apache.org doesn't matter?
>
> Nor what appears on planet.apache.org, featuring the article that first struck me
> as using the name in a way I wouldn't expect when I read it in my feed reader:
> http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/06/pache-openoffice-34-downloads.html
>
>> Would it have been sufficient to add it in the title of the individual post, and in the first mention in the opening paragraph?
>
> I should think so, but that's just me!
>
>> How many times do you require that the qualifier be used to satisfy the requirement for identifying incubation as the origin of a release, an announcement, etc?
>
> If the guidelines are unclear then maybe they need reviewing?
> I was just pointing out usage that seems at odds with my understanding
> of the incubator rules.
>
> If a blog gets aggregated, then readers will see what appears in their
> aggregator, as I did. That's without the context of the page title in your link!
>
> --
> Nick Kew
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:07 AM, RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/6/26 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>:
>> Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>> Wearing my IPMC and PPMC hats. I've changed blog entry titles. Sorry
>>> for our oversight (or lack). Thanks for yours.
>>
>>
>> Was it really necessary? In the meantime, Rob had edited the blog entries to
>> insert:
>>
>> (Apache OpenOffice is currently undergoing Incubation at the Apache Software
>> Foundation.)
>>
>> and this seems a good trade-off to me, much more than adding "(incubating)"
>> to the title, which will confuse users, especially non-native speakers (but
>> also native speakers won't always be able to guess what "incubating" means
>> in this context).
>>
>> Honestly, I'd be for linking "undergoing Incubation" (in the clauses Rob
>> added) to Don's post https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/what_is_a_podling or
>> some more official explanation, and removing "(incubating)" from the titles.
>>
>> This would give all interested parties the opportunity to discover what
>> "incubating" means, which is probably the rationale behind the rule to use
>> "(incubating)" everywhere, and at the same time would keep titles easily
>> readable.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
>
> Agree: a couple of days ago a new user on the Spanish forums said she
> was afraid to download 3.4 because she believed that "incubating" was
> a synonym of "beta software" or something like that... OK, that was an
> extreme reaction, but most people are confused by the "incubating"
> term.
>
So the nice thing about putting the reference in the body of the post
rather than the title is that you can link it to the Incubator
website, something you can't do in the title. So you can give it some
context.
-Rob
> Regards
> Ricardo
Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2012/6/26 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>:
> Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> Wearing my IPMC and PPMC hats. I've changed blog entry titles. Sorry
>> for our oversight (or lack). Thanks for yours.
>
>
> Was it really necessary? In the meantime, Rob had edited the blog entries to
> insert:
>
> (Apache OpenOffice is currently undergoing Incubation at the Apache Software
> Foundation.)
>
> and this seems a good trade-off to me, much more than adding "(incubating)"
> to the title, which will confuse users, especially non-native speakers (but
> also native speakers won't always be able to guess what "incubating" means
> in this context).
>
> Honestly, I'd be for linking "undergoing Incubation" (in the clauses Rob
> added) to Don's post https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/what_is_a_podling or
> some more official explanation, and removing "(incubating)" from the titles.
>
> This would give all interested parties the opportunity to discover what
> "incubating" means, which is probably the rationale behind the rule to use
> "(incubating)" everywhere, and at the same time would keep titles easily
> readable.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
Agree: a couple of days ago a new user on the Spanish forums said she
was afraid to download 3.4 because she believed that "incubating" was
a synonym of "beta software" or something like that... OK, that was an
extreme reaction, but most people are confused by the "incubating"
term.
Regards
Ricardo
Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
<jo...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> On 6/26/12 4:07 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> Dave Fisher wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Wearing my IPMC and PPMC hats. I've changed blog entry titles. Sorry
> >>> for our oversight (or lack). Thanks for yours.
> >>
> >>
> >> Was it really necessary? In the meantime, Rob had edited the blog
> entries to
> >> insert:
> >>
> >> (Apache OpenOffice is currently undergoing Incubation at the Apache
> Software
> >> Foundation.)
> >>
> >> and this seems a good trade-off to me, much more than adding
> "(incubating)"
> >> to the title, which will confuse users, especially non-native speakers
> (but
> >> also native speakers won't always be able to guess what "incubating"
> means
> >> in this context).
> >>
> >
> > +1.
> >
> > In fact, if you look at the IPMC's requirements for this, they are
> > here: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
> >
> > "Naming
> >
> > After a podling has been approved, the lists are created, and the
> > initial code drop has commenced, the podling MUST be referred to as
> > Apache "Podling-Name" AND mention that the project is under
> > Incubation. Suitable mentions include:
> >
> > -- Inclusion of the http://incubator.apache.org/"podling-name" URL
> > --- Apache "Podling-Name" is currently undergoing Incubation at the
> > Apache Software Foundation.
> >
> > Other references may only be used upon prior approval by the Incubator
> > PMC. These statements only need to be disclosed upon the first
> > reference in a document."
> >
> > Note that two incubation-disclaimers are given, and that neither one
> > of them are what Dave did.
>
> I am wondering as well and I agree that it was somewhat superfluous. But
> we shouldn't stress it any longer and should focus on the right actions
> forward to graduate.
>
> I think that is the best thing we can do... I personally don't have
> interest in any further teaching lesson.
>
> Juergen
>
OK, I think some of the confusion comes from a previous OK of referring to
the product as "Apache OpenOffice (TM)" vs the project -- Apache OpenOffice
(incubating).
see ref on the former at:
http://markmail.org/message/tnufz5cnoueh57ci
with a later follow-up that this "internal" TM would at some point become
"registered" when Apache OpenOffice (incubating) graduated -- normally TM
registrations only occur on top level projects.
Oddly, despite the fact that we refer to the "product" as just Apache
OpenOffice, I remember some discussion and the final outcome that the
packages are named with "incubating" as part of the name.
Yeah, very confusing to say the least...
>
> >
> >> Honestly, I'd be for linking "undergoing Incubation" (in the clauses Rob
> >> added) to Don's post
> https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/what_is_a_podling or
> >> some more official explanation, and removing "(incubating)" from the
> titles.
> >>
> >> This would give all interested parties the opportunity to discover what
> >> "incubating" means, which is probably the rationale behind the rule to
> use
> >> "(incubating)" everywhere, and at the same time would keep titles easily
> >> readable.
> >>
> >
> > +1
> >
> > One issue, I think, is that users have no idea what "(incubating)"
> > means. I had one user write me and joke about aliens in pods. We
> > shouldn't be leading with out-of-context internal Apache process
> > jargon. Perhaps that is why the Podling Branding Guide makes the
> > suggestions it does, and which I had already made to the post.
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >> Regards,
> >> Andrea.
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"I would rather have a donkey that takes me there
than a horse that will not fare."
-- Portuguese proverb
Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 6/26/12 4:07 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>> Wearing my IPMC and PPMC hats. I've changed blog entry titles. Sorry
>>> for our oversight (or lack). Thanks for yours.
>>
>>
>> Was it really necessary? In the meantime, Rob had edited the blog entries to
>> insert:
>>
>> (Apache OpenOffice is currently undergoing Incubation at the Apache Software
>> Foundation.)
>>
>> and this seems a good trade-off to me, much more than adding "(incubating)"
>> to the title, which will confuse users, especially non-native speakers (but
>> also native speakers won't always be able to guess what "incubating" means
>> in this context).
>>
>
> +1.
>
> In fact, if you look at the IPMC's requirements for this, they are
> here: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
>
> "Naming
>
> After a podling has been approved, the lists are created, and the
> initial code drop has commenced, the podling MUST be referred to as
> Apache "Podling-Name" AND mention that the project is under
> Incubation. Suitable mentions include:
>
> -- Inclusion of the http://incubator.apache.org/"podling-name" URL
> --- Apache "Podling-Name" is currently undergoing Incubation at the
> Apache Software Foundation.
>
> Other references may only be used upon prior approval by the Incubator
> PMC. These statements only need to be disclosed upon the first
> reference in a document."
>
> Note that two incubation-disclaimers are given, and that neither one
> of them are what Dave did.
I am wondering as well and I agree that it was somewhat superfluous. But
we shouldn't stress it any longer and should focus on the right actions
forward to graduate.
I think that is the best thing we can do... I personally don't have
interest in any further teaching lesson.
Juergen
>
>> Honestly, I'd be for linking "undergoing Incubation" (in the clauses Rob
>> added) to Don's post https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/what_is_a_podling or
>> some more official explanation, and removing "(incubating)" from the titles.
>>
>> This would give all interested parties the opportunity to discover what
>> "incubating" means, which is probably the rationale behind the rule to use
>> "(incubating)" everywhere, and at the same time would keep titles easily
>> readable.
>>
>
> +1
>
> One issue, I think, is that users have no idea what "(incubating)"
> means. I had one user write me and joke about aliens in pods. We
> shouldn't be leading with out-of-context internal Apache process
> jargon. Perhaps that is why the Podling Branding Guide makes the
> suggestions it does, and which I had already made to the post.
>
> -Rob
>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> Wearing my IPMC and PPMC hats. I've changed blog entry titles. Sorry
>> for our oversight (or lack). Thanks for yours.
>
>
> Was it really necessary? In the meantime, Rob had edited the blog entries to
> insert:
>
> (Apache OpenOffice is currently undergoing Incubation at the Apache Software
> Foundation.)
>
> and this seems a good trade-off to me, much more than adding "(incubating)"
> to the title, which will confuse users, especially non-native speakers (but
> also native speakers won't always be able to guess what "incubating" means
> in this context).
>
+1.
In fact, if you look at the IPMC's requirements for this, they are
here: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
"Naming
After a podling has been approved, the lists are created, and the
initial code drop has commenced, the podling MUST be referred to as
Apache "Podling-Name" AND mention that the project is under
Incubation. Suitable mentions include:
-- Inclusion of the http://incubator.apache.org/"podling-name" URL
--- Apache "Podling-Name" is currently undergoing Incubation at the
Apache Software Foundation.
Other references may only be used upon prior approval by the Incubator
PMC. These statements only need to be disclosed upon the first
reference in a document."
Note that two incubation-disclaimers are given, and that neither one
of them are what Dave did.
> Honestly, I'd be for linking "undergoing Incubation" (in the clauses Rob
> added) to Don's post https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/what_is_a_podling or
> some more official explanation, and removing "(incubating)" from the titles.
>
> This would give all interested parties the opportunity to discover what
> "incubating" means, which is probably the rationale behind the rule to use
> "(incubating)" everywhere, and at the same time would keep titles easily
> readable.
>
+1
One issue, I think, is that users have no idea what "(incubating)"
means. I had one user write me and joke about aliens in pods. We
shouldn't be leading with out-of-context internal Apache process
jargon. Perhaps that is why the Podling Branding Guide makes the
suggestions it does, and which I had already made to the post.
-Rob
> Regards,
> Andrea.
Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Dave Fisher wrote:
> Wearing my IPMC and PPMC hats. I've changed blog entry titles. Sorry
> for our oversight (or lack). Thanks for yours.
Was it really necessary? In the meantime, Rob had edited the blog
entries to insert:
(Apache OpenOffice is currently undergoing Incubation at the Apache
Software Foundation.)
and this seems a good trade-off to me, much more than adding
"(incubating)" to the title, which will confuse users, especially
non-native speakers (but also native speakers won't always be able to
guess what "incubating" means in this context).
Honestly, I'd be for linking "undergoing Incubation" (in the clauses Rob
added) to Don's post
https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/what_is_a_podling or some more
official explanation, and removing "(incubating)" from the titles.
This would give all interested parties the opportunity to discover what
"incubating" means, which is probably the rationale behind the rule to
use "(incubating)" everywhere, and at the same time would keep titles
easily readable.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi -
On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:31 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> I'm top posting because it is clear to me what is happening here:
>
> (1) The Title of the AOO blog is "Apache OpenOffice (Incubating)"
>
> (2) The Title of various blog entries includes the phrase "Apache OpenOffice", but not the phrase "Apache OpenOffice (incubating)".
>
> I have the karma and will fix these blog entry titles except for the Japanese one, but I'm going to wait 24 hours.
Wearing my IPMC and PPMC hats. I've changed blog entry titles. Sorry for our oversight (or lack). Thanks for yours.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Jun 23, 2012, at 12:03 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> @Nick,
>>
>> Ross offered to come to the AOOi PPMC to fix it. I'm not clear what the PPMC has to do with it.
>>
>> Specifically, @TheASF is not of AOOi PPMC origin. The question is, who is expected to do something about that and how is it to be communicated to them? Someone else is responsible for those tweets and their aggregation on the ASF home page.
>>
>> Also, you refer to a blog post by Rob Weir on his own site. It is true that Rob Weir is a member of the AOOi PPMC, but that blog site is not a product of the AOOi PPMC and its aggregation into Roller is no different than the aggregation of any Apache committer posts that a committer arranges to include in the feed picked-up by Roller. (I believe the PPMC did authorize that "Get it Here" image and link to be used by sites that wanted to promote the availability of the software. If there should have been greater formality before doing that, there are places to raise that specific problem.)
>>
>> My concern is how to determine what the infractions are that someone can do something about and also being clear who that someone is expected to be. The general claim just has us running around like headless chickens over on ooo-dev.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> PS: I'm now in time-penalty and will check back anon.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nick Kew [mailto:niq@apache.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:38
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"
>>
>>
>> On 23 Jun 2012, at 18:48, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> Nick, the AOOi project does not write those tweets from @TheASF and they are not under AOOi control.
>>>
>>> Are these and blog text occurrences the ones that attracted your attention or are there others?
>>>
>>> If you follow the links to the referenced blog posts you will see that the full term is used in the blog title. E.g., <https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache>.
>>
>> So what appears on www.apache.org doesn't matter?
>>
>> Nor what appears on planet.apache.org, featuring the article that first struck me
>> as using the name in a way I wouldn't expect when I read it in my feed reader:
>> http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/06/pache-openoffice-34-downloads.html
>>
>>> Would it have been sufficient to add it in the title of the individual post, and in the first mention in the opening paragraph?
>>
>> I should think so, but that's just me!
>>
>>> How many times do you require that the qualifier be used to satisfy the requirement for identifying incubation as the origin of a release, an announcement, etc?
>>
>> If the guidelines are unclear then maybe they need reviewing?
>> I was just pointing out usage that seems at odds with my understanding
>> of the incubator rules.
>>
>> If a blog gets aggregated, then readers will see what appears in their
>> aggregator, as I did. That's without the context of the page title in your link!
>>
>> --
>> Nick Kew
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi -
On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:31 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> I'm top posting because it is clear to me what is happening here:
>
> (1) The Title of the AOO blog is "Apache OpenOffice (Incubating)"
>
> (2) The Title of various blog entries includes the phrase "Apache OpenOffice", but not the phrase "Apache OpenOffice (incubating)".
>
> I have the karma and will fix these blog entry titles except for the Japanese one, but I'm going to wait 24 hours.
Wearing my IPMC and PPMC hats. I've changed blog entry titles. Sorry for our oversight (or lack). Thanks for yours.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Jun 23, 2012, at 12:03 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> @Nick,
>>
>> Ross offered to come to the AOOi PPMC to fix it. I'm not clear what the PPMC has to do with it.
>>
>> Specifically, @TheASF is not of AOOi PPMC origin. The question is, who is expected to do something about that and how is it to be communicated to them? Someone else is responsible for those tweets and their aggregation on the ASF home page.
>>
>> Also, you refer to a blog post by Rob Weir on his own site. It is true that Rob Weir is a member of the AOOi PPMC, but that blog site is not a product of the AOOi PPMC and its aggregation into Roller is no different than the aggregation of any Apache committer posts that a committer arranges to include in the feed picked-up by Roller. (I believe the PPMC did authorize that "Get it Here" image and link to be used by sites that wanted to promote the availability of the software. If there should have been greater formality before doing that, there are places to raise that specific problem.)
>>
>> My concern is how to determine what the infractions are that someone can do something about and also being clear who that someone is expected to be. The general claim just has us running around like headless chickens over on ooo-dev.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> PS: I'm now in time-penalty and will check back anon.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nick Kew [mailto:niq@apache.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:38
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"
>>
>>
>> On 23 Jun 2012, at 18:48, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> Nick, the AOOi project does not write those tweets from @TheASF and they are not under AOOi control.
>>>
>>> Are these and blog text occurrences the ones that attracted your attention or are there others?
>>>
>>> If you follow the links to the referenced blog posts you will see that the full term is used in the blog title. E.g., <https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache>.
>>
>> So what appears on www.apache.org doesn't matter?
>>
>> Nor what appears on planet.apache.org, featuring the article that first struck me
>> as using the name in a way I wouldn't expect when I read it in my feed reader:
>> http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/06/pache-openoffice-34-downloads.html
>>
>>> Would it have been sufficient to add it in the title of the individual post, and in the first mention in the opening paragraph?
>>
>> I should think so, but that's just me!
>>
>>> How many times do you require that the qualifier be used to satisfy the requirement for identifying incubation as the origin of a release, an announcement, etc?
>>
>> If the guidelines are unclear then maybe they need reviewing?
>> I was just pointing out usage that seems at odds with my understanding
>> of the incubator rules.
>>
>> If a blog gets aggregated, then readers will see what appears in their
>> aggregator, as I did. That's without the context of the page title in your link!
>>
>> --
>> Nick Kew
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org