You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org> on 2016/09/01 23:37:00 UTC
[DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look like.
A. PERSPECTIVE
B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
1. Code Base
2. Downloads
3. Development Support
4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
5. Social Media Presence
6. Project Management Committee
7. Branding
A. PERSPECTIVE
I have regularly observed that the Apache OpenOffice project has limited capacity for sustaining the project in an energetic manner. It is also my considered opinion that there is no ready supply of developers who have the capacity, capability, and will to supplement the roughly half-dozen volunteers holding the project together. It doesn't matter what the reasons for that might be.
The Apache Project Maturity Model,
<http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html>, identifies the characteristics for which an Apache project is expected to strive.
Recently, some elements have been brought into serious question:
QU20: The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software.
QU50: The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a timely manner.
There is also a litmus test which is kind of a red line. That is for the project to have a PMC capable of producing releases. That means that there are at least three available PMC members capable of building a functioning binary from a release-candidate archive, and who do so in providing binding votes to approve the release of that code.
In the case of Apache OpenOffice, needing to disclose security vulnerabilities for which there is no mitigation in an update has become a serious issue.
In responses to concerns raised in June, the PMC is currently tasked by the ASF Board to account for this inability and to provide a remedy. An indicator of the seriousness of the Board's concern is the PMC been requested to report to the Board every month, starting in August, rather than quarterly, the normal case. One option for remedy that must be considered is retirement of the project. The request is for the PMC's consideration among other possible options. The Board has not ordered a solution.
I cannot prediction how this will all work out. It is remiss of me not to point out that retirement of the project is a serious possibility.
There are those who fear that discussing retirement can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. My concern is that the project could end with a bang or a whimper. My interest is in seeing any retirement happen gracefully. That means we need to consider it as a contingency. For contingency plans, no time is a good time, but earlier is always better than later.
B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
Here is a provisional list of all elements that would have to be addressed, over a period of time, as part of any retirement effort.
In order to understand what would have had to happen in a graceful process, the assumption below is that the project has already retired.
Requests for additions and adjustments to this compilation are welcome.
1. CODE BASE
1.1 The Apache OpenOffice Subversion repository where code is maintained has been moved to "The Attic." Apache Attic is an actual project, <http://attic.apache.org/>. The source code would remain
available and could be checked-out from Subversion by anyone interested in making use of it. There is no means of committing changes.
1.2 Apache Externals/Extras consists of external libraries that are relied upon by the source code but are not part of the source code. These were housed on SourceForge and elsewhere. (a) They might have been archived in conjunction with the SVN (1.1). (b) They might be identified in a way that someone attempting to build from source later on would be able to work with later versions of the external dependencies. There are additional external dependencies that might have become obsolete.
1.3 Build Dependencies/Tool Chains. The actual construction of the released binaries depends on particular versions of specific tools that are used for carrying out builds of binaries from the source. The dependencies as they last were used are identified in a historical location. Some of the tools and their use become obsolete over time.
1.4 GitHub Mirror. For the GitHub Mirror of the Apache OpenOffice SVN (a) pull requests are not accepted. (b) Continuation of the presence of the GitHub repository might be shut down at some point depending on GitHub policy and ASF support.
2. DOWNLOADS
2.1 The source code releases, patches, and installable binaries are all retained in the archive system that is already maintained. There are no further additions.
2.2 The downloading of full releases is supported on the SourceForge mirroring system. There are no new downloads. How long until SourceForge retires its support for downloads is not predictable (and see 4.3).
2.3 The Apache OpenOffice Extensions and Templates system is an independent arrangement hosted and curated on SourceForge. Whether and how long the download service is preserved by SourceForge is not predictable.
2.4 The mechanism for announcing updates to installed versions of OpenOffice binaries is adjusted to indicate that (a) particular versions are no longer supported. (b) For the latest distribution(s), there may be advice to users about investigating still-supported alternatives.
3. DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT
3.1 The Apache OpenOffice Bugzilla is mirrored in The Attic. The Bugzilla is read-only and preserved for historical purposes.
3.2 The Pootle materials used for the development of localizations are exported and archived.
3.3 The Confluence Wiki operated by the project is preserved in a read-only state:<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/>.
3.4 The commits@ and issues@ mailing lists are shut down although archived.
4. PUBLIC PROJECT-COMMUNITY INTERFACES
4.1 All public discussion mailing lists are shut down. They are all archived and accessible from The Attic.
4.2 The dev@ list was the last to shut down, having been used during orchestration of the retirement.
4.3 The http://openoffice.org site is static and uneditable. The CMS functions for contribution to the site are disabled. Over the course of retirement, key pages of the site were updated to reflect the retirement activity and to eventually end some of the functions, such as information on how to contribute, how to obtain the software, how to obtain help, branding requirements, etc.
4.4 The Wikimedia subsite of openoffice.org is read-only and static. No contributions or edits can be made. At some point, the Wikimedia server will need to be shut down and (a) the server is shutdown/moved with openoffice.org indicating that the wiki is unavailable. (b) Only a static form of the pages is provided. (c) Alternative hosting and rebranding is achieved.
4.5 The OpenOffice Community Forums were semi-autonomous. (a) The server is retired. (b) The site is rehosted and rebranded by agreement with the Apache OpenOffice project and the ASF.
5. SOCIAL MEDIA PRESENCE
5.1 The Apache Planet OpenOffice Blog is terminated with the announcement that Retirement is complete.
5.2 The Twitter account is terminated.
5.3 Any Facebook page under control of the project is closed.
5.4 The announce@ list is terminated and archived with the announcement of Retirement completion.
6. PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
6.1 With completion of the retirement, the private@ and security@ openoffice.org lists were shutdown (although archived as are all such lists).
6.2 The Project Management Committee is disbanded and the Chair is relieved.
6.3 There is no longer any identified operation for continuation of the project except as specified for The Attic.
7. BRANDING
7.1 With the cessation of releases, it is made widely known that official releases other than the last ones provided by the project are not the work of Apache OpenOffice and any claimed association, justification for charge of fees and for carrying of advertising are not in support of the Apache OpenOffice project. This notification will also be made to those organizations that carry offerings to the contrary (e.g., eBay).
7.2 There is no point of contact, other than branding@ apache.org, for request to make use of the brands.
7.3 There is no active attention to preservation of the trademarks related to Apache OpenOffice. (a) Inappropriate use of Apache and its symbols in names of offerings will be defended when brought to the attention of branding@. (b) Uses of OpenOffice, Open Office, openoffice.org and other similarities without attribution to Apache are not addressed.
*** end of the list as of 2016-09-01 ***
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
It appears to me that what "we" should do is to create a blog
entry on blogs.a.o which provides more depth and detail in
this whole kerfluffle. It could contain WHY the original [DISCUSS]
thread was sent, that it was, in fact, a [DISCUSS] and basically
to initiate some *thought* and not any sort of admission that
AOO is dead or dieing (my follow-up may have not helped there,
but it was the basis for why the board wanted answers), clear
up some history and FUD which has been spread and summarize that
this awareness has resulted in lots and lots of people coming to
AOO and offering their help and talents.
Personally, I'd also like to see us "apologize" for allowing
Rob Weir to go off a little "extreme" in numerous cases. Again,
I doubt that anyone on the TDF/LO side would do the same, and admit
their "overzealousness" at times (to the detriment of cooperation),
but just because others don't do what they should is no reason for
us to not to. If "apologize" is too strong, at least honestly
acknowledge it.
I understand that the previous paragraph may be controversial so
take it or leave it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Simos Xenitellis <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> WARNING. The ApacheOpenOffice. Org site described in this exchange is a malicious site. DO NOT INVESTIGATE.
>
The malicious website has the Google AdWords UA ID "UA-19309218-3".
That ID is also used in the following websites,
http://pub-db.com/google-analytics/UA-19309218.html
Simos
> - Dennis
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Thomas [mailto:markt@apache.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 02:08
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>>
>> On 2016-09-06 17:06 (+0100), Simos Xenitellis
>> <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just responding to these specific bits with my Apache Brand Management
>> Committee member hat on.
>>
>> > which claims that the Apache Foundation has the Apache OpenOfficeâ„¢
>> and
>> > OpenOffice.org®.
>> > However, my search at the US Trademark database does not show an
>> > "Apache OpenOffice" registered trademark.
>>
>> Which is as expected. Note the TM. That denotes that "Apache OpenOffice"
>> is a trademark, just not a registered one. It is a gross simplification
>> but, for the ASF, it makes little/no difference to our rights whether it
>> is registered or not. Registration does make it easier to enforce
>> compliance should the trademark be infringed.
>>
>> > It does show a live trademark for the old "OpenOffice.org" and also
>> > for "LibreOffice" (for The Document Foundation).
>> > But no "Apache OpenOffice".
>> > Anyone can file for a trademark for "Apache OpenOffice", as they have
>> > done already with the domain "ApacheOpenOffice.org".
>>
>> If someone other than the ASF tried to register "Apache OpenOffice" as a
>> trademark we would oppose that registration and I am very confident we
>> would be successful.
>>
>> Domain registration is not trademark registration.
>>
>> The registration of ApacheOpenOffice.org looks to be abusive. The Apache
>> OpenOffice PMC has some options for dealing with that. How they wish to
>> proceed is a decision for them. Note that such issues are generally
>> dealt with in private, not public, so you are unlikely to see a
>> discussion about what to do about this specific issue on a public ASF
>> mailing list.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
WARNING. The ApacheOpenOffice. Org site described in this exchange is a malicious site. DO NOT INVESTIGATE.
- Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Thomas [mailto:markt@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 02:08
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>
> On 2016-09-06 17:06 (+0100), Simos Xenitellis
> <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Just responding to these specific bits with my Apache Brand Management
> Committee member hat on.
>
> > which claims that the Apache Foundation has the Apache OpenOfficeâ„¢
> and
> > OpenOffice.org®.
> > However, my search at the US Trademark database does not show an
> > "Apache OpenOffice" registered trademark.
>
> Which is as expected. Note the TM. That denotes that "Apache OpenOffice"
> is a trademark, just not a registered one. It is a gross simplification
> but, for the ASF, it makes little/no difference to our rights whether it
> is registered or not. Registration does make it easier to enforce
> compliance should the trademark be infringed.
>
> > It does show a live trademark for the old "OpenOffice.org" and also
> > for "LibreOffice" (for The Document Foundation).
> > But no "Apache OpenOffice".
> > Anyone can file for a trademark for "Apache OpenOffice", as they have
> > done already with the domain "ApacheOpenOffice.org".
>
> If someone other than the ASF tried to register "Apache OpenOffice" as a
> trademark we would oppose that registration and I am very confident we
> would be successful.
>
> Domain registration is not trademark registration.
>
> The registration of ApacheOpenOffice.org looks to be abusive. The Apache
> OpenOffice PMC has some options for dealing with that. How they wish to
> proceed is a decision for them. Note that such issues are generally
> dealt with in private, not public, so you are unlikely to see a
> discussion about what to do about this specific issue on a public ASF
> mailing list.
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 2016-09-06 17:06 (+0100), Simos Xenitellis <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Just responding to these specific bits with my Apache Brand Management Committee member hat on.
> which claims that the Apache Foundation has the Apache OpenOffice\u2122 and
> OpenOffice.org®.
> However, my search at the US Trademark database does not show an
> "Apache OpenOffice" registered trademark.
Which is as expected. Note the TM. That denotes that "Apache OpenOffice" is a trademark, just not a registered one. It is a gross simplification but, for the ASF, it makes little/no difference to our rights whether it is registered or not. Registration does make it easier to enforce compliance should the trademark be infringed.
> It does show a live trademark for the old "OpenOffice.org" and also
> for "LibreOffice" (for The Document Foundation).
> But no "Apache OpenOffice".
> Anyone can file for a trademark for "Apache OpenOffice", as they have
> done already with the domain "ApacheOpenOffice.org".
If someone other than the ASF tried to register "Apache OpenOffice" as a trademark we would oppose that registration and I am very confident we would be successful.
Domain registration is not trademark registration.
The registration of ApacheOpenOffice.org looks to be abusive. The Apache OpenOffice PMC has some options for dealing with that. How they wish to proceed is a decision for them. Note that such issues are generally dealt with in private, not public, so you are unlikely to see a discussion about what to do about this specific issue on a public ASF mailing list.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Simos Xenitellis <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> As different "technical press" outlets make their own derivations of other articles, there is incorrect quotation and reference to historical matters that have nothing to do with the present state and how we move forward.
>
> For me, the LWN and ArsTechnica coverage is relatively fact-based. Now, there are some others that tend to be more responsible with regard to journalism:
>
> * PCWorld <http://www.pcworld.com/article/3116445/open-source-tools/openoffice-coders-debate-retiring-the-project.html>.
>
> * ZDNet, on the other hand, is lazily derivative by borrowing on other articles. It also shows ignorance of how Apache projects operate when it mentions "lack of funding." and perpetuates the idea that Microsoft Office or LibreOffice be switched to in the CVE advisory. The statement about other products was for testing dodgy Impress documents that users might be concerned about. In any case, now that there is a hotfix, Version 2.0 of the advisory does not need to address that. <http://www.zdnet.com/article/onetime-ms-office-challenger-openoffice-we-may-shut-down-due-to-dwindling-support/>.
>
A common mistake with all articles (well, apart from the LWN one) is
that they use the plain "OpenOffice" name to describe what is
officially "Apache OpenOffice".
AFAIK, the project does not have a trademark on "OpenOffice", but does
on "Apache OpenOffice".
The main website, at http://www.openoffice.org/, is a mix of "Apache
OpenOffice" and plain "OpenOffice" which is confusing.
I checked the documentation at http://openoffice.apache.org/trademarks.html
which claims that the Apache Foundation has the Apache OpenOffice™ and
OpenOffice.org®.
However, my search at the US Trademark database does not show an
"Apache OpenOffice" registered trademark.
It does show a live trademark for the old "OpenOffice.org" and also
for "LibreOffice" (for The Document Foundation).
But no "Apache OpenOffice".
Anyone can file for a trademark for "Apache OpenOffice", as they have
done already with the domain "ApacheOpenOffice.org".
Simos
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
As different "technical press" outlets make their own derivations of other articles, there is incorrect quotation and reference to historical matters that have nothing to do with the present state and how we move forward.
For me, the LWN and ArsTechnica coverage is relatively fact-based. Now, there are some others that tend to be more responsible with regard to journalism:
* PCWorld <http://www.pcworld.com/article/3116445/open-source-tools/openoffice-coders-debate-retiring-the-project.html>.
* ZDNet, on the other hand, is lazily derivative by borrowing on other articles. It also shows ignorance of how Apache projects operate when it mentions "lack of funding." and perpetuates the idea that Microsoft Office or LibreOffice be switched to in the CVE advisory. The statement about other products was for testing dodgy Impress documents that users might be concerned about. In any case, now that there is a hotfix, Version 2.0 of the advisory does not need to address that. <http://www.zdnet.com/article/onetime-ms-office-challenger-openoffice-we-may-shut-down-due-to-dwindling-support/>.
Finally, this discussion is not a zero-sum game. Striving to expand development coverage and address the need to be able to make timely maintenance updates for dangerous defects, including security vulnerabilities are all important. This [DISCUSS] is about anticipating all of the stages and moving parts to address as part of any graceful retirement. That there is also inspiration of non-retirement alternatives is very useful and the rush to address that is heartening. But all paths are contingent on having the capacity to act and adequate expert capabilities. If retirement is the direction taken, that must also be while there is the capacity to carry it out.
It is also important to understand that this public list is *the* place to address all of that. It is how the Apache Software Foundation provides transparency and embraces its community in developing its technical approaches, always striving to serve the public interest as required in its Charter. Being suppressed by worries of outside scrutiny and adversarial articles and responses is not something that should dissuade us. Problems have to be faced bravely and openly.
- Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 10:40
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>
> And here's another:
> <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/openoffice-after-
> years-of-neglect-could-shut-down/>.
>
> This one is also rather straightforward, using this list for its
> sources.
>
> I looked through the comments. There is nothing that we haven't seen
> before.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
> > Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 08:05
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve?
> (long)
> >
> > Also, <http://lwn.net/Articles/699047/>.
> >
> > The article itself is very straightforward. The comments wander
> around
> > all over the place with the usual pontifications about corporate
> > influence, etc.
> >
> > An important point is made, by the way, over how it is that
> LibreOffice
> > deployment is far easier than that for AOO, and also much improved.
> >
> > - Dennios
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: RA Stehmann [mailto:anwalt@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
> > > Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 04:01
> > > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve?
> > (long)
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > our discussion became public:
> > >
> > > http://www.linux-magazin.de/content/view/full/106599
> > >
> > > This shows a public interest. So "going public" seems not to
> > difficult.
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
And here's another:
<http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/openoffice-after-years-of-neglect-could-shut-down/>.
This one is also rather straightforward, using this list for its sources.
I looked through the comments. There is nothing that we haven't seen before.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 08:05
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>
> Also, <http://lwn.net/Articles/699047/>.
>
> The article itself is very straightforward. The comments wander around
> all over the place with the usual pontifications about corporate
> influence, etc.
>
> An important point is made, by the way, over how it is that LibreOffice
> deployment is far easier than that for AOO, and also much improved.
>
> - Dennios
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: RA Stehmann [mailto:anwalt@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
> > Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 04:01
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve?
> (long)
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > our discussion became public:
> >
> > http://www.linux-magazin.de/content/view/full/106599
> >
> > This shows a public interest. So "going public" seems not to
> difficult.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Michael
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Also, <http://lwn.net/Articles/699047/>.
The article itself is very straightforward. The comments wander around all over the place with the usual pontifications about corporate influence, etc.
An important point is made, by the way, over how it is that LibreOffice deployment is far easier than that for AOO, and also much improved.
- Dennios
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RA Stehmann [mailto:anwalt@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 04:01
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>
> Hello,
>
> our discussion became public:
>
> http://www.linux-magazin.de/content/view/full/106599
>
> This shows a public interest. So "going public" seems not to difficult.
>
> Kind regards
> Michael
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Hello,
our discussion became public:
http://www.linux-magazin.de/content/view/full/106599
This shows a public interest. So "going public" seems not to difficult.
Kind regards
Michael
Re: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Dave Brondsema <da...@brondsema.net>.
On 9/2/16 6:45 AM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
> Quick top note: to avoid multiple mails I'll comment this and the others
> messages here.
>
> First, I totally agree with Andrea, let's focus on what needs to be done,
> it's inappropriate at best to discuss anything related to the shutdown at
> this time. Yet if someone enjoys the exercise of style that's ok, but
> please don't ask people doing the work to stop doing the right thing for
> engaging in this game. Enough said.
>
> Second, as Michael says we need more developers. When I was at SourceForge
> we have been often able to help projects here and there to find more
> developers, I'm confident Dave Brondsema (Apache Allura VP) can help us to
> get one or more calls out via forums, blog and newsletters.
Dave here, Allura VP and employee at SourceForge.
I'm available as a direct contact if anyone wants to reach out to SourceForge
about what we help out with now, or anything else, e.g. like Roberto mentions
putting the word out for recruiting.
Regarding 2.2 and 2.3 from Dennis' email, SourceForge will be glad to keep
hosting the downloads and extensions & templates websites. We should be able to
help out with basic Drupal maintenance like upgrades for the Extensions and
Templates sites, too.
>
> On the same line we could ask some help to get the news out via Slashdot, I
> guess at the end of the day after all the blame it would be a news to let
> people know the community is still there, and some how growing. As far as
> we're ok with the Slashdot style of communication, we would probably have
> good chance to be covered.
Slashdot too, I can get people in touch with, if there's a good story to submit
there.
>
>
> On Friday, 2 September 2016, J�rg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>>> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anwalt@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de
>> <javascript:;>]
>>
>>> the situation as I see it (I am no developer) is, that we need
>>> "developers, developers, developers, developers ... ".
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> This is not wrong, but ...
>>
>> Developers will participate primarily in projects which remain publicly
>> well.
>>
>> If we look at LibreOffice and compare:
>> LibreOffice, that is *good* (not more) software and *excellent* public
>> relations.
>> OpenOffice, that is *exellent* software and *pretty bad* public relations.
>>
>> We need to understand evaluate software as the normal user: their first
>> scale is essential to public presentation of a software, and only
>> secondarily the purely technical characteristics of a software.
>>
>> We need to understand the difference between a software such as the Apache
>> Webserver https://httpd.apache.org/ (a software for experts) and
>> OpenOffice (a software for end users).
>>
>>
>> The problem of AOO is a Specific:
>>
>> many people who have worked for OOo (.org!) done their way and OOo has
>> accepted the results and the work integrated into the project.
>>
>> The operation of Apache is too formalistic for such people, for example,
>> for the local German community of OpenOffice. At the time of OpenOffice.org
>> many helpers did their part, because there were few organizational hurdles.
>>
>> Example:
>> I have been working for many years for the PrOOo-box (
>> http://www.prooo-box.org), at the very beginning was that a purely
>> private project, BUT it was always a project to support OpenOffice.
>> The community of OOo has recognized this and has the PrOOo-box as part of
>> OpenOffice accepted (more precisely, as part of the German community of OO).
>>
>> In Apache, however we are only "third-party". No question, the
>> classification as "third-party" is formally correct, because it conforms to
>> the rules of Apache, but it inhibits the practical work.
>>
>> *It is urgently needed to give local communities more autonomy, which
>> would forward the work.*
>>
>>
>> Let me say for my own:
>> I work more than 10 years for OpenOffice (.org and Apache) and I am all
>> the time loyal to OpenOffice. I am now a committer of Apache, and of course
>> I respect the rules of Apache ... BUT in practice, there are task where you
>> have to act, and it is not always time to comply with formalities.
>>
>> example:
>> Last month, the PrOOo-box was published in a large German IT magazine [1].
>> This was a great success for the PrOOo-box. I would have preferred if it
>> had been a success for OpenOffice.
>>
>> What i mean?
>> We (the german community, and all local communities) need the opportunity
>> to speak locally for OpenOffice. It is undisputed that this must be
>> coordinated with the international Apache OpenOffice community, but this
>> coordination can only be done in the form of a frame, not for every single
>> little action, because we have no time for the coordination of every detail.
>
>
>> Having been part of OOo in the old times I remember well the local
>> chapters, wonder if that would really collide with the Apache way, though.
>> Speak locally not only should be possible, but also praised. I understand
>> the "third party" thing might be more complex to handle, still we could
>> evalute on a case by case basis what we could do. Even if it takes time,
>> maybe it's not a waste of it.
>
>
>> Roberto
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Greetings
>> J�rg
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://www.idgshop.de/PC-WELT-Plus-09-2016.htm?
>> websale8=idg&pi=1-6058&ci=2-5278
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> <javascript:;>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> <javascript:;>
>>
>>
>
--
Dave Brondsema : dave@brondsema.net
http://www.brondsema.net : personal
http://www.splike.com : programming
<><
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
Quick top note: to avoid multiple mails I'll comment this and the others
messages here.
First, I totally agree with Andrea, let's focus on what needs to be done,
it's inappropriate at best to discuss anything related to the shutdown at
this time. Yet if someone enjoys the exercise of style that's ok, but
please don't ask people doing the work to stop doing the right thing for
engaging in this game. Enough said.
Second, as Michael says we need more developers. When I was at SourceForge
we have been often able to help projects here and there to find more
developers, I'm confident Dave Brondsema (Apache Allura VP) can help us to
get one or more calls out via forums, blog and newsletters.
On the same line we could ask some help to get the news out via Slashdot, I
guess at the end of the day after all the blame it would be a news to let
people know the community is still there, and some how growing. As far as
we're ok with the Slashdot style of communication, we would probably have
good chance to be covered.
On Friday, 2 September 2016, Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anwalt@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de
> <javascript:;>]
>
> > the situation as I see it (I am no developer) is, that we need
> > "developers, developers, developers, developers ... ".
>
> > [...]
>
> This is not wrong, but ...
>
> Developers will participate primarily in projects which remain publicly
> well.
>
> If we look at LibreOffice and compare:
> LibreOffice, that is *good* (not more) software and *excellent* public
> relations.
> OpenOffice, that is *exellent* software and *pretty bad* public relations.
>
> We need to understand evaluate software as the normal user: their first
> scale is essential to public presentation of a software, and only
> secondarily the purely technical characteristics of a software.
>
> We need to understand the difference between a software such as the Apache
> Webserver https://httpd.apache.org/ (a software for experts) and
> OpenOffice (a software for end users).
>
>
> The problem of AOO is a Specific:
>
> many people who have worked for OOo (.org!) done their way and OOo has
> accepted the results and the work integrated into the project.
>
> The operation of Apache is too formalistic for such people, for example,
> for the local German community of OpenOffice. At the time of OpenOffice.org
> many helpers did their part, because there were few organizational hurdles.
>
> Example:
> I have been working for many years for the PrOOo-box (
> http://www.prooo-box.org), at the very beginning was that a purely
> private project, BUT it was always a project to support OpenOffice.
> The community of OOo has recognized this and has the PrOOo-box as part of
> OpenOffice accepted (more precisely, as part of the German community of OO).
>
> In Apache, however we are only "third-party". No question, the
> classification as "third-party" is formally correct, because it conforms to
> the rules of Apache, but it inhibits the practical work.
>
> *It is urgently needed to give local communities more autonomy, which
> would forward the work.*
>
>
> Let me say for my own:
> I work more than 10 years for OpenOffice (.org and Apache) and I am all
> the time loyal to OpenOffice. I am now a committer of Apache, and of course
> I respect the rules of Apache ... BUT in practice, there are task where you
> have to act, and it is not always time to comply with formalities.
>
> example:
> Last month, the PrOOo-box was published in a large German IT magazine [1].
> This was a great success for the PrOOo-box. I would have preferred if it
> had been a success for OpenOffice.
>
> What i mean?
> We (the german community, and all local communities) need the opportunity
> to speak locally for OpenOffice. It is undisputed that this must be
> coordinated with the international Apache OpenOffice community, but this
> coordination can only be done in the form of a frame, not for every single
> little action, because we have no time for the coordination of every detail.
> Having been part of OOo in the old times I remember well the local
> chapters, wonder if that would really collide with the Apache way, though.
> Speak locally not only should be possible, but also praised. I understand
> the "third party" thing might be more complex to handle, still we could
> evalute on a case by case basis what we could do. Even if it takes time,
> maybe it's not a waste of it.
> Roberto
>
>
>
> Greetings
> Jörg
>
>
> [1]
> https://www.idgshop.de/PC-WELT-Plus-09-2016.htm?
> websale8=idg&pi=1-6058&ci=2-5278
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
Hello,
> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anwalt@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
> the situation as I see it (I am no developer) is, that we need
> "developers, developers, developers, developers ... ".
> [...]
This is not wrong, but ...
Developers will participate primarily in projects which remain publicly well.
If we look at LibreOffice and compare:
LibreOffice, that is *good* (not more) software and *excellent* public relations.
OpenOffice, that is *exellent* software and *pretty bad* public relations.
We need to understand evaluate software as the normal user: their first scale is essential to public presentation of a software, and only secondarily the purely technical characteristics of a software.
We need to understand the difference between a software such as the Apache Webserver https://httpd.apache.org/ (a software for experts) and OpenOffice (a software for end users).
The problem of AOO is a Specific:
many people who have worked for OOo (.org!) done their way and OOo has accepted the results and the work integrated into the project.
The operation of Apache is too formalistic for such people, for example, for the local German community of OpenOffice. At the time of OpenOffice.org many helpers did their part, because there were few organizational hurdles.
Example:
I have been working for many years for the PrOOo-box (http://www.prooo-box.org), at the very beginning was that a purely private project, BUT it was always a project to support OpenOffice.
The community of OOo has recognized this and has the PrOOo-box as part of OpenOffice accepted (more precisely, as part of the German community of OO).
In Apache, however we are only "third-party". No question, the classification as "third-party" is formally correct, because it conforms to the rules of Apache, but it inhibits the practical work.
*It is urgently needed to give local communities more autonomy, which would forward the work.*
Let me say for my own:
I work more than 10 years for OpenOffice (.org and Apache) and I am all the time loyal to OpenOffice. I am now a committer of Apache, and of course I respect the rules of Apache ... BUT in practice, there are task where you have to act, and it is not always time to comply with formalities.
example:
Last month, the PrOOo-box was published in a large German IT magazine [1]. This was a great success for the PrOOo-box. I would have preferred if it had been a success for OpenOffice.
What i mean?
We (the german community, and all local communities) need the opportunity to speak locally for OpenOffice. It is undisputed that this must be coordinated with the international Apache OpenOffice community, but this coordination can only be done in the form of a frame, not for every single little action, because we have no time for the coordination of every detail.
Greetings
Jörg
[1]
https://www.idgshop.de/PC-WELT-Plus-09-2016.htm?websale8=idg&pi=1-6058&ci=2-5278
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dr. Michael Stehmann" <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Hello,
the situation as I see it (I am no developer) is, that we need
"developers, developers, developers, developers ... ".
So why not "going public" and ask the Free Software community for help?
That means to illustrate, why AOO is important for the progress of Free
Software, and to describe our present situation and the benefits of
helping us.
But there are IMO some conditions, we have to set before going public:
1. We need a contact person for volunteers and also for enterprises,
which wants to collaborate with us.
2. We need mentors for newbies.
IMO we have to start such a campaign in 2016.
Just my 2 cents.
Kind regards
Michael
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> One option for remedy that must be considered is retirement of the project. ...
> There are those who fear that discussing retirement can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is becoming too much. There are other options. Namely, a new
release will invalidate the prerequisites for your mail. Out of respect
for the people who volunteered to steer a new release we should be
supportive of them instead of playing the "what if" game.
Still, thank you for showing that retirement would be much more
difficult than making a new release! So the best (my favorite) option is
now clearly to make a release happen.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>.
Le 07/09/2016 16:55, Dennis E. Hamilton a crit :
> 3. I suspect that discussions about available software alternatives would arise on users@oo.a.o and particularly on the Community Forums. That would happen naturally without requiring the project to take any positions or provide any kind of exclusivity of one provider over others.
I was rather surprised but there has been almost no question from users about that.
We opened a discussion (as already linked) in the EN forum and mainly power users posted. Too early to conclude if forum users are not aware yet or just don't care.
Very few messages on the users ML also for an alternative.
The wiki page is a great idea so that this discussion can slowly die and the energies can be focused on more efficient matters.
Anyway, even if the topic raised fears, if the outcome is a quick new release as it seems the case, it will prove that all those who propagated FUD were wrong. It may give AOO some visibility again (and new contributors). So in the end, not that bad.
Hagar
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 09/07/2016 10:53 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Dave Fisher wrote:
>> I think that the appropriate place to keep this plan in whatever state
>> it will be kept is on one of our wikis.
>
> Not without an appropriate disclaimer saying that this is not a
> determined course of action, but merely a description of steps that
> would have to be taken in the, quite unlikely at the moment, hypothesis
> that the Foundation decides to retire the project. Enough damage already.
please note that we would give everyone a pointer to this special topic
in case they look for one. Even that the text is there could be a hook
for interpretion. Also when they want to read between the lines it could
be understood indeed in the opposite direction. Of course a disclaimer
could help. But I think it cannot be big enough in order to avoid every
misunderstanding. And some people just want to understand it in a way
they want.
Sometimes you can do what you want, it will be always wrong. And here I
think we should leave it this thinking-game like it is and that's it. No
need to transfer this special topic into a kind of statue where everyone
things "...but they have thought about it, so there must be a percentge
of truth."
My 2 ct.
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Dave Fisher wrote:
> I think that the appropriate place to keep this plan in whatever state it will be kept is on one of our wikis.
Not without an appropriate disclaimer saying that this is not a
determined course of action, but merely a description of steps that
would have to be taken in the, quite unlikely at the moment, hypothesis
that the Foundation decides to retire the project. Enough damage already.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 10:23
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>
> Hi Dennis,
>
> I think that the appropriate place to keep this plan in whatever state
> it will be kept is on one of our wikis. Should the time come to consider
> it seriously we won't have long email threads to review which will lead
> to even longer threads.
>
> Thanks for your consideration of my advice.
[orcmid]
I agree, Dave. Will get around to it.
- Dennis
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Sep 7, 2016, at 7:55 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> >
[ ... ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi Dennis,
I think that the appropriate place to keep this plan in whatever state it will be kept is on one of our wikis. Should the time come to consider it seriously we won't have long email threads to review which will lead to even longer threads.
Thanks for your consideration of my advice.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 7, 2016, at 7:55 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> I have been receiving private communications agitated about whether or not the ASF would recommend a closed-source or commercial project as something someone might use as an alternative to Apache OpenOffice in the event of retirement. I'm asked whether or not prominent open-source alternatives would be recommended.
>
> 1. It is premature to know what alternatives would be identified. We are nowhere close to that. This is my thinking out-loud. It is not something that the PMC is discussion or considering. There is no reason to work on such retirement details unless the need to go further arises. For now, this [DISCUSS] is about identification of what would be involved and not something being put into action and detailed farther.
>
> 2. Nevertheless, as I have already stated, my recommendation would be to make no recommendation, and especially not promote one over others using our automated check for updates. Instead, there could be a retirement advisory and recommendation that alternatives be considered. That could lead to a web page like the one we now provide where third-parties who offer support, other services, books, tutorials, etc., can be linked to, all without any endorsements. One approach would be to open that up for other providers of productivity software as well. The links would be to materials of those providers but there would be no recommendation. There might be minimal information (platforms, ODF formats supported, other formats supported, localizations, extensions/templates available, but nothing deep - simple check-offs as offered by the providers). This remains to be identified and populated and there is need to figure out details now or even agree on this approach.
>
> 3. I suspect that discussions about available software alternatives would arise on users@oo.a.o and particularly on the Community Forums. That would happen naturally without requiring the project to take any positions or provide any kind of exclusivity of one provider over others.
>
> - Dennis
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
>> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 09:05
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> [ ... ]
>> A couple of different observations:
>>
>>> 2.4 The mechanism for announcing updates to installed versions of
>> OpenOffice binaries is adjusted to indicate that (a) particular versions
>> are no longer supported. (b) For the latest distribution(s), there may
>> be advice to users about investigating still-supported alternatives.
>>
>> I was careful, there, not to indicate an automatic preference to another
>> comparable software product. Rather, I would prefer users be given a
>> page that identifies alternatives for them to consider, whatever their
>> license, whatever their commercial nature. By the time that retirement
>> would get to that point, I think there would be ample discussion and
>> public knowledge of alternatives as well.
>>
>> I support the idea of renaming any pivot toward becoming a framework. I
>> also think it would be good to allow AOO retirement, in that case, and
>> have the framework effort go through incubation. The AOO code base
>> would remain to be cherry-picked and morphed, and probably undertaken in
>> Git. I also think that could be an opportunity to revitalize the ODF
>> Toolkit podling effort and even meld the pivot into it. The POI folk
>> might have suggestions along those lines too.
>>
>> Just thoughts.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I have been receiving private communications agitated about whether or not the ASF would recommend a closed-source or commercial project as something someone might use as an alternative to Apache OpenOffice in the event of retirement. I'm asked whether or not prominent open-source alternatives would be recommended.
1. It is premature to know what alternatives would be identified. We are nowhere close to that. This is my thinking out-loud. It is not something that the PMC is discussion or considering. There is no reason to work on such retirement details unless the need to go further arises. For now, this [DISCUSS] is about identification of what would be involved and not something being put into action and detailed farther.
2. Nevertheless, as I have already stated, my recommendation would be to make no recommendation, and especially not promote one over others using our automated check for updates. Instead, there could be a retirement advisory and recommendation that alternatives be considered. That could lead to a web page like the one we now provide where third-parties who offer support, other services, books, tutorials, etc., can be linked to, all without any endorsements. One approach would be to open that up for other providers of productivity software as well. The links would be to materials of those providers but there would be no recommendation. There might be minimal information (platforms, ODF formats supported, other formats supported, localizations, extensions/templates available, but nothing deep - simple check-offs as offered by the providers). This remains to be identified and populated and there is need to figure out details now or even agree on this approach.
3. I suspect that discussions about available software alternatives would arise on users@oo.a.o and particularly on the Community Forums. That would happen naturally without requiring the project to take any positions or provide any kind of exclusivity of one provider over others.
- Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 09:05
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>
[ ... ]
> A couple of different observations:
>
> > 2.4 The mechanism for announcing updates to installed versions of
> OpenOffice binaries is adjusted to indicate that (a) particular versions
> are no longer supported. (b) For the latest distribution(s), there may
> be advice to users about investigating still-supported alternatives.
> >
>
> I was careful, there, not to indicate an automatic preference to another
> comparable software product. Rather, I would prefer users be given a
> page that identifies alternatives for them to consider, whatever their
> license, whatever their commercial nature. By the time that retirement
> would get to that point, I think there would be ample discussion and
> public knowledge of alternatives as well.
>
> I support the idea of renaming any pivot toward becoming a framework. I
> also think it would be good to allow AOO retirement, in that case, and
> have the framework effort go through incubation. The AOO code base
> would remain to be cherry-picked and morphed, and probably undertaken in
> Git. I also think that could be an opportunity to revitalize the ODF
> Toolkit podling effort and even meld the pivot into it. The POI folk
> might have suggestions along those lines too.
>
> Just thoughts.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 05:14
> To: private@openoffice.apache.org; orcmid@apache.org
> Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>
> Dennis, thanks for opening up this conversation.
>
> As noted over the last few months, it has become obvious to the
> board that AOO has not been a healthy project for some time.
> Again, there are many, many reasons for this, and it doesn't
> help to go into them here and now. The simple fact is that we are at
> this point now, so what should be done?
>
[ ... ]
> ... [H]here are my thoughts on retirement. I
> have previously shared these but am doing so again.
>
> What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present
> time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
> being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be consumed
> by actual end-user implementations.
>
[ ... ]
> Secondly, part and parcel with this "pivot" is that we rename the
> project
> to something more accurate to what our new function would be and we use
> the AOO landing page to reference and redirect to the various OO
> implementations out there. In fact, I would even suggest us considering
> going further and redirecting AOO traffic to LO, so that people
> considering
> "OpenOffice" get routed to the LO site (either automatically or via some
> click/OK interface).
>
> With these 2 changes, as obvious olive branches, I think we will
> see all players in the OO development eco-system be willing contributors
> to the new project. And this will give the new project a new lease
> on life.
>
[ ... ]
[orcmid]
I have expressed my concern that the suggested pivot is retirement in all but name only, and I won't dwell on it again. Others have made the same observation.
A couple of different observations:
> 2.4 The mechanism for announcing updates to installed versions of OpenOffice binaries is adjusted to indicate that (a) particular versions are no longer supported. (b) For the latest distribution(s), there may be advice to users about investigating still-supported alternatives.
>
I was careful, there, not to indicate an automatic preference to another comparable software product. Rather, I would prefer users be given a page that identifies alternatives for them to consider, whatever their license, whatever their commercial nature. By the time that retirement would get to that point, I think there would be ample discussion and public knowledge of alternatives as well.
I support the idea of renaming any pivot toward becoming a framework. I also think it would be good to allow AOO retirement, in that case, and have the framework effort go through incubation. The AOO code base would remain to be cherry-picked and morphed, and probably undertaken in Git. I also think that could be an opportunity to revitalize the ODF Toolkit podling effort and even meld the pivot into it. The POI folk might have suggestions along those lines too.
Just thoughts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
> From: Roberto Galoppini [mailto:roberto.galoppini@gmail.com]
> We are on the same page here, and if security issues (real
> ones) would be
> left uncovered it would be fine if you and/or the board will step in.
>
> In the meanwhile PLEASE let us work, and let's see if we can
> keep changing
> in the right direction.
+1, absolute consent from me. I regret that I am not a developer, and thereby can not help.
I assure the community that I will continue my work for OpenOffice (macro programming and end-user support)
Greetings,
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
This whole discussion is a chance to "prove me wrong" (as someone
"out of touch") as well as to prove to the entire OO community
what those "positive things" are.
I am glad that the status-quo of today != the status-quo as of
(today - 3weeksAgo).
I am reminded of this scene from Pulp Fiction (apologies for
the language: I didn't write this. Blame "edgy" QT):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NlrgjgOHrw
> On Sep 2, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 2, 2016 3:29 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I would assume that many existing people would leave.
>>
>> But, as I mentioned, I would assume (hope) that many people
>> would join, and many of those would be from others in the
>> entire OO eco-system.
>>
>> Your reply seems to suggest that with the current status of AOO,
>> maintaining an end-user focus is possible. Current evidence,
>> unfortunately, makes that somewhat questionable.
>
> Jim if you're paying attention, and I say if just because I know you have
> been out of touch recently, you can't have missed that a number of positive
> things HAPPENED here. So if you see people having confidence maybe it would
> be good to think twice and wonder if we might have reasons to think
> otherwise.
>
>> The current status-quo is untenable and unacceptable. Change
>> needs to happen. I suggested one route, nothing more, nothing
>> less.
>
> We are on the same page here, and if security issues (real ones) would be
> left uncovered it would be fine if you and/or the board will step in.
>
> In the meanwhile PLEASE let us work, and let's see if we can keep changing
> in the right direction.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Roberto
>
>>
>>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 8:52 AM, RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 02.09.2016 um 14:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present
>>>> time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
>>>> being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be
> consumed
>>>> by actual end-user implementations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If AOO is not an end-user focused project a lot of people will leave
>>> this community because they will be useless. People who are doing
>>> end-user support, who are doing end-user documentation and are doing
>>> what we call "marketing" etc.
>>>
>>> Also people, who build binaries are obsolet. Only coders will be needed
>>> and I don't know, whether all remained will stay under that conditions.
>>>
>>> I don't see a great difference between that way and a retirement.
>>>
>>> The first way might be the "Apache way", but it is definitely not the
>>> way for and of the OpenOffice community.
>>>
>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Sep 2, 2016 3:29 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, I would assume that many existing people would leave.
>
> But, as I mentioned, I would assume (hope) that many people
> would join, and many of those would be from others in the
> entire OO eco-system.
>
> Your reply seems to suggest that with the current status of AOO,
> maintaining an end-user focus is possible. Current evidence,
> unfortunately, makes that somewhat questionable.
Jim if you're paying attention, and I say if just because I know you have
been out of touch recently, you can't have missed that a number of positive
things HAPPENED here. So if you see people having confidence maybe it would
be good to think twice and wonder if we might have reasons to think
otherwise.
> The current status-quo is untenable and unacceptable. Change
> needs to happen. I suggested one route, nothing more, nothing
> less.
We are on the same page here, and if security issues (real ones) would be
left uncovered it would be fine if you and/or the board will step in.
In the meanwhile PLEASE let us work, and let's see if we can keep changing
in the right direction.
Thanks,
Roberto
>
> > On Sep 2, 2016, at 8:52 AM, RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>
wrote:
> >
> > Am 02.09.2016 um 14:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> >
> >>
> >> What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present
> >> time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
> >> being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be
consumed
> >> by actual end-user implementations.
> >>
> >
> > If AOO is not an end-user focused project a lot of people will leave
> > this community because they will be useless. People who are doing
> > end-user support, who are doing end-user documentation and are doing
> > what we call "marketing" etc.
> >
> > Also people, who build binaries are obsolet. Only coders will be needed
> > and I don't know, whether all remained will stay under that conditions.
> >
> > I don't see a great difference between that way and a retirement.
> >
> > The first way might be the "Apache way", but it is definitely not the
> > way for and of the OpenOffice community.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
BTW, can we drop private@ on this and simply continue the
discussion on dev@?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Yes, I would assume that many existing people would leave.
But, as I mentioned, I would assume (hope) that many people
would join, and many of those would be from others in the
entire OO eco-system.
Your reply seems to suggest that with the current status of AOO,
maintaining an end-user focus is possible. Current evidence,
unfortunately, makes that somewhat questionable.
The current status-quo is untenable and unacceptable. Change
needs to happen. I suggested one route, nothing more, nothing
less.
> On Sep 2, 2016, at 8:52 AM, RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de> wrote:
>
> Am 02.09.2016 um 14:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>
>>
>> What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present
>> time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
>> being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be consumed
>> by actual end-user implementations.
>>
>
> If AOO is not an end-user focused project a lot of people will leave
> this community because they will be useless. People who are doing
> end-user support, who are doing end-user documentation and are doing
> what we call "marketing" etc.
>
> Also people, who build binaries are obsolet. Only coders will be needed
> and I don't know, whether all remained will stay under that conditions.
>
> I don't see a great difference between that way and a retirement.
>
> The first way might be the "Apache way", but it is definitely not the
> way for and of the OpenOffice community.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Kind regards
> Michael
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 2, 2016, at 5:37 PM, toki <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/09/2016 20:12, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> I disagree with consumer vs corporate. Individuals have benefited greatly from all of the free projects like HTTPD,
>
> HTTPD is a Daemon, run for websites --- corporate, not individuals.
A question what is the procurement process for individuals, governments, NGOs and corporations for any Apache software? Non-existent.
This helps all of the public.
Individuals are benefited. Any Jane Q Public can put together a website and service for next to no software cost. It's free and communities are willing to help.
>
>> tomcat,
>
> Web server. Again, corporate, not individuals.
>
>> poi
>
> This is a set of Java Libraries. Again corporate, not individuals
>
>> Tika,
>
> Content detection software. Again corporate, not individuals
>
>> Solr,
> Enterprise search platform. Again, corporate not individuals
>
>> Lucene,
>
> Information retrieval software library. Again, corporate not individuals.
>
>> We are striving to be a community and not a marriage. The bar to enter or exit a community is much different.
>
> The problem with parables, as that the audience more often that not
> fails to understand their meaning.
Or they might reject there application.
Regards,
Dave
>
> jonathon
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by toki <to...@gmail.com>.
On 02/09/2016 20:12, Dave Fisher wrote:
> I disagree with consumer vs corporate. Individuals have benefited greatly from all of the free projects like HTTPD,
HTTPD is a Daemon, run for websites --- corporate, not individuals.
>tomcat,
Web server. Again, corporate, not individuals.
>poi
This is a set of Java Libraries. Again corporate, not individuals
>Tika,
Content detection software. Again corporate, not individuals
>Solr,
Enterprise search platform. Again, corporate not individuals
>Lucene,
Information retrieval software library. Again, corporate not individuals.
> We are striving to be a community and not a marriage. The bar to enter or exit a community is much different.
The problem with parables, as that the audience more often that not
fails to understand their meaning.
jonathon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 2, 2016, at 12:56 PM, toki <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/09/2016 12:52, RA Stehmann wrote:
>
>>> being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
>>> being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be consumed
>>> by actual end-user implementations.
>
>> If AOO is not an end-user focused project
>
> AOo is one of the few --- perhaps only --- Apache Foundation project
> that is end-user focused. It is the only one that is consumer, as
> opposed to corporate focused.
I might concede that AOO is the only end user focused project.
I disagree with consumer vs corporate. Individuals have benefited greatly from all of the free projects like HTTPD, tomcat, poi, Tika, Solr, Lucene, to name a few. Corporations too. And you should be glad. While helping themselves they help others.
>
> As a framework, or library, the project would be much more aligned with
> The Apache Foundation's sphere of expertise and knowledge.
>
>> Also people, who build binaries are obsolete.
>
> Even with frameworks, binaries have to be built. They simply aren't
> distributed.
Not true. Many and probably most Apache projects distribute binaries.
>
>> The first way might be the "Apache way", but it is definitely not the way for and of the OpenOffice community.
>
> Upon meeting, the couple is entranced with each other, and get married.
> Having learnt more about each other, they discover that things are not
> what they thought they were, so they get divorced.
> If both sides had been willing to make adjustments, the divorce would
> not have happened.
We are striving to be a community and not a marriage. The bar to enter or exit a community is much different.
Regards,
Dave
>
> jonathon
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by toki <to...@gmail.com>.
On 02/09/2016 12:52, RA Stehmann wrote:
>> being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
>> being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be consumed
>> by actual end-user implementations.
> If AOO is not an end-user focused project
AOo is one of the few --- perhaps only --- Apache Foundation project
that is end-user focused. It is the only one that is consumer, as
opposed to corporate focused.
As a framework, or library, the project would be much more aligned with
The Apache Foundation's sphere of expertise and knowledge.
> Also people, who build binaries are obsolete.
Even with frameworks, binaries have to be built. They simply aren't
distributed.
> The first way might be the "Apache way", but it is definitely not the way for and of the OpenOffice community.
Upon meeting, the couple is entranced with each other, and get married.
Having learnt more about each other, they discover that things are not
what they thought they were, so they get divorced.
If both sides had been willing to make adjustments, the divorce would
not have happened.
jonathon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
I don't have very much free time, but once MacOSX build instructions are rewritten and the process clean. I am willing to validate the instructions and each step on a fresh Mac. This would also put me a position to cast a binding vote on a release when that is ready.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 2, 2016, at 3:42 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, still VERY valid!
>
>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> I seem to recall that you made an offer to help with Mac builds. I know you helped during incubation. Is your offer still valid?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 6:59 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anwalt@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
>>>>
>>>>> Patricia, we are still discussing. We are balancing reasons,
>>>>> advantages
>>>>> and disadvantages, for different solutions. There is no decision made.
>>>>>
>>>>> And more and more I believe, it was a good idea to start that
>>>>> discussion
>>>>> on a public list. So everything is transparent.
>>>>>
>>>>> I like the debian Social Contract and point 3 is:
>>>>>
>>>>> "We will not hide problems"
>>>>
>>>> This is a reasonable approach for a project which is surrounded by friends.
>>>>
>>>> It is not necessarily a good concept for a project that has been cleaved by third
>>>> parties and whose aim is to destroy it. When the TDF had only had the intention to
>>>> make OpenOffice independent of Oracle, they would never have attacked AOO.
>>>
>>> sorry, but I can't agree with that.
>>>
>>> Will self-serving trolls contort what we say here to promote their
>>> own agendas? Sure. What we want is the *truth* to be out there,
>>> so when these trolls spew their FUD, the reality of the situation
>>> is there for others to read, and understand, and grok.
>>>
>>> At the very least, if what you say is true, we can claim the
>>> high-ground. We should strive for that no matter what.
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Yes, still VERY valid!
> On Sep 2, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> I seem to recall that you made an offer to help with Mac builds. I know you helped during incubation. Is your offer still valid?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 6:59 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anwalt@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
>>>
>>>> Patricia, we are still discussing. We are balancing reasons,
>>>> advantages
>>>> and disadvantages, for different solutions. There is no decision made.
>>>>
>>>> And more and more I believe, it was a good idea to start that
>>>> discussion
>>>> on a public list. So everything is transparent.
>>>>
>>>> I like the debian Social Contract and point 3 is:
>>>>
>>>> "We will not hide problems"
>>>
>>> This is a reasonable approach for a project which is surrounded by friends.
>>>
>>> It is not necessarily a good concept for a project that has been cleaved by third
>>> parties and whose aim is to destroy it. When the TDF had only had the intention to
>>> make OpenOffice independent of Oracle, they would never have attacked AOO.
>>
>> sorry, but I can't agree with that.
>>
>> Will self-serving trolls contort what we say here to promote their
>> own agendas? Sure. What we want is the *truth* to be out there,
>> so when these trolls spew their FUD, the reality of the situation
>> is there for others to read, and understand, and grok.
>>
>> At the very least, if what you say is true, we can claim the
>> high-ground. We should strive for that no matter what.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi Jim,
I seem to recall that you made an offer to help with Mac builds. I know you helped during incubation. Is your offer still valid?
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 2, 2016, at 6:59 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anwalt@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
>>
>>> Patricia, we are still discussing. We are balancing reasons,
>>> advantages
>>> and disadvantages, for different solutions. There is no decision made.
>>>
>>> And more and more I believe, it was a good idea to start that
>>> discussion
>>> on a public list. So everything is transparent.
>>>
>>> I like the debian Social Contract and point 3 is:
>>>
>>> "We will not hide problems"
>>
>> This is a reasonable approach for a project which is surrounded by friends.
>>
>> It is not necessarily a good concept for a project that has been cleaved by third
>> parties and whose aim is to destroy it. When the TDF had only had the intention to
>> make OpenOffice independent of Oracle, they would never have attacked AOO.
>
> sorry, but I can't agree with that.
>
> Will self-serving trolls contort what we say here to promote their
> own agendas? Sure. What we want is the *truth* to be out there,
> so when these trolls spew their FUD, the reality of the situation
> is there for others to read, and understand, and grok.
>
> At the very least, if what you say is true, we can claim the
> high-ground. We should strive for that no matter what.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Sep 2, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
>
>> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anwalt@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
>
>> Patricia, we are still discussing. We are balancing reasons,
>> advantages
>> and disadvantages, for different solutions. There is no decision made.
>>
>> And more and more I believe, it was a good idea to start that
>> discussion
>> on a public list. So everything is transparent.
>>
>> I like the debian Social Contract and point 3 is:
>>
>> "We will not hide problems"
>
> This is a reasonable approach for a project which is surrounded by friends.
>
> It is not necessarily a good concept for a project that has been cleaved by third
> parties and whose aim is to destroy it. When the TDF had only had the intention to
> make OpenOffice independent of Oracle, they would never have attacked AOO.
>
>
sorry, but I can't agree with that.
Will self-serving trolls contort what we say here to promote their
own agendas? Sure. What we want is the *truth* to be out there,
so when these trolls spew their FUD, the reality of the situation
is there for others to read, and understand, and grok.
At the very least, if what you say is true, we can claim the
high-ground. We should strive for that no matter what.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anwalt@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
> Patricia, we are still discussing. We are balancing reasons,
> advantages
> and disadvantages, for different solutions. There is no decision made.
>
> And more and more I believe, it was a good idea to start that
> discussion
> on a public list. So everything is transparent.
>
> I like the debian Social Contract and point 3 is:
>
> "We will not hide problems"
This is a reasonable approach for a project which is surrounded by friends.
It is not necessarily a good concept for a project that has been cleaved by third
parties and whose aim is to destroy it. When the TDF had only had the intention to
make OpenOffice independent of Oracle, they would never have attacked AOO.
Greetings,
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dr. Michael Stehmann" <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Am 02.09.2016 um 15:08 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>
> This discussion has a serious self fulfilling prophecy downside. The
> less ASF's commitment to AOO, the less my commitment is. I had been
> thinking of buying a Mac and learning to do builds on it. That is an
> investment of time, energy, and a small amount of money. Why do it, if
> AOO is just going to get shut down anyway?
Patricia, we are still discussing. We are balancing reasons, advantages
and disadvantages, for different solutions. There is no decision made.
And more and more I believe, it was a good idea to start that discussion
on a public list. So everything is transparent.
I like the debian Social Contract and point 3 is:
"We will not hide problems"
Kind regards
Michael
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
On 9/2/2016 5:52 AM, RA Stehmann wrote:
> Am 02.09.2016 um 14:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>
>>
>> What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present
>> time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
>> being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be consumed
>> by actual end-user implementations.
>>
>
> If AOO is not an end-user focused project a lot of people will leave
> this community because they will be useless. People who are doing
> end-user support, who are doing end-user documentation and are doing
> what we call "marketing" etc.
>
> Also people, who build binaries are obsolet. Only coders will be needed
> and I don't know, whether all remained will stay under that conditions.
I certainly won't stay. I am interested in keeping the end user
application viable. The library/framework idea does not interest me at all.
This discussion has a serious self fulfilling prophecy downside. The
less ASF's commitment to AOO, the less my commitment is. I had been
thinking of buying a Mac and learning to do builds on it. That is an
investment of time, energy, and a small amount of money. Why do it, if
AOO is just going to get shut down anyway?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Am 02.09.2016 um 14:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>
> What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present
> time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
> being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be consumed
> by actual end-user implementations.
>
If AOO is not an end-user focused project a lot of people will leave
this community because they will be useless. People who are doing
end-user support, who are doing end-user documentation and are doing
what we call "marketing" etc.
Also people, who build binaries are obsolet. Only coders will be needed
and I don't know, whether all remained will stay under that conditions.
I don't see a great difference between that way and a retirement.
The first way might be the "Apache way", but it is definitely not the
way for and of the OpenOffice community.
Just my 2 cents.
Kind regards
Michael
RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
+1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:pats@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 08:23
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>
> +1
>
> I'm here for the present and the future, not the past.
>
> On 9/6/2016 8:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example, Rob Weir)
> >> were insulted by TDF representatives.
> >
> > It's important, in all of this conversation, to keep the interests of
> > the *users* first. This project is about producing software for the
> > public good, not about winning some contest, or nursing our hurt
> > feelings. We owe it to the users to forgive and forget actual and
> > perceived insults, and move on with our lives. Otherwise, what the
> > heck are we doing here?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
Hello imacat,
> From: imacat [mailto:imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw]
> I see. Thanks, Jörg, Andrea.
>
> I'm working on two OpenOffice tools and may announce their beta
> release in one or two weeks. I was stunned by the news, but
> am happy to
> see it is quite different from what the press said.
>
> As one of the team (although inactive for long), Please
> tell me what
> I can do to make this release happen. I shall help as much
> as possible.
I think at the moment is the most important work to bring a new release on the way
to show the public that it precedes with AOO. I hope this new version will be
released at the ApacheCon.
About these programming work I can personally however not say anything because I
do not Program the OpenOffice itself.
I hope someone else can show you where you can best help at the moment.
Just for your information:
I personally help (in German AOO community) at end-user support [1], in extension
programming [2] and in the dissemination of OO [3].
for example:
[1]
http://de.openOffice.info
[2]
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Extensions_Packager#BasicAddonBuilder_and_AOO_4.x
[3]
http://prooo-box.org
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>.
I see. Thanks, Jörg, Andrea.
I'm working on two OpenOffice tools and may announce their beta
release in one or two weeks. I was stunned by the news, but am happy to
see it is quite different from what the press said.
As one of the team (although inactive for long), Please tell me what
I can do to make this release happen. I shall help as much as possible.
Jörg Schmidt on 2016/09/07 04:25 said:
> The task of AOO is not the formulation of their own death message, but the further development of the project, *even* in difficult times.
>
> There was the proposal to publish a new release in November (during ApacheCon), that is imho a right step.
>
>
> Jörg
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Høydahl [mailto:jan.asf@cominvent.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 10:00 PM
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement
>> Involve? (long)
>>
>> A well written Press Release from the AOO PMC could be a
>> timely move now?
>> It could be published on the Apache blog as well as sent to
>> various editors.
>> The PR should be short, to the point and suitable for
>> copy/paste into news articles.
>> It should paint the broader picture, the state of the
>> project, the current push for
>> more developers etc. It could also explain ASF's focus on
>> healthy communities,
>> as an explanation for the [DISCUSS] thread, and the fact that
>> an Apache project
>> not longer able to produce releases *may* end up being retired.
>>
>> Could we get writing help from Apache public relations staff?
>>
>> --
>> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
>> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>>
>>> 6. sep. 2016 kl. 20.13 skrev Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>
>>> Not sure how this will come across... I am certain I will not
>>> be fully understood about this, anyway, this question deserves an
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads
>> in various
>>> places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much
>>> "damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to
>> have done.
>>> I guess the best way to state it is that he was a very "polarizing"
>>> person...
>>>
>>> Now a lot of the ill-will (and even worse, the hate)
>> directed towards
>>> AOO is not due to anything we personally did, but is simply
>> redirected
>>> venom, mostly due to how LO felt abused and used by Oracle and that
>>> somehow we were complicit in it (this fallacy, of course,
>> was maintained
>>> by people who had a not-so-hidden-agenda to create and reinforce the
>>> division between AOO and LO). There was really very, very
>> little rational
>>> cause for TDF/LO hating Apache and AOO so much... or, at
>> least, developers
>>> on that side being so antagonist towards Apache (I am
>> ignoring, for the
>>> present, those extreme copyleft proponents who have issue
>> w/ permissive
>>> licensing for anything). What I'm basically saying is that we did
>>> nothing really to deserve the hate...
>>>
>>> ... except for maybe some of the "over zealous" statements by Rob.
>>>
>>> What is kinda clear is that there is still a lot of sting there.
>>>
>>> Now I did somewhat try to "explain" how such
>> over-zealousness shouldn't
>>> be so surprising, considering what he was fighting against
>> (this explanation
>>> was in the LWN thread), but rationalization isn't excuse.
>>>
>>> No, I am not saying we focus on the past... but while we are
>>> here for the present and future, we shouldn't "ignore" the past
>>> but rather acknowledge it, and then bury it.
>>>
>>> After all, aren't we asking TDF/LO to do the same??
>>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 09/06/2016 05:22 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm here for the present and the future, not the past.
>>>>
>>>> I also don't know what a single person - which has left
>> the project long ago - has to do with a "what-if-or-if-not"
>> thinking game.
>>>>
>>>> Marcus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/6/2016 8:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example,
>> Rob Weir)
>>>>>>> were insulted by TDF representatives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's important, in all of this conversation, to keep the
>> interests of
>>>>>> the *users* first. This project is about producing
>> software for the
>>>>>> public good, not about winning some contest, or nursing our hurt
>>>>>> feelings. We owe it to the users to forgive and forget actual and
>>>>>> perceived insults, and move on with our lives.
>> Otherwise, what the
>>>>>> heck are we doing here?
>>>>
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
--
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
<<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://www.wofoss.org/
OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org>.
On 2016-09-06 16:00 (-0400), Jan Høydahl <ja...@cominvent.com> wrote:
> A well written Press Release from the AOO PMC could be a timely move now?
> It could be published on the Apache blog as well as sent to various editors.
> The PR should be short, to the point and suitable for copy/paste into news articles.
> It should paint the broader picture, the state of the project, the current push for
> more developers etc. It could also explain ASF's focus on healthy communities,
> as an explanation for the [DISCUSS] thread, and the fact that an Apache project
> not longer able to produce releases *may* end up being retired.
>
> Could we get writing help from Apache public relations staff?
Sally offered (over on private@openoffice.apache.org) to assist in exactly that way. You can contact her at press@apache.org to arrange things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
++1
> On Sep 6, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Jan Høydahl <ja...@cominvent.com> wrote:
>
> A public statement may slow the flood of FUD, protecting our end users, while a new release in November will
> give a clear signal that the project did not choose retirement, ss will all subsequent releases.
>
> --
> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>
>> 6. sep. 2016 kl. 22.25 skrev Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>:
>>
>> The task of AOO is not the formulation of their own death message, but the further development of the project, *even* in difficult times.
>>
>> There was the proposal to publish a new release in November (during ApacheCon), that is imho a right step.
>>
>>
>> Jörg
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jan Høydahl [mailto:jan.asf@cominvent.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 10:00 PM
>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement
>>> Involve? (long)
>>>
>>> A well written Press Release from the AOO PMC could be a
>>> timely move now?
>>> It could be published on the Apache blog as well as sent to
>>> various editors.
>>> The PR should be short, to the point and suitable for
>>> copy/paste into news articles.
>>> It should paint the broader picture, the state of the
>>> project, the current push for
>>> more developers etc. It could also explain ASF's focus on
>>> healthy communities,
>>> as an explanation for the [DISCUSS] thread, and the fact that
>>> an Apache project
>>> not longer able to produce releases *may* end up being retired.
>>>
>>> Could we get writing help from Apache public relations staff?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
>>> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>>>
>>>> 6. sep. 2016 kl. 20.13 skrev Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Not sure how this will come across... I am certain I will not
>>>> be fully understood about this, anyway, this question deserves an
>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>> What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads
>>> in various
>>>> places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much
>>>> "damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to
>>> have done.
>>>> I guess the best way to state it is that he was a very "polarizing"
>>>> person...
>>>>
>>>> Now a lot of the ill-will (and even worse, the hate)
>>> directed towards
>>>> AOO is not due to anything we personally did, but is simply
>>> redirected
>>>> venom, mostly due to how LO felt abused and used by Oracle and that
>>>> somehow we were complicit in it (this fallacy, of course,
>>> was maintained
>>>> by people who had a not-so-hidden-agenda to create and reinforce the
>>>> division between AOO and LO). There was really very, very
>>> little rational
>>>> cause for TDF/LO hating Apache and AOO so much... or, at
>>> least, developers
>>>> on that side being so antagonist towards Apache (I am
>>> ignoring, for the
>>>> present, those extreme copyleft proponents who have issue
>>> w/ permissive
>>>> licensing for anything). What I'm basically saying is that we did
>>>> nothing really to deserve the hate...
>>>>
>>>> ... except for maybe some of the "over zealous" statements by Rob.
>>>>
>>>> What is kinda clear is that there is still a lot of sting there.
>>>>
>>>> Now I did somewhat try to "explain" how such
>>> over-zealousness shouldn't
>>>> be so surprising, considering what he was fighting against
>>> (this explanation
>>>> was in the LWN thread), but rationalization isn't excuse.
>>>>
>>>> No, I am not saying we focus on the past... but while we are
>>>> here for the present and future, we shouldn't "ignore" the past
>>>> but rather acknowledge it, and then bury it.
>>>>
>>>> After all, aren't we asking TDF/LO to do the same??
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 09/06/2016 05:22 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm here for the present and the future, not the past.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also don't know what a single person - which has left
>>> the project long ago - has to do with a "what-if-or-if-not"
>>> thinking game.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/6/2016 8:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example,
>>> Rob Weir)
>>>>>>>> were insulted by TDF representatives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's important, in all of this conversation, to keep the
>>> interests of
>>>>>>> the *users* first. This project is about producing
>>> software for the
>>>>>>> public good, not about winning some contest, or nursing our hurt
>>>>>>> feelings. We owe it to the users to forgive and forget actual and
>>>>>>> perceived insults, and move on with our lives.
>>> Otherwise, what the
>>>>>>> heck are we doing here?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jan Høydahl <ja...@cominvent.com>.
A public statement may slow the flood of FUD, protecting our end users, while a new release in November will
give a clear signal that the project did not choose retirement, ss will all subsequent releases.
--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
> 6. sep. 2016 kl. 22.25 skrev Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>:
>
> The task of AOO is not the formulation of their own death message, but the further development of the project, *even* in difficult times.
>
> There was the proposal to publish a new release in November (during ApacheCon), that is imho a right step.
>
>
> Jörg
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Høydahl [mailto:jan.asf@cominvent.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 10:00 PM
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement
>> Involve? (long)
>>
>> A well written Press Release from the AOO PMC could be a
>> timely move now?
>> It could be published on the Apache blog as well as sent to
>> various editors.
>> The PR should be short, to the point and suitable for
>> copy/paste into news articles.
>> It should paint the broader picture, the state of the
>> project, the current push for
>> more developers etc. It could also explain ASF's focus on
>> healthy communities,
>> as an explanation for the [DISCUSS] thread, and the fact that
>> an Apache project
>> not longer able to produce releases *may* end up being retired.
>>
>> Could we get writing help from Apache public relations staff?
>>
>> --
>> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
>> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>>
>>> 6. sep. 2016 kl. 20.13 skrev Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>
>>> Not sure how this will come across... I am certain I will not
>>> be fully understood about this, anyway, this question deserves an
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads
>> in various
>>> places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much
>>> "damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to
>> have done.
>>> I guess the best way to state it is that he was a very "polarizing"
>>> person...
>>>
>>> Now a lot of the ill-will (and even worse, the hate)
>> directed towards
>>> AOO is not due to anything we personally did, but is simply
>> redirected
>>> venom, mostly due to how LO felt abused and used by Oracle and that
>>> somehow we were complicit in it (this fallacy, of course,
>> was maintained
>>> by people who had a not-so-hidden-agenda to create and reinforce the
>>> division between AOO and LO). There was really very, very
>> little rational
>>> cause for TDF/LO hating Apache and AOO so much... or, at
>> least, developers
>>> on that side being so antagonist towards Apache (I am
>> ignoring, for the
>>> present, those extreme copyleft proponents who have issue
>> w/ permissive
>>> licensing for anything). What I'm basically saying is that we did
>>> nothing really to deserve the hate...
>>>
>>> ... except for maybe some of the "over zealous" statements by Rob.
>>>
>>> What is kinda clear is that there is still a lot of sting there.
>>>
>>> Now I did somewhat try to "explain" how such
>> over-zealousness shouldn't
>>> be so surprising, considering what he was fighting against
>> (this explanation
>>> was in the LWN thread), but rationalization isn't excuse.
>>>
>>> No, I am not saying we focus on the past... but while we are
>>> here for the present and future, we shouldn't "ignore" the past
>>> but rather acknowledge it, and then bury it.
>>>
>>> After all, aren't we asking TDF/LO to do the same??
>>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 09/06/2016 05:22 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm here for the present and the future, not the past.
>>>>
>>>> I also don't know what a single person - which has left
>> the project long ago - has to do with a "what-if-or-if-not"
>> thinking game.
>>>>
>>>> Marcus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/6/2016 8:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example,
>> Rob Weir)
>>>>>>> were insulted by TDF representatives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's important, in all of this conversation, to keep the
>> interests of
>>>>>> the *users* first. This project is about producing
>> software for the
>>>>>> public good, not about winning some contest, or nursing our hurt
>>>>>> feelings. We owe it to the users to forgive and forget actual and
>>>>>> perceived insults, and move on with our lives.
>> Otherwise, what the
>>>>>> heck are we doing here?
>>>>
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
The task of AOO is not the formulation of their own death message, but the further development of the project, *even* in difficult times.
There was the proposal to publish a new release in November (during ApacheCon), that is imho a right step.
Jörg
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Høydahl [mailto:jan.asf@cominvent.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 10:00 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement
> Involve? (long)
>
> A well written Press Release from the AOO PMC could be a
> timely move now?
> It could be published on the Apache blog as well as sent to
> various editors.
> The PR should be short, to the point and suitable for
> copy/paste into news articles.
> It should paint the broader picture, the state of the
> project, the current push for
> more developers etc. It could also explain ASF's focus on
> healthy communities,
> as an explanation for the [DISCUSS] thread, and the fact that
> an Apache project
> not longer able to produce releases *may* end up being retired.
>
> Could we get writing help from Apache public relations staff?
>
> --
> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>
> > 6. sep. 2016 kl. 20.13 skrev Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
> >
> > Not sure how this will come across... I am certain I will not
> > be fully understood about this, anyway, this question deserves an
> > answer.
> >
> > What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads
> in various
> > places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much
> > "damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to
> have done.
> > I guess the best way to state it is that he was a very "polarizing"
> > person...
> >
> > Now a lot of the ill-will (and even worse, the hate)
> directed towards
> > AOO is not due to anything we personally did, but is simply
> redirected
> > venom, mostly due to how LO felt abused and used by Oracle and that
> > somehow we were complicit in it (this fallacy, of course,
> was maintained
> > by people who had a not-so-hidden-agenda to create and reinforce the
> > division between AOO and LO). There was really very, very
> little rational
> > cause for TDF/LO hating Apache and AOO so much... or, at
> least, developers
> > on that side being so antagonist towards Apache (I am
> ignoring, for the
> > present, those extreme copyleft proponents who have issue
> w/ permissive
> > licensing for anything). What I'm basically saying is that we did
> > nothing really to deserve the hate...
> >
> > ... except for maybe some of the "over zealous" statements by Rob.
> >
> > What is kinda clear is that there is still a lot of sting there.
> >
> > Now I did somewhat try to "explain" how such
> over-zealousness shouldn't
> > be so surprising, considering what he was fighting against
> (this explanation
> > was in the LWN thread), but rationalization isn't excuse.
> >
> > No, I am not saying we focus on the past... but while we are
> > here for the present and future, we shouldn't "ignore" the past
> > but rather acknowledge it, and then bury it.
> >
> > After all, aren't we asking TDF/LO to do the same??
> >
> >> On Sep 6, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 09/06/2016 05:22 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> I'm here for the present and the future, not the past.
> >>
> >> I also don't know what a single person - which has left
> the project long ago - has to do with a "what-if-or-if-not"
> thinking game.
> >>
> >> Marcus
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 9/6/2016 8:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example,
> Rob Weir)
> >>>>> were insulted by TDF representatives.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's important, in all of this conversation, to keep the
> interests of
> >>>> the *users* first. This project is about producing
> software for the
> >>>> public good, not about winning some contest, or nursing our hurt
> >>>> feelings. We owe it to the users to forgive and forget actual and
> >>>> perceived insults, and move on with our lives.
> Otherwise, what the
> >>>> heck are we doing here?
> >>
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jan Høydahl <ja...@cominvent.com>.
A well written Press Release from the AOO PMC could be a timely move now?
It could be published on the Apache blog as well as sent to various editors.
The PR should be short, to the point and suitable for copy/paste into news articles.
It should paint the broader picture, the state of the project, the current push for
more developers etc. It could also explain ASF's focus on healthy communities,
as an explanation for the [DISCUSS] thread, and the fact that an Apache project
not longer able to produce releases *may* end up being retired.
Could we get writing help from Apache public relations staff?
--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
> 6. sep. 2016 kl. 20.13 skrev Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>
> Not sure how this will come across... I am certain I will not
> be fully understood about this, anyway, this question deserves an
> answer.
>
> What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads in various
> places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much
> "damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to have done.
> I guess the best way to state it is that he was a very "polarizing"
> person...
>
> Now a lot of the ill-will (and even worse, the hate) directed towards
> AOO is not due to anything we personally did, but is simply redirected
> venom, mostly due to how LO felt abused and used by Oracle and that
> somehow we were complicit in it (this fallacy, of course, was maintained
> by people who had a not-so-hidden-agenda to create and reinforce the
> division between AOO and LO). There was really very, very little rational
> cause for TDF/LO hating Apache and AOO so much... or, at least, developers
> on that side being so antagonist towards Apache (I am ignoring, for the
> present, those extreme copyleft proponents who have issue w/ permissive
> licensing for anything). What I'm basically saying is that we did
> nothing really to deserve the hate...
>
> ... except for maybe some of the "over zealous" statements by Rob.
>
> What is kinda clear is that there is still a lot of sting there.
>
> Now I did somewhat try to "explain" how such over-zealousness shouldn't
> be so surprising, considering what he was fighting against (this explanation
> was in the LWN thread), but rationalization isn't excuse.
>
> No, I am not saying we focus on the past... but while we are
> here for the present and future, we shouldn't "ignore" the past
> but rather acknowledge it, and then bury it.
>
> After all, aren't we asking TDF/LO to do the same??
>
>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>
>> Am 09/06/2016 05:22 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I'm here for the present and the future, not the past.
>>
>> I also don't know what a single person - which has left the project long ago - has to do with a "what-if-or-if-not" thinking game.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 9/6/2016 8:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example, Rob Weir)
>>>>> were insulted by TDF representatives.
>>>>
>>>> It's important, in all of this conversation, to keep the interests of
>>>> the *users* first. This project is about producing software for the
>>>> public good, not about winning some contest, or nursing our hurt
>>>> feelings. We owe it to the users to forgive and forget actual and
>>>> perceived insults, and move on with our lives. Otherwise, what the
>>>> heck are we doing here?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 09/07/2016 11:35 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> On 06/09/2016 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads in various
>> places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much
>> "damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to have done.
>
> There is no relation whatsoever between Rob Weir and the collective
> science-fiction work under development in this thread.
>
> Still, I have to say that even though Rob wrote questionable posts on
> his own blog (never speaking for Apache or OpenOffice) and even though
> his bad temper is not under discussion, he also was an outstanding
> contributor and a decent community member. This should not be forgotten
> so easily.
and when we speak about excuses then we could likewise demand from
others this as we have understood their statements as damage and attacks
against OpenOffice. So, will this happen? No, because they see it -
obviously ;-) - a bit different.
Therefore let's keep this part in the past and look forward. If you
really want you could state this but without to be too detailed or names.
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Fine then. I'll drop it. It did deserve to be brought up though.
> On Sep 7, 2016, at 5:35 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 06/09/2016 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads in various
>> places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much
>> "damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to have done.
>
> There is no relation whatsoever between Rob Weir and the collective science-fiction work under development in this thread.
>
> Still, I have to say that even though Rob wrote questionable posts on his own blog (never speaking for Apache or OpenOffice) and even though his bad temper is not under discussion, he also was an outstanding contributor and a decent community member. This should not be forgotten so easily.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 06/09/2016 Jim Jagielski wrote:
> What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads in various
> places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much
> "damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to have done.
There is no relation whatsoever between Rob Weir and the collective
science-fiction work under development in this thread.
Still, I have to say that even though Rob wrote questionable posts on
his own blog (never speaking for Apache or OpenOffice) and even though
his bad temper is not under discussion, he also was an outstanding
contributor and a decent community member. This should not be forgotten
so easily.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> Not sure how this will come across... I am certain I will not
>> be fully understood about this, anyway, this question deserves an
>> answer.
>>
>> What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads in various
>> places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much
>> "damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to have done.
>> I guess the best way to state it is that he was a very "polarizing"
>> person...
>>
>> Now a lot of the ill-will (and even worse, the hate) directed towards
>> AOO is not due to anything we personally did, but is simply redirected
>> venom, mostly due to how LO felt abused and used by Oracle and that
>> somehow we were complicit in it (this fallacy, of course, was maintained
>> by people who had a not-so-hidden-agenda to create and reinforce the
>> division between AOO and LO). There was really very, very little rational
>> cause for TDF/LO hating Apache and AOO so much... or, at least, developers
>> on that side being so antagonist towards Apache (I am ignoring, for the
>> present, those extreme copyleft proponents who have issue w/ permissive
>> licensing for anything). What I'm basically saying is that we did
>> nothing really to deserve the hate...
>>
>> ... except for maybe some of the "over zealous" statements by Rob.
>
> One part is the statements. The other part, the most important one, is
> the actions.
>
> Since the old "OpenOffice.org / OOo" is not there anymore, the
> http://www.openoffice.org/ website should reflect objectively that there exist:
> 1. Apache OpenOffice, pointing to apache.openoffice.org
> 2. LibreOffice, pointing to libreoffice.org
>
[knmc]
OpenOffice.org actually does exist there. The trademark and copyright
rights to OpenOffice.org were transferred to the ASF along with the
source code. Objective reality is that Apache OpenOffice is an active
project.[/knmc]
> I hope that Rob was only involved with the current design of the
> landing page at openoffice.org.
> There are a lot of strong feelings on this issue.
[knmc]
Rob was an active contributor to all facets of AOO. There are a lot of
strong feelings on both sides of the issue.
[/knmc]
Regards
Keith
> Simos
>
>>
>> What is kinda clear is that there is still a lot of sting there.
>>
>> Now I did somewhat try to "explain" how such over-zealousness shouldn't
>> be so surprising, considering what he was fighting against (this explanation
>> was in the LWN thread), but rationalization isn't excuse.
>>
>> No, I am not saying we focus on the past... but while we are
>> here for the present and future, we shouldn't "ignore" the past
>> but rather acknowledge it, and then bury it.
>>
>> After all, aren't we asking TDF/LO to do the same??
>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 09/06/2016 05:22 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> I'm here for the present and the future, not the past.
>>>
>>> I also don't know what a single person - which has left the project long ago - has to do with a "what-if-or-if-not" thinking game.
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 9/6/2016 8:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example, Rob Weir)
>>>>>> were insulted by TDF representatives.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's important, in all of this conversation, to keep the interests of
>>>>> the *users* first. This project is about producing software for the
>>>>> public good, not about winning some contest, or nursing our hurt
>>>>> feelings. We owe it to the users to forgive and forget actual and
>>>>> perceived insults, and move on with our lives. Otherwise, what the
>>>>> heck are we doing here?
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Simos Xenitellis <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Not sure how this will come across... I am certain I will not
> be fully understood about this, anyway, this question deserves an
> answer.
>
> What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads in various
> places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much
> "damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to have done.
> I guess the best way to state it is that he was a very "polarizing"
> person...
>
> Now a lot of the ill-will (and even worse, the hate) directed towards
> AOO is not due to anything we personally did, but is simply redirected
> venom, mostly due to how LO felt abused and used by Oracle and that
> somehow we were complicit in it (this fallacy, of course, was maintained
> by people who had a not-so-hidden-agenda to create and reinforce the
> division between AOO and LO). There was really very, very little rational
> cause for TDF/LO hating Apache and AOO so much... or, at least, developers
> on that side being so antagonist towards Apache (I am ignoring, for the
> present, those extreme copyleft proponents who have issue w/ permissive
> licensing for anything). What I'm basically saying is that we did
> nothing really to deserve the hate...
>
> ... except for maybe some of the "over zealous" statements by Rob.
One part is the statements. The other part, the most important one, is
the actions.
Since the old "OpenOffice.org / OOo" is not there anymore, the
http://www.openoffice.org/ website should reflect objectively that there exist:
1. Apache OpenOffice, pointing to apache.openoffice.org
2. LibreOffice, pointing to libreoffice.org
I hope that Rob was only involved with the current design of the
landing page at openoffice.org.
There are a lot of strong feelings on this issue.
Simos
>
> What is kinda clear is that there is still a lot of sting there.
>
> Now I did somewhat try to "explain" how such over-zealousness shouldn't
> be so surprising, considering what he was fighting against (this explanation
> was in the LWN thread), but rationalization isn't excuse.
>
> No, I am not saying we focus on the past... but while we are
> here for the present and future, we shouldn't "ignore" the past
> but rather acknowledge it, and then bury it.
>
> After all, aren't we asking TDF/LO to do the same??
>
>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>
>> Am 09/06/2016 05:22 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I'm here for the present and the future, not the past.
>>
>> I also don't know what a single person - which has left the project long ago - has to do with a "what-if-or-if-not" thinking game.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 9/6/2016 8:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example, Rob Weir)
>>>>> were insulted by TDF representatives.
>>>>
>>>> It's important, in all of this conversation, to keep the interests of
>>>> the *users* first. This project is about producing software for the
>>>> public good, not about winning some contest, or nursing our hurt
>>>> feelings. We owe it to the users to forgive and forget actual and
>>>> perceived insults, and move on with our lives. Otherwise, what the
>>>> heck are we doing here?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Not sure how this will come across... I am certain I will not
be fully understood about this, anyway, this question deserves an
answer.
What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads in various
places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much
"damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to have done.
I guess the best way to state it is that he was a very "polarizing"
person...
Now a lot of the ill-will (and even worse, the hate) directed towards
AOO is not due to anything we personally did, but is simply redirected
venom, mostly due to how LO felt abused and used by Oracle and that
somehow we were complicit in it (this fallacy, of course, was maintained
by people who had a not-so-hidden-agenda to create and reinforce the
division between AOO and LO). There was really very, very little rational
cause for TDF/LO hating Apache and AOO so much... or, at least, developers
on that side being so antagonist towards Apache (I am ignoring, for the
present, those extreme copyleft proponents who have issue w/ permissive
licensing for anything). What I'm basically saying is that we did
nothing really to deserve the hate...
... except for maybe some of the "over zealous" statements by Rob.
What is kinda clear is that there is still a lot of sting there.
Now I did somewhat try to "explain" how such over-zealousness shouldn't
be so surprising, considering what he was fighting against (this explanation
was in the LWN thread), but rationalization isn't excuse.
No, I am not saying we focus on the past... but while we are
here for the present and future, we shouldn't "ignore" the past
but rather acknowledge it, and then bury it.
After all, aren't we asking TDF/LO to do the same??
> On Sep 6, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>
> Am 09/06/2016 05:22 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>> +1
>>
>> I'm here for the present and the future, not the past.
>
> I also don't know what a single person - which has left the project long ago - has to do with a "what-if-or-if-not" thinking game.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>> On 9/6/2016 8:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example, Rob Weir)
>>>> were insulted by TDF representatives.
>>>
>>> It's important, in all of this conversation, to keep the interests of
>>> the *users* first. This project is about producing software for the
>>> public good, not about winning some contest, or nursing our hurt
>>> feelings. We owe it to the users to forgive and forget actual and
>>> perceived insults, and move on with our lives. Otherwise, what the
>>> heck are we doing here?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 09/06/2016 05:22 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
> +1
>
> I'm here for the present and the future, not the past.
I also don't know what a single person - which has left the project long
ago - has to do with a "what-if-or-if-not" thinking game.
Marcus
> On 9/6/2016 8:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example, Rob Weir)
>>> were insulted by TDF representatives.
>>
>> It's important, in all of this conversation, to keep the interests of
>> the *users* first. This project is about producing software for the
>> public good, not about winning some contest, or nursing our hurt
>> feelings. We owe it to the users to forgive and forget actual and
>> perceived insults, and move on with our lives. Otherwise, what the
>> heck are we doing here?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
+1
I'm here for the present and the future, not the past.
On 9/6/2016 8:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
>
> On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>
> wrote:
>
>> never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example, Rob Weir)
>> were insulted by TDF representatives.
>
> It's important, in all of this conversation, to keep the interests of
> the *users* first. This project is about producing software for the
> public good, not about winning some contest, or nursing our hurt
> feelings. We owe it to the users to forgive and forget actual and
> perceived insults, and move on with our lives. Otherwise, what the
> heck are we doing here?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org>.
On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
> never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example, Rob Weir) were insulted by
> TDF representatives.
It's important, in all of this conversation, to keep the interests of the *users* first. This project is about producing software for the public good, not about winning some contest, or nursing our hurt feelings. We owe it to the users to forgive and forget actual and perceived insults, and move on with our lives. Otherwise, what the heck are we doing here?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jorg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Secondly, as alluded to above, we should prepare ourselves
> for the FUD,
> the "AOO is dead" victory chants, the numerous anti-AOO and
> anti-Apache
> spewings, etc... There are some who will use this as a self-serving
> soapboxing opportunity, and warp the facts into some Bizarro alternate
> universe history. We should be there to set the facts straight but
> also resign ourselves to the fact that their voices will
> likely be louder
> than ours.
You're absolutely right.
> Secondly, part and parcel with this "pivot" is that we rename
> the project
> to something more accurate to what our new function would be
> and we use
> the AOO landing page to reference and redirect to the various OO
> implementations out there. In fact, I would even suggest us
> considering
> going further and redirecting AOO traffic to LO, so that
> people considering
> "OpenOffice" get routed to the LO site (either automatically
> or via some
> click/OK interface).
-1
OpenOffice is not LibreOffice!
never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example, Rob Weir) were insulted by
TDF representatives.
Greetings,
Jorg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Dennis, thanks for opening up this conversation.
As noted over the last few months, it has become obvious to the
board that AOO has not been a healthy project for some time.
Again, there are many, many reasons for this, and it doesn't
help to go into them here and now. The simple fact is that we are at
this point now, so what should be done?
First of all, let's address the elephant in the room: Some people
(mostly naysayers and people who love stirring up sh*t) will say that
"Apache had this coming" or that we were "stupid or arrogant" in
taking on this challenge. Doing so simply shows their own ignorance,
but it still stings I'm sure. Even if AOO had not done 1 single release,
the donation of the codebase *and the relicensing of said codebase to
the ALv2* has been a *significant* plus to the open office ecosystem.
This has allowed the other players in the game to have true IP
provenance, as well as the ability to relicense things, as LO did
almost immediately.
This is something MAJOR that many people will forget and ignore, but it
is something we should be proud of. As things proceed, and the haters
start (continue) hating, these are things we should remind ourselves
of.
Secondly, as alluded to above, we should prepare ourselves for the FUD,
the "AOO is dead" victory chants, the numerous anti-AOO and anti-Apache
spewings, etc... There are some who will use this as a self-serving
soapboxing opportunity, and warp the facts into some Bizarro alternate
universe history. We should be there to set the facts straight but
also resign ourselves to the fact that their voices will likely be louder
than ours.
Now, with that out of the way, here are my thoughts on retirement. I
have previously shared these but am doing so again.
What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present
time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be consumed
by actual end-user implementations.
This is similar to the initial thoughts behind our acceptance of AOO in
the 1st place: that AOO would form the basis/foundation/core-implementations
and others would build upon those to create more specialized and enhanced
OpenOffice alternatives; and since it was a core, a common shared core,
the expectation was that these alternatives would work together, in true
FOSS fashion, and AOO would see code and patches from these alternatives
in improving this core. As we all know, this did not happen, and instead
of sharing, these alternatives never contributed back.
So with all that being said, you may be asking, "Jim, if they didn't
contribute then why would the contribute now?". Let me answer that.
First of all, I think they saw us as competitors, rather than co-
operators. Some of this was due to bad-blood, and some of it was due
to stupid posturing on both sides. But the main reason why, imo, was
because we were also end-user. End users needed to make a *choice* between
AOO and SomethingElse. By no longer being an end-user application,
that goes away.
Secondly, part and parcel with this "pivot" is that we rename the project
to something more accurate to what our new function would be and we use
the AOO landing page to reference and redirect to the various OO
implementations out there. In fact, I would even suggest us considering
going further and redirecting AOO traffic to LO, so that people considering
"OpenOffice" get routed to the LO site (either automatically or via some
click/OK interface).
With these 2 changes, as obvious olive branches, I think we will
see all players in the OO development eco-system be willing contributors
to the new project. And this will give the new project a new lease
on life.
Cheers!
> On Sep 1, 2016, at 7:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look like.
>
> A. PERSPECTIVE
> B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
> 1. Code Base
> 2. Downloads
> 3. Development Support
> 4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
> 5. Social Media Presence
> 6. Project Management Committee
> 7. Branding
>
> A. PERSPECTIVE
>
> I have regularly observed that the Apache OpenOffice project has limited capacity for sustaining the project in an energetic manner. It is also my considered opinion that there is no ready supply of developers who have the capacity, capability, and will to supplement the roughly half-dozen volunteers holding the project together. It doesn't matter what the reasons for that might be.
>
> The Apache Project Maturity Model,
> <http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html>, identifies the characteristics for which an Apache project is expected to strive.
>
> Recently, some elements have been brought into serious question:
>
> QU20: The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software.
> QU50: The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a timely manner.
>
> There is also a litmus test which is kind of a red line. That is for the project to have a PMC capable of producing releases. That means that there are at least three available PMC members capable of building a functioning binary from a release-candidate archive, and who do so in providing binding votes to approve the release of that code.
>
> In the case of Apache OpenOffice, needing to disclose security vulnerabilities for which there is no mitigation in an update has become a serious issue.
>
> In responses to concerns raised in June, the PMC is currently tasked by the ASF Board to account for this inability and to provide a remedy. An indicator of the seriousness of the Board's concern is the PMC been requested to report to the Board every month, starting in August, rather than quarterly, the normal case. One option for remedy that must be considered is retirement of the project. The request is for the PMC's consideration among other possible options. The Board has not ordered a solution.
>
> I cannot prediction how this will all work out. It is remiss of me not to point out that retirement of the project is a serious possibility.
>
> There are those who fear that discussing retirement can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. My concern is that the project could end with a bang or a whimper. My interest is in seeing any retirement happen gracefully. That means we need to consider it as a contingency. For contingency plans, no time is a good time, but earlier is always better than later.
>
>
> B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
>
> Here is a provisional list of all elements that would have to be addressed, over a period of time, as part of any retirement effort.
>
> In order to understand what would have had to happen in a graceful process, the assumption below is that the project has already retired.
>
> Requests for additions and adjustments to this compilation are welcome.
>
> 1. CODE BASE
>
> 1.1 The Apache OpenOffice Subversion repository where code is maintained has been moved to "The Attic." Apache Attic is an actual project, <http://attic.apache.org/>. The source code would remain
> available and could be checked-out from Subversion by anyone interested in making use of it. There is no means of committing changes.
>
> 1.2 Apache Externals/Extras consists of external libraries that are relied upon by the source code but are not part of the source code. These were housed on SourceForge and elsewhere. (a) They might have been archived in conjunction with the SVN (1.1). (b) They might be identified in a way that someone attempting to build from source later on would be able to work with later versions of the external dependencies. There are additional external dependencies that might have become obsolete.
>
> 1.3 Build Dependencies/Tool Chains. The actual construction of the released binaries depends on particular versions of specific tools that are used for carrying out builds of binaries from the source. The dependencies as they last were used are identified in a historical location. Some of the tools and their use become obsolete over time.
>
> 1.4 GitHub Mirror. For the GitHub Mirror of the Apache OpenOffice SVN (a) pull requests are not accepted. (b) Continuation of the presence of the GitHub repository might be shut down at some point depending on GitHub policy and ASF support.
>
> 2. DOWNLOADS
>
> 2.1 The source code releases, patches, and installable binaries are all retained in the archive system that is already maintained. There are no further additions.
>
> 2.2 The downloading of full releases is supported on the SourceForge mirroring system. There are no new downloads. How long until SourceForge retires its support for downloads is not predictable (and see 4.3).
>
> 2.3 The Apache OpenOffice Extensions and Templates system is an independent arrangement hosted and curated on SourceForge. Whether and how long the download service is preserved by SourceForge is not predictable.
>
> 2.4 The mechanism for announcing updates to installed versions of OpenOffice binaries is adjusted to indicate that (a) particular versions are no longer supported. (b) For the latest distribution(s), there may be advice to users about investigating still-supported alternatives.
>
> 3. DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT
>
> 3.1 The Apache OpenOffice Bugzilla is mirrored in The Attic. The Bugzilla is read-only and preserved for historical purposes.
>
> 3.2 The Pootle materials used for the development of localizations are exported and archived.
>
> 3.3 The Confluence Wiki operated by the project is preserved in a read-only state:<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/>.
>
> 3.4 The commits@ and issues@ mailing lists are shut down although archived.
>
> 4. PUBLIC PROJECT-COMMUNITY INTERFACES
>
> 4.1 All public discussion mailing lists are shut down. They are all archived and accessible from The Attic.
>
> 4.2 The dev@ list was the last to shut down, having been used during orchestration of the retirement.
>
> 4.3 The http://openoffice.org site is static and uneditable. The CMS functions for contribution to the site are disabled. Over the course of retirement, key pages of the site were updated to reflect the retirement activity and to eventually end some of the functions, such as information on how to contribute, how to obtain the software, how to obtain help, branding requirements, etc.
>
> 4.4 The Wikimedia subsite of openoffice.org is read-only and static. No contributions or edits can be made. At some point, the Wikimedia server will need to be shut down and (a) the server is shutdown/moved with openoffice.org indicating that the wiki is unavailable. (b) Only a static form of the pages is provided. (c) Alternative hosting and rebranding is achieved.
>
> 4.5 The OpenOffice Community Forums were semi-autonomous. (a) The server is retired. (b) The site is rehosted and rebranded by agreement with the Apache OpenOffice project and the ASF.
>
>
> 5. SOCIAL MEDIA PRESENCE
>
> 5.1 The Apache Planet OpenOffice Blog is terminated with the announcement that Retirement is complete.
>
> 5.2 The Twitter account is terminated.
>
> 5.3 Any Facebook page under control of the project is closed.
>
> 5.4 The announce@ list is terminated and archived with the announcement of Retirement completion.
>
>
> 6. PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
>
> 6.1 With completion of the retirement, the private@ and security@ openoffice.org lists were shutdown (although archived as are all such lists).
>
> 6.2 The Project Management Committee is disbanded and the Chair is relieved.
>
> 6.3 There is no longer any identified operation for continuation of the project except as specified for The Attic.
>
>
> 7. BRANDING
>
> 7.1 With the cessation of releases, it is made widely known that official releases other than the last ones provided by the project are not the work of Apache OpenOffice and any claimed association, justification for charge of fees and for carrying of advertising are not in support of the Apache OpenOffice project. This notification will also be made to those organizations that carry offerings to the contrary (e.g., eBay).
>
> 7.2 There is no point of contact, other than branding@ apache.org, for request to make use of the brands.
>
> 7.3 There is no active attention to preservation of the trademarks related to Apache OpenOffice. (a) Inappropriate use of Apache and its symbols in names of offerings will be defended when brought to the attention of branding@. (b) Uses of OpenOffice, Open Office, openoffice.org and other similarities without attribution to Apache are not addressed.
>
> *** end of the list as of 2016-09-01 ***
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Am 08.09.2016 um 14:21 schrieb Dr. Michael Stehmann:
>
> There are two articles on german technical and Free Software news
> portals and regarding to the comments they also got a lot of attention.
>
Sorry, it was uncomplete:
There are two articles on german technical and Free Software news
portals about our new recruitment mailing list and ...
Kind regards
Michael
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dr. Michael Stehmann" <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Am 08.09.2016 um 12:39 schrieb Jose R R:
>
> Just as when former HP CEO, Léo Apotheker, masturbated in public about
> selling the PC business, damage has already been done:
> http://www.networkworld.com/article/3117144/open-source-tools/openoffice-may-be-fading-into-the-sunset.html
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/openoffice-after-years-of-neglect-could-shut-down/
>
> and the LibreOffice trolls are having such a ride in social networks...
>
> Too bad ApacheOO does not have HP's financial muscle to reassure users
> that it was a one-off sort of irresponsible activity.
>
>
This posting brought us a lot of attention ("bad news are good news")
and as a result some new developers and supporters.
There are two articles on german technical and Free Software news
portals and regarding to the comments they also got a lot of attention.
There was a "tug" in the community and people saw their special
responsibility for the project.
Unfortunately Kay resigned. But fortunately even this great loss did not
induce others to react in the same way.
So let us use the drive to demonstrate that we are still able to create
a good and usefull product. As others said: Think about present and
future - and leave the past to trolls and historians!
Kind regards
Michael
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jose R R <jo...@metztli.com>.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look like.
>
> A. PERSPECTIVE
> B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
> 1. Code Base
> 2. Downloads
> 3. Development Support
> 4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
> 5. Social Media Presence
> 6. Project Management Committee
> 7. Branding
>
> A. PERSPECTIVE
>
> I have regularly observed that the Apache OpenOffice project has limited capacity for sustaining the project in an energetic manner. It is also my considered opinion that there is no ready supply of developers who have the capacity, capability, and will to supplement the roughly half-dozen volunteers holding the project together. It doesn't matter what the reasons for that might be.
>
> The Apache Project Maturity Model,
> <http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html>, identifies the characteristics for which an Apache project is expected to strive.
>
> Recently, some elements have been brought into serious question:
>
> QU20: The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software.
> QU50: The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a timely manner.
>
> There is also a litmus test which is kind of a red line. That is for the project to have a PMC capable of producing releases. That means that there are at least three available PMC members capable of building a functioning binary from a release-candidate archive, and who do so in providing binding votes to approve the release of that code.
>
> In the case of Apache OpenOffice, needing to disclose security vulnerabilities for which there is no mitigation in an update has become a serious issue.
>
> In responses to concerns raised in June, the PMC is currently tasked by the ASF Board to account for this inability and to provide a remedy. An indicator of the seriousness of the Board's concern is the PMC been requested to report to the Board every month, starting in August, rather than quarterly, the normal case. One option for remedy that must be considered is retirement of the project. The request is for the PMC's consideration among other possible options. The Board has not ordered a solution.
>
> I cannot prediction how this will all work out. It is remiss of me not to point out that retirement of the project is a serious possibility.
>
> There are those who fear that discussing retirement can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. My concern is that the project could end with a bang or a whimper. My interest is in seeing any retirement happen gracefully. That means we need to consider it as a contingency. For contingency plans, no time is a good time, but earlier is always better than later.
>
>
> B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
>
> Here is a provisional list of all elements that would have to be addressed, over a period of time, as part of any retirement effort.
>
> In order to understand what would have had to happen in a graceful process, the assumption below is that the project has already retired.
>
> Requests for additions and adjustments to this compilation are welcome.
>
> 1. CODE BASE
>
> 1.1 The Apache OpenOffice Subversion repository where code is maintained has been moved to "The Attic." Apache Attic is an actual project, <http://attic.apache.org/>. The source code would remain
> available and could be checked-out from Subversion by anyone interested in making use of it. There is no means of committing changes.
>
> 1.2 Apache Externals/Extras consists of external libraries that are relied upon by the source code but are not part of the source code. These were housed on SourceForge and elsewhere. (a) They might have been archived in conjunction with the SVN (1.1). (b) They might be identified in a way that someone attempting to build from source later on would be able to work with later versions of the external dependencies. There are additional external dependencies that might have become obsolete.
>
> 1.3 Build Dependencies/Tool Chains. The actual construction of the released binaries depends on particular versions of specific tools that are used for carrying out builds of binaries from the source. The dependencies as they last were used are identified in a historical location. Some of the tools and their use become obsolete over time.
>
> 1.4 GitHub Mirror. For the GitHub Mirror of the Apache OpenOffice SVN (a) pull requests are not accepted. (b) Continuation of the presence of the GitHub repository might be shut down at some point depending on GitHub policy and ASF support.
>
> 2. DOWNLOADS
>
> 2.1 The source code releases, patches, and installable binaries are all retained in the archive system that is already maintained. There are no further additions.
>
> 2.2 The downloading of full releases is supported on the SourceForge mirroring system. There are no new downloads. How long until SourceForge retires its support for downloads is not predictable (and see 4.3).
>
> 2.3 The Apache OpenOffice Extensions and Templates system is an independent arrangement hosted and curated on SourceForge. Whether and how long the download service is preserved by SourceForge is not predictable.
>
> 2.4 The mechanism for announcing updates to installed versions of OpenOffice binaries is adjusted to indicate that (a) particular versions are no longer supported. (b) For the latest distribution(s), there may be advice to users about investigating still-supported alternatives.
>
> 3. DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT
>
> 3.1 The Apache OpenOffice Bugzilla is mirrored in The Attic. The Bugzilla is read-only and preserved for historical purposes.
>
> 3.2 The Pootle materials used for the development of localizations are exported and archived.
>
> 3.3 The Confluence Wiki operated by the project is preserved in a read-only state:<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/>.
>
> 3.4 The commits@ and issues@ mailing lists are shut down although archived.
>
> 4. PUBLIC PROJECT-COMMUNITY INTERFACES
>
> 4.1 All public discussion mailing lists are shut down. They are all archived and accessible from The Attic.
>
> 4.2 The dev@ list was the last to shut down, having been used during orchestration of the retirement.
>
> 4.3 The http://openoffice.org site is static and uneditable. The CMS functions for contribution to the site are disabled. Over the course of retirement, key pages of the site were updated to reflect the retirement activity and to eventually end some of the functions, such as information on how to contribute, how to obtain the software, how to obtain help, branding requirements, etc.
>
> 4.4 The Wikimedia subsite of openoffice.org is read-only and static. No contributions or edits can be made. At some point, the Wikimedia server will need to be shut down and (a) the server is shutdown/moved with openoffice.org indicating that the wiki is unavailable. (b) Only a static form of the pages is provided. (c) Alternative hosting and rebranding is achieved.
>
> 4.5 The OpenOffice Community Forums were semi-autonomous. (a) The server is retired. (b) The site is rehosted and rebranded by agreement with the Apache OpenOffice project and the ASF.
>
>
> 5. SOCIAL MEDIA PRESENCE
>
> 5.1 The Apache Planet OpenOffice Blog is terminated with the announcement that Retirement is complete.
>
> 5.2 The Twitter account is terminated.
>
> 5.3 Any Facebook page under control of the project is closed.
>
> 5.4 The announce@ list is terminated and archived with the announcement of Retirement completion.
>
>
> 6. PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
>
> 6.1 With completion of the retirement, the private@ and security@ openoffice.org lists were shutdown (although archived as are all such lists).
>
> 6.2 The Project Management Committee is disbanded and the Chair is relieved.
>
> 6.3 There is no longer any identified operation for continuation of the project except as specified for The Attic.
>
>
> 7. BRANDING
>
> 7.1 With the cessation of releases, it is made widely known that official releases other than the last ones provided by the project are not the work of Apache OpenOffice and any claimed association, justification for charge of fees and for carrying of advertising are not in support of the Apache OpenOffice project. This notification will also be made to those organizations that carry offerings to the contrary (e.g., eBay).
>
> 7.2 There is no point of contact, other than branding@ apache.org, for request to make use of the brands.
>
> 7.3 There is no active attention to preservation of the trademarks related to Apache OpenOffice. (a) Inappropriate use of Apache and its symbols in names of offerings will be defended when brought to the attention of branding@. (b) Uses of OpenOffice, Open Office, openoffice.org and other similarities without attribution to Apache are not addressed.
>
> *** end of the list as of 2016-09-01 ***
>
>
>
Just as when former HP CEO, Léo Apotheker, masturbated in public about
selling the PC business, damage has already been done:
http://www.networkworld.com/article/3117144/open-source-tools/openoffice-may-be-fading-into-the-sunset.html
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/openoffice-after-years-of-neglect-could-shut-down/
and the LibreOffice trolls are having such a ride in social networks...
Too bad ApacheOO does not have HP's financial muscle to reassure users
that it was a one-off sort of irresponsible activity.
--
Jose R R
http://metztli.it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try at no charge http://b2evolution.net for http://OpenShift.com PaaS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from our GitHub http://Nepohualtzintzin.com repository. Cloud the easy way!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:motley.crue.fan@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 21:49
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Dennis Hamilton <de...@acm.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>
> >
> >
> > What alternative do you see?
> >
> >
> >
> There's no particular reason that I can see, that AOO shouldn't be able
> to
> produce secure software, issue releases and
> do all of those other things. We've done it in the past (and yeah, I
> feel
> guilty about saying "we" since I haven't been very active. Mea culpa),
> and
> it's not like the project caught bubonic plague or something. Yeah, I
> know
> a lot of people prefer to contribute to LO and not AOO, and that losing
> the
> people IBM was paying was a big hit. But I can't help but think
> there's a
> way to get more people involved and contributing here. So I'd rather
> see
> discussion around "how do we attract additional
> contributors (or fix whatever other problems we have)?" than talk about
> a
> "retirement plan." I really do think that if people start putting a lot
> of
> energy into that, it will rob even more energy from the project.
>
> Or maybe there are other options that could be considered, even if only
> as
> interim steps. Somebody mentioned something about a problem making Mac
> releases. OK fine, let's drop Mac support for now. Maybe that frees up
> some energy for other things. OK, radical suggestion and probably won't
> be
> met with a lot of support, but the point is to say, let's think outside
> the
> box a little and see if there are some other ideas we could adopt.
>
>
[orcmid]
I think you will be heartened that there is just such an effort underway and many think that will be the answer.
Are you one of those who can "put a lot of energy into it?" Do you know where you'd direct that energy to come up with likely candidates for becoming more involved?
With regard to interim steps, it is striking to realize that, as low as the MacOSX population is, it is almost double our Linux user base [;<).
>
> Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Phillip Rhodes <mo...@gmail.com>.
>
>
> What alternative do you see?
>
>
>
There's no particular reason that I can see, that AOO shouldn't be able to
produce secure software, issue releases and
do all of those other things. We've done it in the past (and yeah, I feel
guilty about saying "we" since I haven't been very active. Mea culpa), and
it's not like the project caught bubonic plague or something. Yeah, I know
a lot of people prefer to contribute to LO and not AOO, and that losing the
people IBM was paying was a big hit. But I can't help but think there's a
way to get more people involved and contributing here. So I'd rather see
discussion around "how do we attract additional
contributors (or fix whatever other problems we have)?" than talk about a
"retirement plan." I really do think that if people start putting a lot of
energy into that, it will rob even more energy from the project.
Or maybe there are other options that could be considered, even if only as
interim steps. Somebody mentioned something about a problem making Mac
releases. OK fine, let's drop Mac support for now. Maybe that frees up
some energy for other things. OK, radical suggestion and probably won't be
met with a lot of support, but the point is to say, let's think outside the
box a little and see if there are some other ideas we could adopt.
Phil
RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:motley.crue.fan@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 21:16
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orcmid@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>
> Wow, just wow. I have to say, I think even broaching this topic is a
> mistake. "Self-fulfilling prophecy"? Not even that, it'll be a "3rd
> party
> fulfilling prophecy" as soon as this hits the press. There are a lot of
> people out there who seem to have it in for AOO and have for a while...
> now
> you *know* there will be a headline appearing in the next week, reading
> "Apache OpenOffice Mulls Retirement" or "AOO Begins To Wind Down", etc.
> Yeah, it's crappy journalism, but it's almost 100% certain to happen.
> And
> that's just going to dampen enthusiasm even more.
>
> I wish I could say I had a magic bullet of an answer for how to get
> things
> moving again, but I don't. But I don't think opening a discussion about
> retirement and giving AOO's enemies more ammunition is a strong tactical
> move.
[orcmid]
You're right Phil, it is not meant to be a tactical (or even strategic) move in some sort of adversarial situation.
How else can we work through these difficulties, and understand our options as a community?
Being a project of the Apache Software Foundation brings with it some rather unique requirements for operation in the public interest and operating in the open with our community, including the public that relies on Apache OpenOffice software.
I don't know any way to accomplish that in a way that outsiders can't spin however they like. We need the engagement and many eyes and thoughts of our community, as reflected here on dev@.
What alternative do you see?
>
>
> Phil
>
>
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look
> like.
> >
> > A. PERSPECTIVE
> > B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
> > 1. Code Base
> > 2. Downloads
> > 3. Development Support
> > 4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
> > 5. Social Media Presence
> > 6. Project Management Committee
> > 7. Branding
> >
[ ... ] >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Phillip Rhodes <mo...@gmail.com>.
Wow, just wow. I have to say, I think even broaching this topic is a
mistake. "Self-fulfilling prophecy"? Not even that, it'll be a "3rd party
fulfilling prophecy" as soon as this hits the press. There are a lot of
people out there who seem to have it in for AOO and have for a while... now
you *know* there will be a headline appearing in the next week, reading
"Apache OpenOffice Mulls Retirement" or "AOO Begins To Wind Down", etc.
Yeah, it's crappy journalism, but it's almost 100% certain to happen. And
that's just going to dampen enthusiasm even more.
I wish I could say I had a magic bullet of an answer for how to get things
moving again, but I don't. But I don't think opening a discussion about
retirement and giving AOO's enemies more ammunition is a strong tactical
move.
Phil
This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look like.
>
> A. PERSPECTIVE
> B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
> 1. Code Base
> 2. Downloads
> 3. Development Support
> 4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
> 5. Social Media Presence
> 6. Project Management Committee
> 7. Branding
>
> A. PERSPECTIVE
>
> I have regularly observed that the Apache OpenOffice project has limited
> capacity for sustaining the project in an energetic manner. It is also my
> considered opinion that there is no ready supply of developers who have the
> capacity, capability, and will to supplement the roughly half-dozen
> volunteers holding the project together. It doesn't matter what the
> reasons for that might be.
>
> The Apache Project Maturity Model,
> <http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html>,
> identifies the characteristics for which an Apache project is expected to
> strive.
>
> Recently, some elements have been brought into serious question:
>
> QU20: The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software.
> QU50: The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a
> timely manner.
>
> There is also a litmus test which is kind of a red line. That is for the
> project to have a PMC capable of producing releases. That means that there
> are at least three available PMC members capable of building a functioning
> binary from a release-candidate archive, and who do so in providing binding
> votes to approve the release of that code.
>
> In the case of Apache OpenOffice, needing to disclose security
> vulnerabilities for which there is no mitigation in an update has become a
> serious issue.
>
> In responses to concerns raised in June, the PMC is currently tasked by
> the ASF Board to account for this inability and to provide a remedy. An
> indicator of the seriousness of the Board's concern is the PMC been
> requested to report to the Board every month, starting in August, rather
> than quarterly, the normal case. One option for remedy that must be
> considered is retirement of the project. The request is for the PMC's
> consideration among other possible options. The Board has not ordered a
> solution.
>
> I cannot prediction how this will all work out. It is remiss of me not to
> point out that retirement of the project is a serious possibility.
>
> There are those who fear that discussing retirement can become a
> self-fulfilling prophecy. My concern is that the project could end with a
> bang or a whimper. My interest is in seeing any retirement happen
> gracefully. That means we need to consider it as a contingency. For
> contingency plans, no time is a good time, but earlier is always better
> than later.
>
>
> B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
>
> Here is a provisional list of all elements that would have to be
> addressed, over a period of time, as part of any retirement effort.
>
> In order to understand what would have had to happen in a graceful
> process, the assumption below is that the project has already retired.
>
> Requests for additions and adjustments to this compilation are welcome.
>
> 1. CODE BASE
>
> 1.1 The Apache OpenOffice Subversion repository where code is
> maintained has been moved to "The Attic." Apache Attic is an actual
> project, <http://attic.apache.org/>. The source code would remain
> available and could be checked-out from Subversion by anyone interested in
> making use of it. There is no means of committing changes.
>
> 1.2 Apache Externals/Extras consists of external libraries that are
> relied upon by the source code but are not part of the source code. These
> were housed on SourceForge and elsewhere. (a) They might have been
> archived in conjunction with the SVN (1.1). (b) They might be identified
> in a way that someone attempting to build from source later on would be
> able to work with later versions of the external dependencies. There are
> additional external dependencies that might have become obsolete.
>
> 1.3 Build Dependencies/Tool Chains. The actual construction of the
> released binaries depends on particular versions of specific tools that are
> used for carrying out builds of binaries from the source. The dependencies
> as they last were used are identified in a historical location. Some of
> the tools and their use become obsolete over time.
>
> 1.4 GitHub Mirror. For the GitHub Mirror of the Apache OpenOffice SVN
> (a) pull requests are not accepted. (b) Continuation of the presence of
> the GitHub repository might be shut down at some point depending on GitHub
> policy and ASF support.
>
> 2. DOWNLOADS
>
> 2.1 The source code releases, patches, and installable binaries are
> all retained in the archive system that is already maintained. There are
> no further additions.
>
> 2.2 The downloading of full releases is supported on the SourceForge
> mirroring system. There are no new downloads. How long until SourceForge
> retires its support for downloads is not predictable (and see 4.3).
>
> 2.3 The Apache OpenOffice Extensions and Templates system is an
> independent arrangement hosted and curated on SourceForge. Whether and how
> long the download service is preserved by SourceForge is not predictable.
>
> 2.4 The mechanism for announcing updates to installed versions of
> OpenOffice binaries is adjusted to indicate that (a) particular versions
> are no longer supported. (b) For the latest distribution(s), there may be
> advice to users about investigating still-supported alternatives.
>
> 3. DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT
>
> 3.1 The Apache OpenOffice Bugzilla is mirrored in The Attic. The
> Bugzilla is read-only and preserved for historical purposes.
>
> 3.2 The Pootle materials used for the development of localizations are
> exported and archived.
>
> 3.3 The Confluence Wiki operated by the project is preserved in a
> read-only state:<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/>.
>
> 3.4 The commits@ and issues@ mailing lists are shut down although
> archived.
>
> 4. PUBLIC PROJECT-COMMUNITY INTERFACES
>
> 4.1 All public discussion mailing lists are shut down. They are all
> archived and accessible from The Attic.
>
> 4.2 The dev@ list was the last to shut down, having been used during
> orchestration of the retirement.
>
> 4.3 The http://openoffice.org site is static and uneditable. The CMS
> functions for contribution to the site are disabled. Over the course of
> retirement, key pages of the site were updated to reflect the retirement
> activity and to eventually end some of the functions, such as information
> on how to contribute, how to obtain the software, how to obtain help,
> branding requirements, etc.
>
> 4.4 The Wikimedia subsite of openoffice.org is read-only and static.
> No contributions or edits can be made. At some point, the Wikimedia server
> will need to be shut down and (a) the server is shutdown/moved with
> openoffice.org indicating that the wiki is unavailable. (b) Only a
> static form of the pages is provided. (c) Alternative hosting and
> rebranding is achieved.
>
> 4.5 The OpenOffice Community Forums were semi-autonomous. (a) The
> server is retired. (b) The site is rehosted and rebranded by agreement
> with the Apache OpenOffice project and the ASF.
>
>
> 5. SOCIAL MEDIA PRESENCE
>
> 5.1 The Apache Planet OpenOffice Blog is terminated with the
> announcement that Retirement is complete.
>
> 5.2 The Twitter account is terminated.
>
> 5.3 Any Facebook page under control of the project is closed.
>
> 5.4 The announce@ list is terminated and archived with the
> announcement of Retirement completion.
>
>
> 6. PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
>
> 6.1 With completion of the retirement, the private@ and security@
> openoffice.org lists were shutdown (although archived as are all such
> lists).
>
> 6.2 The Project Management Committee is disbanded and the Chair is
> relieved.
>
> 6.3 There is no longer any identified operation for continuation of
> the project except as specified for The Attic.
>
>
> 7. BRANDING
>
> 7.1 With the cessation of releases, it is made widely known that
> official releases other than the last ones provided by the project are not
> the work of Apache OpenOffice and any claimed association, justification
> for charge of fees and for carrying of advertising are not in support of
> the Apache OpenOffice project. This notification will also be made to
> those organizations that carry offerings to the contrary (e.g., eBay).
>
> 7.2 There is no point of contact, other than branding@ apache.org,
> for request to make use of the brands.
>
> 7.3 There is no active attention to preservation of the trademarks
> related to Apache OpenOffice. (a) Inappropriate use of Apache and its
> symbols in names of offerings will be defended when brought to the
> attention of branding@. (b) Uses of OpenOffice, Open Office,
> openoffice.org and other similarities without attribution to Apache are
> not addressed.
>
> *** end of the list as of 2016-09-01
> ***
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Damjan Jovanovic <da...@apache.org>.
Well, while I want to help, I also have to hedge my bets, so I've already
started to spend more time contributing to other open-source projects in
case AOO retires.
Regards
Damjan
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look like.
>
> A. PERSPECTIVE
> B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
> 1. Code Base
> 2. Downloads
> 3. Development Support
> 4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
> 5. Social Media Presence
> 6. Project Management Committee
> 7. Branding
>
> A. PERSPECTIVE
>
> I have regularly observed that the Apache OpenOffice project has limited
> capacity for sustaining the project in an energetic manner. It is also my
> considered opinion that there is no ready supply of developers who have the
> capacity, capability, and will to supplement the roughly half-dozen
> volunteers holding the project together. It doesn't matter what the
> reasons for that might be.
>
> The Apache Project Maturity Model,
> <http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html>,
> identifies the characteristics for which an Apache project is expected to
> strive.
>
> Recently, some elements have been brought into serious question:
>
> QU20: The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software.
> QU50: The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a
> timely manner.
>
> There is also a litmus test which is kind of a red line. That is for the
> project to have a PMC capable of producing releases. That means that there
> are at least three available PMC members capable of building a functioning
> binary from a release-candidate archive, and who do so in providing binding
> votes to approve the release of that code.
>
> In the case of Apache OpenOffice, needing to disclose security
> vulnerabilities for which there is no mitigation in an update has become a
> serious issue.
>
> In responses to concerns raised in June, the PMC is currently tasked by
> the ASF Board to account for this inability and to provide a remedy. An
> indicator of the seriousness of the Board's concern is the PMC been
> requested to report to the Board every month, starting in August, rather
> than quarterly, the normal case. One option for remedy that must be
> considered is retirement of the project. The request is for the PMC's
> consideration among other possible options. The Board has not ordered a
> solution.
>
> I cannot prediction how this will all work out. It is remiss of me not to
> point out that retirement of the project is a serious possibility.
>
> There are those who fear that discussing retirement can become a
> self-fulfilling prophecy. My concern is that the project could end with a
> bang or a whimper. My interest is in seeing any retirement happen
> gracefully. That means we need to consider it as a contingency. For
> contingency plans, no time is a good time, but earlier is always better
> than later.
>
>
> B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
>
> Here is a provisional list of all elements that would have to be
> addressed, over a period of time, as part of any retirement effort.
>
> In order to understand what would have had to happen in a graceful
> process, the assumption below is that the project has already retired.
>
> Requests for additions and adjustments to this compilation are welcome.
>
> 1. CODE BASE
>
> 1.1 The Apache OpenOffice Subversion repository where code is
> maintained has been moved to "The Attic." Apache Attic is an actual
> project, <http://attic.apache.org/>. The source code would remain
> available and could be checked-out from Subversion by anyone interested in
> making use of it. There is no means of committing changes.
>
> 1.2 Apache Externals/Extras consists of external libraries that are
> relied upon by the source code but are not part of the source code. These
> were housed on SourceForge and elsewhere. (a) They might have been
> archived in conjunction with the SVN (1.1). (b) They might be identified
> in a way that someone attempting to build from source later on would be
> able to work with later versions of the external dependencies. There are
> additional external dependencies that might have become obsolete.
>
> 1.3 Build Dependencies/Tool Chains. The actual construction of the
> released binaries depends on particular versions of specific tools that are
> used for carrying out builds of binaries from the source. The dependencies
> as they last were used are identified in a historical location. Some of
> the tools and their use become obsolete over time.
>
> 1.4 GitHub Mirror. For the GitHub Mirror of the Apache OpenOffice SVN
> (a) pull requests are not accepted. (b) Continuation of the presence of
> the GitHub repository might be shut down at some point depending on GitHub
> policy and ASF support.
>
> 2. DOWNLOADS
>
> 2.1 The source code releases, patches, and installable binaries are
> all retained in the archive system that is already maintained. There are
> no further additions.
>
> 2.2 The downloading of full releases is supported on the SourceForge
> mirroring system. There are no new downloads. How long until SourceForge
> retires its support for downloads is not predictable (and see 4.3).
>
> 2.3 The Apache OpenOffice Extensions and Templates system is an
> independent arrangement hosted and curated on SourceForge. Whether and how
> long the download service is preserved by SourceForge is not predictable.
>
> 2.4 The mechanism for announcing updates to installed versions of
> OpenOffice binaries is adjusted to indicate that (a) particular versions
> are no longer supported. (b) For the latest distribution(s), there may be
> advice to users about investigating still-supported alternatives.
>
> 3. DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT
>
> 3.1 The Apache OpenOffice Bugzilla is mirrored in The Attic. The
> Bugzilla is read-only and preserved for historical purposes.
>
> 3.2 The Pootle materials used for the development of localizations are
> exported and archived.
>
> 3.3 The Confluence Wiki operated by the project is preserved in a
> read-only state:<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/>.
>
> 3.4 The commits@ and issues@ mailing lists are shut down although
> archived.
>
> 4. PUBLIC PROJECT-COMMUNITY INTERFACES
>
> 4.1 All public discussion mailing lists are shut down. They are all
> archived and accessible from The Attic.
>
> 4.2 The dev@ list was the last to shut down, having been used during
> orchestration of the retirement.
>
> 4.3 The http://openoffice.org site is static and uneditable. The CMS
> functions for contribution to the site are disabled. Over the course of
> retirement, key pages of the site were updated to reflect the retirement
> activity and to eventually end some of the functions, such as information
> on how to contribute, how to obtain the software, how to obtain help,
> branding requirements, etc.
>
> 4.4 The Wikimedia subsite of openoffice.org is read-only and static.
> No contributions or edits can be made. At some point, the Wikimedia server
> will need to be shut down and (a) the server is shutdown/moved with
> openoffice.org indicating that the wiki is unavailable. (b) Only a
> static form of the pages is provided. (c) Alternative hosting and
> rebranding is achieved.
>
> 4.5 The OpenOffice Community Forums were semi-autonomous. (a) The
> server is retired. (b) The site is rehosted and rebranded by agreement
> with the Apache OpenOffice project and the ASF.
>
>
> 5. SOCIAL MEDIA PRESENCE
>
> 5.1 The Apache Planet OpenOffice Blog is terminated with the
> announcement that Retirement is complete.
>
> 5.2 The Twitter account is terminated.
>
> 5.3 Any Facebook page under control of the project is closed.
>
> 5.4 The announce@ list is terminated and archived with the
> announcement of Retirement completion.
>
>
> 6. PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
>
> 6.1 With completion of the retirement, the private@ and security@
> openoffice.org lists were shutdown (although archived as are all such
> lists).
>
> 6.2 The Project Management Committee is disbanded and the Chair is
> relieved.
>
> 6.3 There is no longer any identified operation for continuation of
> the project except as specified for The Attic.
>
>
> 7. BRANDING
>
> 7.1 With the cessation of releases, it is made widely known that
> official releases other than the last ones provided by the project are not
> the work of Apache OpenOffice and any claimed association, justification
> for charge of fees and for carrying of advertising are not in support of
> the Apache OpenOffice project. This notification will also be made to
> those organizations that carry offerings to the contrary (e.g., eBay).
>
> 7.2 There is no point of contact, other than branding@ apache.org,
> for request to make use of the brands.
>
> 7.3 There is no active attention to preservation of the trademarks
> related to Apache OpenOffice. (a) Inappropriate use of Apache and its
> symbols in names of offerings will be defended when brought to the
> attention of branding@. (b) Uses of OpenOffice, Open Office,
> openoffice.org and other similarities without attribution to Apache are
> not addressed.
>
> *** end of the list as of 2016-09-01
> ***
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Response in-line.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Federico Leva (Nemo) [mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 03:30
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>
> I see the biggest point as missing from the list/plan posted by Dennis
> E. Hamilton: an easy upgrade path for current OpenOffice users, to make
> sure that people aren't inconvenienced and that the efforts OpenOffice
> contributors' made for the growth FLOSS aren't wasted.
>
> Perhaps some of the install/upgrade facilities could automate the switch
> to LibreOffice, and/or the most visited URLs (such as /download/ on the
> OOo website and /files/latest/download on Sourceforge) could be
> redirected to the LibreOffice equivalents.
>
> I'm sure the devs can find technically suitable solutions. If ASF can't
> handle such long-term preservation, another stable entity with long-term
> interest in the task could be transferred all assets and tasked with the
> goal (for instance The Document Foundation?).
[orcmid]
The sketch is not developed to that level of detail and there would be much to consider if retirement, which would extend over months, were the option taken. The point of a graceful retirement is to ensure that the extensive OpenOffice community is well-served and achieves a soft landing.
Continuing the [DISCUSS], I pointed out that advice about where to find alternatives could be provided as part of the "updates available" periodic reminders at the web site. My own preference is that we not choose a successor, but provide a menu of choices for users to investigate and choose from. In general, ASF projects do not endorse products and services, but do provide information on what is available. This strikes me as a valuable approach as part of any retirement scenario.
>
> Nemo
>
> P.s.: To archive a MediaWiki website, you can create a static copy with
> mwoffliner https://github.com/kiwix/mwoffliner and serve it with
> kiwix-serve; all history should be preserved with dumps on the Internet
> Archive: https://github.com/WikiTeam/wikiteam/wiki/Tutorial . Software
> for WARC can also prove useful for any website.
[orcmid]
This is covered in the [DISCUSS] material. In particular the Apache Attic project provides much of this.
Thank you for the information about kiwix-serve. Creating static sites would be important in preserving the MediaWiki.
- Dennis
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
> From: Federico Leva (Nemo) [mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com]
> Perhaps some of the install/upgrade facilities could automate
> the switch
> to LibreOffice, and/or the most visited URLs (such as
> /download/ on the
> OOo website and /files/latest/download on Sourceforge) could be
> redirected to the LibreOffice equivalents.
-1
> (for instance The Document Foundation?).
-1
OpenOffice is an independent project and not part of LibreOffice and certainly not part of the TDF.
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> I see the biggest point as missing from the list/plan posted by Dennis
> E. Hamilton: an easy upgrade path for current OpenOffice users
It was not a plan. It was a what-if game that tried to analyze with an
excessive level of detail how to execute one of the possible options.
Seeing reactions, and hoping that the current energy is channeled
correctly, I would say that at the moment a decision to retire
OpenOffice is not the most likely option... thus making this entire
discussion void.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
[DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <ne...@gmail.com>.
I see the biggest point as missing from the list/plan posted by Dennis
E. Hamilton: an easy upgrade path for current OpenOffice users, to make
sure that people aren't inconvenienced and that the efforts OpenOffice
contributors' made for the growth FLOSS aren't wasted.
Perhaps some of the install/upgrade facilities could automate the switch
to LibreOffice, and/or the most visited URLs (such as /download/ on the
OOo website and /files/latest/download on Sourceforge) could be
redirected to the LibreOffice equivalents.
I'm sure the devs can find technically suitable solutions. If ASF can't
handle such long-term preservation, another stable entity with long-term
interest in the task could be transferred all assets and tasked with the
goal (for instance The Document Foundation?).
Nemo
P.s.: To archive a MediaWiki website, you can create a static copy with
mwoffliner https://github.com/kiwix/mwoffliner and serve it with
kiwix-serve; all history should be preserved with dumps on the Internet
Archive: https://github.com/WikiTeam/wikiteam/wiki/Tutorial . Software
for WARC can also prove useful for any website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 22:08
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:motley.crue.fan@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 21:23
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Cc: private@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve?
> (long)
> >
> > > (3) I think that working towards being able to release rather than
> > patch
> > > as Patricia has suggested is our best way to solve the security
> issue.
> > The
> > > quick patch is not much faster and has been proven to be more of a
> > > challenge then kick starting the broken build process.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Forgive me for being a little behind. What is broken in the build
> > process?
> > Technical problem, or process issue, or other or what?
[orcmid]
I should add that the situation recounted below was not the first time this happened.
Also, I gave the wrong date for when the CVE-2016-1513 defect was reported to us. It was 2015-10-20, not 2016 of course.
Now, if you look at CVE-2015-1774,
<http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2015-1774.html>, you'll see that the disclosure and related advisory was made on 2015-04-27 (that was Version 1.0). We did not have a fix, we had only the workaround. This disclosure happened because the defect applied in the original openoffice.org code base and applied to other products that did have a fix. The remedy, for AOO, was to remove the offending library and its use from 4.1.2 on 2015-10-28.
Furthermore, 4.1.2 was itself an emergency release because of the imminent disclosure of the other four CVEs fixed in that release and listed on <http://www.openoffice.org/security/bulletin.html>. The peer distributions actually held up their issuance of security updates and disclosure so that AOO could catch up with 4.1.2. If you look at the credits of those four CVEs, you'll see that the [OfficeSecurity] list members were instrumental in creating fixes that AOO also used. Our problem was how much longer it took to produce the emergency release of 4.1.2 (and also desist from putting in other pent-up fixes to do so).
That was a nail-biter. It was clear that the [Officesecurity] folk had lost patience with AOO as a hold-up of rapid repair of common defects in our products. This was also stated very clearly at the AOO PMC. (The AOO Security team can do much to analyze reported defects and figure out fixes, but it cannot do releases. The PMC has to act on that.)
There was some unhappiness about forcing 4.1.2 out the door. Some preferred going straight to 4.2.0 which, with UI and localization changes, would take longer and have increased regression risk. That tension persists.
And here we are.
2015-10-28 4.1.2
2014-08-21 4.1.1
2014-04-29 4.1
2013-10-01 4.0.1
2013-07-17 4
2013-01-30 3.4.1 refresh (8 more languages)
2012-08-21 3.4.1 incubating
2012-05-08 3.4 incubating
> >
> [orcmid]
>
> This is off-topic for this thread, but it may be helpful in illustrating
> why the Board wants to know what the project's considerations are with
> respect to retirement and in particular, with regard to avoiding the
> situation I will now recount.
>
> The remark about a patch has to do with CVE-2016-1513, with our advisory
> at
> <http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2016-1513.html>.
>
> The vulnerability, and a proof of concept were reported to the project
> on 2016-10-20 as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 was going out the door.
>
> We had figured out the source-code fix in March.
>
> On June 7, the reporter was concerned about sitting on the disclosure
> any longer and gave us a June deadline, proposing to disclose even
> though we had not committed to an AOO update. We were sitting on the
> fix because we didn't want to give anyone ideas when they saw it applied
> to the source code unless there was a release in the works.
>
> We negotiated a disclosure extension to July 21. Part of that agreement
> was our working to create a hotfix instead of attempting to work up a
> full maintenance release (e.g., a 4.1.3). On July 21 we issued an
> advisory that disclosed existence of the vulnerability without offering
> any repaired software.
>
> We had the corrected shared library at the time of disclosure, but had
> not tested much for possible regressions with it. Also, instructions
> needed to be written. General Availability of the Hotfix, 4.1.2-patch1,
> was on August 30, after more testing, QA of the instructions and the
> fix, and adding a couple of localizations. The QA period did turn up a
> couple of glitches and improvements to the instructions and also
> included scripts to simplify the task for Windows users.
>
> There are two prospects for this year: a 4.1.3 maintenance release for
> some important maintenance-only items and the 4.2.0 feature release. In
> either case it is likely that an update of any kind will be a year since
> the release of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2.
>
> If anyone wants to look into the issues of producing releases, I suggest
> you confirm the 4.1.2 release by compiling it from the source archive
> using the available build instructions and see how well you can
> replicate the released binary for the same platform. Where we fall the
> most short is having enough folks who can do this for Windows and
> MacOSX, covering almost 95% of our user base [;<).
>
> >
> > Phil
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:motley.crue.fan@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 21:23
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: private@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>
> > (3) I think that working towards being able to release rather than
> patch
> > as Patricia has suggested is our best way to solve the security issue.
> The
> > quick patch is not much faster and has been proven to be more of a
> > challenge then kick starting the broken build process.
> >
>
>
> Forgive me for being a little behind. What is broken in the build
> process?
> Technical problem, or process issue, or other or what?
>
[orcmid]
This is off-topic for this thread, but it may be helpful in illustrating why the Board wants to know what the project's considerations are with respect to retirement and in particular, with regard to avoiding the situation I will now recount.
The remark about a patch has to do with CVE-2016-1513, with our advisory at
<http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2016-1513.html>.
The vulnerability, and a proof of concept were reported to the project on 2016-10-20 as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 was going out the door.
We had figured out the source-code fix in March.
On June 7, the reporter was concerned about sitting on the disclosure any longer and gave us a June deadline, proposing to disclose even though we had not committed to an AOO update. We were sitting on the fix because we didn't want to give anyone ideas when they saw it applied to the source code unless there was a release in the works.
We negotiated a disclosure extension to July 21. Part of that agreement was our working to create a hotfix instead of attempting to work up a full maintenance release (e.g., a 4.1.3). On July 21 we issued an advisory that disclosed existence of the vulnerability without offering any repaired software.
We had the corrected shared library at the time of disclosure, but had not tested much for possible regressions with it. Also, instructions needed to be written. General Availability of the Hotfix, 4.1.2-patch1, was on August 30, after more testing, QA of the instructions and the fix, and adding a couple of localizations. The QA period did turn up a couple of glitches and improvements to the instructions and also included scripts to simplify the task for Windows users.
There are two prospects for this year: a 4.1.3 maintenance release for some important maintenance-only items and the 4.2.0 feature release. In either case it is likely that an update of any kind will be a year since the release of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2.
If anyone wants to look into the issues of producing releases, I suggest you confirm the 4.1.2 release by compiling it from the source archive using the available build instructions and see how well you can replicate the released binary for the same platform. Where we fall the most short is having enough folks who can do this for Windows and MacOSX, covering almost 95% of our user base [;<).
>
> Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Phillip Rhodes <mo...@gmail.com>.
> (3) I think that working towards being able to release rather than patch
> as Patricia has suggested is our best way to solve the security issue. The
> quick patch is not much faster and has been proven to be more of a
> challenge then kick starting the broken build process.
>
Forgive me for being a little behind. What is broken in the build process?
Technical problem, or process issue, or other or what?
Phil
RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
[BCC to PMC]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 19:27
> To: private@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>
> Hi Dennis,
>
> I don't have objections to this topic, but I feel I need to make a few
> suggestions before this thread is either ignored or a confused mess.
>
> (1) a long, official policy statement like this is best put into a wiki
> page where many can edit it and it can be an easy discussion and not a
> confused email mess that is started with something that is tl:dr. The
> maturity model was recently developed by the comdev participants on the
> wiki and email
> Effectively. This document needs to be developed in the same way.
[orcmid]
Good idea. I see no reason not to follow that path. This was my thought-starter.
I was not intending an official policy statement. It is a discussion request, with some background information for perspective. (Oh, I had to use orcmid@ a.o because of the BCC, since that's how I am on private@ though. I see the confusion I causes doing that.)
>
> (2) why is this cross posted to private and DEV? To do so implies that
> there is some other non-open discussion in parallel. You and I have run
> into unexpected results from this strange cross posting practice of
> yours (hi Simon)
[orcmid]
It was not cross-posted. I intentionally did not do that. The BCC was to private@, just as I am doing now. It was an easy way to provide a heads-up to the PMC for a discussion to notice on dev@, since some don't siphon through all of the dev@ material regularly. It is not on dev@ as a cross-posting.
>
> (3) I think that working towards being able to release rather than patch
> as Patricia has suggested is our best way to solve the security issue.
> The quick patch is not much faster and has been proven to be more of a
> challenge then kick starting the broken build process.
[orcmid]
That would be interesting to determine. Now that we have released a Hotfix, I think we can get it done more quickly in the future, but it is certainly not as good as simply offering the community a full update to install.
That is a different subject though. It would be great to have that outcome.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Sep 1, 2016, at 4:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look
> like.
> >
> > A. PERSPECTIVE
> > B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
> > 1. Code Base
> > 2. Downloads
> > 3. Development Support
> > 4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
> > 5. Social Media Presence
> > 6. Project Management Committee
> > 7. Branding
> >
[ ... ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi Dennis,
I don't have objections to this topic, but I feel I need to make a few suggestions before this thread is either ignored or a confused mess.
(1) a long, official policy statement like this is best put into a wiki page where many can edit it and it can be an easy discussion and not a confused email mess that is started with something that is tl:dr. The maturity model was recently developed by the comdev participants on the wiki and email
Effectively. This document needs to be developed in the same way.
(2) why is this cross posted to private and DEV? To do so implies that there is some other non-open discussion in parallel. You and I have run into unexpected results from this strange cross posting practice of yours (hi Simon)
(3) I think that working towards being able to release rather than patch as Patricia has suggested is our best way to solve the security issue. The quick patch is not much faster and has been proven to be more of a challenge then kick starting the broken build process.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 1, 2016, at 4:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look like.
>
> A. PERSPECTIVE
> B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
> 1. Code Base
> 2. Downloads
> 3. Development Support
> 4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
> 5. Social Media Presence
> 6. Project Management Committee
> 7. Branding
>
> A. PERSPECTIVE
>
> I have regularly observed that the Apache OpenOffice project has limited capacity for sustaining the project in an energetic manner. It is also my considered opinion that there is no ready supply of developers who have the capacity, capability, and will to supplement the roughly half-dozen volunteers holding the project together. It doesn't matter what the reasons for that might be.
>
> The Apache Project Maturity Model,
> <http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html>, identifies the characteristics for which an Apache project is expected to strive.
>
> Recently, some elements have been brought into serious question:
>
> QU20: The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software.
> QU50: The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a timely manner.
>
> There is also a litmus test which is kind of a red line. That is for the project to have a PMC capable of producing releases. That means that there are at least three available PMC members capable of building a functioning binary from a release-candidate archive, and who do so in providing binding votes to approve the release of that code.
>
> In the case of Apache OpenOffice, needing to disclose security vulnerabilities for which there is no mitigation in an update has become a serious issue.
>
> In responses to concerns raised in June, the PMC is currently tasked by the ASF Board to account for this inability and to provide a remedy. An indicator of the seriousness of the Board's concern is the PMC been requested to report to the Board every month, starting in August, rather than quarterly, the normal case. One option for remedy that must be considered is retirement of the project. The request is for the PMC's consideration among other possible options. The Board has not ordered a solution.
>
> I cannot prediction how this will all work out. It is remiss of me not to point out that retirement of the project is a serious possibility.
>
> There are those who fear that discussing retirement can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. My concern is that the project could end with a bang or a whimper. My interest is in seeing any retirement happen gracefully. That means we need to consider it as a contingency. For contingency plans, no time is a good time, but earlier is always better than later.
>
>
> B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
>
> Here is a provisional list of all elements that would have to be addressed, over a period of time, as part of any retirement effort.
>
> In order to understand what would have had to happen in a graceful process, the assumption below is that the project has already retired.
>
> Requests for additions and adjustments to this compilation are welcome.
>
> 1. CODE BASE
>
> 1.1 The Apache OpenOffice Subversion repository where code is maintained has been moved to "The Attic." Apache Attic is an actual project, <http://attic.apache.org/>. The source code would remain
> available and could be checked-out from Subversion by anyone interested in making use of it. There is no means of committing changes.
>
> 1.2 Apache Externals/Extras consists of external libraries that are relied upon by the source code but are not part of the source code. These were housed on SourceForge and elsewhere. (a) They might have been archived in conjunction with the SVN (1.1). (b) They might be identified in a way that someone attempting to build from source later on would be able to work with later versions of the external dependencies. There are additional external dependencies that might have become obsolete.
>
> 1.3 Build Dependencies/Tool Chains. The actual construction of the released binaries depends on particular versions of specific tools that are used for carrying out builds of binaries from the source. The dependencies as they last were used are identified in a historical location. Some of the tools and their use become obsolete over time.
>
> 1.4 GitHub Mirror. For the GitHub Mirror of the Apache OpenOffice SVN (a) pull requests are not accepted. (b) Continuation of the presence of the GitHub repository might be shut down at some point depending on GitHub policy and ASF support.
>
> 2. DOWNLOADS
>
> 2.1 The source code releases, patches, and installable binaries are all retained in the archive system that is already maintained. There are no further additions.
>
> 2.2 The downloading of full releases is supported on the SourceForge mirroring system. There are no new downloads. How long until SourceForge retires its support for downloads is not predictable (and see 4.3).
>
> 2.3 The Apache OpenOffice Extensions and Templates system is an independent arrangement hosted and curated on SourceForge. Whether and how long the download service is preserved by SourceForge is not predictable.
>
> 2.4 The mechanism for announcing updates to installed versions of OpenOffice binaries is adjusted to indicate that (a) particular versions are no longer supported. (b) For the latest distribution(s), there may be advice to users about investigating still-supported alternatives.
>
> 3. DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT
>
> 3.1 The Apache OpenOffice Bugzilla is mirrored in The Attic. The Bugzilla is read-only and preserved for historical purposes.
>
> 3.2 The Pootle materials used for the development of localizations are exported and archived.
>
> 3.3 The Confluence Wiki operated by the project is preserved in a read-only state:<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/>.
>
> 3.4 The commits@ and issues@ mailing lists are shut down although archived.
>
> 4. PUBLIC PROJECT-COMMUNITY INTERFACES
>
> 4.1 All public discussion mailing lists are shut down. They are all archived and accessible from The Attic.
>
> 4.2 The dev@ list was the last to shut down, having been used during orchestration of the retirement.
>
> 4.3 The http://openoffice.org site is static and uneditable. The CMS functions for contribution to the site are disabled. Over the course of retirement, key pages of the site were updated to reflect the retirement activity and to eventually end some of the functions, such as information on how to contribute, how to obtain the software, how to obtain help, branding requirements, etc.
>
> 4.4 The Wikimedia subsite of openoffice.org is read-only and static. No contributions or edits can be made. At some point, the Wikimedia server will need to be shut down and (a) the server is shutdown/moved with openoffice.org indicating that the wiki is unavailable. (b) Only a static form of the pages is provided. (c) Alternative hosting and rebranding is achieved.
>
> 4.5 The OpenOffice Community Forums were semi-autonomous. (a) The server is retired. (b) The site is rehosted and rebranded by agreement with the Apache OpenOffice project and the ASF.
>
>
> 5. SOCIAL MEDIA PRESENCE
>
> 5.1 The Apache Planet OpenOffice Blog is terminated with the announcement that Retirement is complete.
>
> 5.2 The Twitter account is terminated.
>
> 5.3 Any Facebook page under control of the project is closed.
>
> 5.4 The announce@ list is terminated and archived with the announcement of Retirement completion.
>
>
> 6. PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
>
> 6.1 With completion of the retirement, the private@ and security@ openoffice.org lists were shutdown (although archived as are all such lists).
>
> 6.2 The Project Management Committee is disbanded and the Chair is relieved.
>
> 6.3 There is no longer any identified operation for continuation of the project except as specified for The Attic.
>
>
> 7. BRANDING
>
> 7.1 With the cessation of releases, it is made widely known that official releases other than the last ones provided by the project are not the work of Apache OpenOffice and any claimed association, justification for charge of fees and for carrying of advertising are not in support of the Apache OpenOffice project. This notification will also be made to those organizations that carry offerings to the contrary (e.g., eBay).
>
> 7.2 There is no point of contact, other than branding@ apache.org, for request to make use of the brands.
>
> 7.3 There is no active attention to preservation of the trademarks related to Apache OpenOffice. (a) Inappropriate use of Apache and its symbols in names of offerings will be defended when brought to the attention of branding@. (b) Uses of OpenOffice, Open Office, openoffice.org and other similarities without attribution to Apache are not addressed.
>
> *** end of the list as of 2016-09-01 ***
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
FW: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Peter Kovacs had communicated his thoughts directly to me. I am forwarding them to dev@oo.a.o with his permission.
- Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:leginee@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 5, 2016 23:15
> To: orcmid@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>
> Hi Dennis,
>
> YES please feel free.
> I really would like to join. But I have to step down today. I hope I
> manage in future, with my sparse c++ and java skills.
> Also I do not want to boss around.
> But the team really should consider to give some official statements on
> the retirement idea, plus show that it is worth joining. Mid and long
> term goals are now super important. So more volunteers have reason to
> join.
> Currently you have managed to get a lot media attention. 😆 use it.
>
> All the best Peter
>
>
> Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org <ma...@apache.org> >
> schrieb am Di., 6. Sep. 2016, 04:53:
>
>
> Peter thank you for your thoughts.
>
> I must tell you that the way that Apache OpenOffice operates as an
> Apache Project is without an Executive. There is a Project Management
> Committee and I am the chair (and an Officer), but the work is guided by
> consensus in the PMC and the developer community.
>
> So we use the mailing list heavily as part of that.
>
> With your permission, I can forward your message to the developer
> list. Otherwise, there is no way that your suggestions and observations
> will become known.
>
> Also, frankly the problem is about resources, not goals and
> strategies. And, of course, it is all done by volunteers.
>
> Let me know.
>
> And, again, thanks for writing to me.
>
> - Dennis
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:leginee@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com> ]
> > Sent: Monday, September 5, 2016 17:01
> > To: orcmid@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> > Subject: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve?
> (long)
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I write to you because i do not have the time to realy follow a
> mailing
> > list you have, even if I take deep interest in it. Also in
> general i
> > would like to join development, however there are currently
> different
> > constraints that keep me from it.
> > Still following passifly the discussion I would like to pick up
> some
> > ends, which are from my outside perspective important. (besides I
> do not
> > like Mailing list since I got flamed at on a debian user mailing
> list. I
> > had a beginner question in 2003)
> >
> [ ... ]
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre
> Antwort wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google
> Algorythmen zwecks werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht
> auszuschließen das ihre Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter
> geprüft wird. Durch kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das
> ihre Mail, ihre Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren
> online zu Google konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird.
> Sollten sie dies nicht wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um
> z.B. alternativen zu verhandeln.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org