You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> on 2011/11/28 03:10:45 UTC

Can we update our migration status table?

If you recall, this is the site that we are pointing users to for the
current status of the migration effort:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+Migration+Status

A few things that seem wrong:

1) Why are we saying "no consensus" for the extension and template
sites?  That makes it sound like we're having a discussion and we
don't yet agree on how to handle these sites.  But isn't the truth
more like we all agree to do nothing for the short term, but continue
having this hosted by OSL?   Does anyone disagree that this is the
plan?  (Psst.  If no one disagrees with that, then we have consensus)


2) EIS, TCM, QUASTe, QATrack, Registration, Product improvement and
Crash Reporter --- does anyone disagree that the plan is that those
sites are gone and are not coming back?  Instead of "No decision yet",
are there any objections to me changing these to give a final status
of "Will not migrate"?


If there are any other updates, please edit the wiki.

Thanks!

-Rob

Re: Can we update our migration status table?

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au> wrote:
> I updated regarding Pootle.
>

Thanks, Gavin.  That's great news.  I didn't realize you were making
progress with Pootle as well.

-Rob

> Gav...
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
>> Sent: Monday, 28 November 2011 12:11 PM
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Can we update our migration status table?
>>
>> If you recall, this is the site that we are pointing users to for the current
>> status of the migration effort:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+M
>> igration+Status
>>
>> A few things that seem wrong:
>>
>> 1) Why are we saying "no consensus" for the extension and template sites?
>> That makes it sound like we're having a discussion and we don't yet agree on
>> how to handle these sites.  But isn't the truth more like we all agree to do
>> nothing for the short term, but continue
>> having this hosted by OSL?   Does anyone disagree that this is the
>> plan?  (Psst.  If no one disagrees with that, then we have consensus)
>>
>>
>> 2) EIS, TCM, QUASTe, QATrack, Registration, Product improvement and Crash
>> Reporter --- does anyone disagree that the plan is that those sites are gone
>> and are not coming back?  Instead of "No decision yet", are there any
>> objections to me changing these to give a final status of "Will not migrate"?
>>
>>
>> If there are any other updates, please edit the wiki.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -Rob
>

RE: Can we update our migration status table?

Posted by Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
I updated regarding Pootle.

Gav...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, 28 November 2011 12:11 PM
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Can we update our migration status table?
> 
> If you recall, this is the site that we are pointing users to for the current
> status of the migration effort:
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+M
> igration+Status
> 
> A few things that seem wrong:
> 
> 1) Why are we saying "no consensus" for the extension and template sites?
> That makes it sound like we're having a discussion and we don't yet agree on
> how to handle these sites.  But isn't the truth more like we all agree to do
> nothing for the short term, but continue
> having this hosted by OSL?   Does anyone disagree that this is the
> plan?  (Psst.  If no one disagrees with that, then we have consensus)
> 
> 
> 2) EIS, TCM, QUASTe, QATrack, Registration, Product improvement and Crash
> Reporter --- does anyone disagree that the plan is that those sites are gone
> and are not coming back?  Instead of "No decision yet", are there any
> objections to me changing these to give a final status of "Will not migrate"?
> 
> 
> If there are any other updates, please edit the wiki.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -Rob

Re: Can we update our migration status table?

Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.

On 2011-11-27 9:53 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Nov 27, 2011, at 6:20 PM, TJ Frazier wrote:
...snip...
>> Two quick comments: (1) We're seriously abandoning Registration? I
>> wonder what Marketing (ours and ASF's) thinks about that?

Who is "Marketing"?

People like the most excellent Sally, VP of Marketing & Publicity for 
the ASF are primarily here to provide additional services for Apache 
projects that ask for them - not to direct how Apache projects do their 
marketing.  So any marketing that this PPMC thinks it needs is what to 
consider, not what someone else says you need.

>
> While we must abandon the registration in the Kenai database at
> Oracle. We need not abandon registration. As far as I can tell there
> are new constraints.
>
> (a) We need volunteers to propose how they are willing to work to
> replace it with a new registration system. (b) That system must not
> provide an openoffice.org email forwarder / anonymous email address.
> (c) It will be a completely new and fresh registration database. (d)
> Apache Infrastructure needs to be asked to host it, or the PPMC will
> need to agree about an external location. (e) The volunteers will
> need to be able to maintain the system.
>
> Strange idea. Is it possible to make either MediaWiki or Bugzilla
> registration double as user registration?
>
> Our mentors will no doubt think of a couple more requirements.

- If you want it, have a specific and detailed proposal that includes 
how to maintain the registration database with PPMC volunteers in the future

- Do not expose the ASF or this project to any additional legal risks, 
especially considering privacy laws (for example, in the US or Europe)

>
>> (2) Both Registration and Crash Reporter have code links, i.e.,
>> will require code changes in the product so that users aren't sent
>> to dead ends.
>
> Does the project want a Crash Reporter? Possibly again volunteers
> with a proposal and negotiation with Infrastructure are needed.
>
> Regards, Dave

Personally I'm -0 on a user registration, but +1 on crash reporting if 
there's PPMC energy to make it happen.  As the only major end-user 
facing project at Apache, getting better details from crash reports 
would be very useful.

- Shane

Re: Can we update our migration status table?

Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 27, 2011, at 6:20 PM, TJ Frazier wrote:

> On 11/27/2011 21:10, Rob Weir wrote:
>> If you recall, this is the site that we are pointing users to for the
>> current status of the migration effort:
>> 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+Migration+Status
>> 
>> A few things that seem wrong:
>> 
>> 1) Why are we saying "no consensus" for the extension and template
>> sites?  That makes it sound like we're having a discussion and we
>> don't yet agree on how to handle these sites.  But isn't the truth
>> more like we all agree to do nothing for the short term, but continue
>> having this hosted by OSL?   Does anyone disagree that this is the
>> plan?  (Psst.  If no one disagrees with that, then we have consensus)
>> 
>> 
>> 2) EIS, TCM, QUASTe, QATrack, Registration, Product improvement and
>> Crash Reporter --- does anyone disagree that the plan is that those
>> sites are gone and are not coming back?  Instead of "No decision yet",
>> are there any objections to me changing these to give a final status
>> of "Will not migrate"?
>> 
>> 
>> If there are any other updates, please edit the wiki.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> -Rob
>> 
>> 
> Two quick comments:
> (1) We're seriously abandoning Registration? I wonder what Marketing (ours and ASF's) thinks about that?

While we must abandon the registration in the Kenai database at Oracle. We need not abandon registration. As far as I can tell there are new constraints.

(a) We need volunteers to propose how they are willing to work to replace it with a new registration system.
(b) That system must not provide an openoffice.org email forwarder / anonymous email address.
(c) It will be a completely new and fresh registration database.
(d) Apache Infrastructure needs to be asked to host it, or the PPMC will need to agree about an external location.
(e) The volunteers will need to be able to maintain the system.

Strange idea. Is it possible to make either MediaWiki or Bugzilla registration double as user registration?

Our mentors will no doubt think of a couple more requirements.

> (2) Both Registration and Crash Reporter have code links, i.e., will require code changes in the product so that users aren't sent to dead ends.

Does the project want a Crash Reporter? Possibly again volunteers with a proposal and negotiation with Infrastructure are needed.

Regards,
Dave

Re: Can we update our migration status table?

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 9:20 PM, TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On 11/27/2011 21:10, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> If you recall, this is the site that we are pointing users to for the
>> current status of the migration effort:
>>
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+Migration+Status
>>
>> A few things that seem wrong:
>>
>> 1) Why are we saying "no consensus" for the extension and template
>> sites?  That makes it sound like we're having a discussion and we
>> don't yet agree on how to handle these sites.  But isn't the truth
>> more like we all agree to do nothing for the short term, but continue
>> having this hosted by OSL?   Does anyone disagree that this is the
>> plan?  (Psst.  If no one disagrees with that, then we have consensus)
>>
>>
>> 2) EIS, TCM, QUASTe, QATrack, Registration, Product improvement and
>> Crash Reporter --- does anyone disagree that the plan is that those
>> sites are gone and are not coming back?  Instead of "No decision yet",
>> are there any objections to me changing these to give a final status
>> of "Will not migrate"?
>>
>>
>> If there are any other updates, please edit the wiki.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
> Two quick comments:
> (1) We're seriously abandoning Registration? I wonder what Marketing (ours
> and ASF's) thinks about that?

Go ahead -- make a case for why we should be registering users and
taking possession of personally identifying information, such as
names, addresses and email addresses, and dealing with the privacy
implications of that.  What is the benefit?  What are we going to do,
send them sales literature on related products?

> (2) Both Registration and Crash Reporter have code links, i.e., will require
> code changes in the product so that users aren't sent to dead ends.
>

Understood.

> --
> /tj/
>
>

Re: Can we update our migration status table?

Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
On 11/27/2011 21:10, Rob Weir wrote:
> If you recall, this is the site that we are pointing users to for the
> current status of the migration effort:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+Migration+Status
>
> A few things that seem wrong:
>
> 1) Why are we saying "no consensus" for the extension and template
> sites?  That makes it sound like we're having a discussion and we
> don't yet agree on how to handle these sites.  But isn't the truth
> more like we all agree to do nothing for the short term, but continue
> having this hosted by OSL?   Does anyone disagree that this is the
> plan?  (Psst.  If no one disagrees with that, then we have consensus)
>
>
> 2) EIS, TCM, QUASTe, QATrack, Registration, Product improvement and
> Crash Reporter --- does anyone disagree that the plan is that those
> sites are gone and are not coming back?  Instead of "No decision yet",
> are there any objections to me changing these to give a final status
> of "Will not migrate"?
>
>
> If there are any other updates, please edit the wiki.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Rob
>
>
Two quick comments:
(1) We're seriously abandoning Registration? I wonder what Marketing 
(ours and ASF's) thinks about that?
(2) Both Registration and Crash Reporter have code links, i.e., will 
require code changes in the product so that users aren't sent to dead ends.

-- 
/tj/

Re: Can we update our migration status table?

Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 11/28/2011 06:25 PM, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>
> On Nov 28, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>
>> Am 11/28/2011 05:48 AM, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>
>>> On Nov 27, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you recall, this is the site that we are pointing users to for the
>>>> current status of the migration effort:
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+Migration+Status
>>>>
>>>> A few things that seem wrong:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Why are we saying "no consensus" for the extension and template
>>>> sites?  That makes it sound like we're having a discussion and we
>>>> don't yet agree on how to handle these sites.  But isn't the truth
>>>> more like we all agree to do nothing for the short term, but continue
>>>> having this hosted by OSL?   Does anyone disagree that this is the
>>>> plan?  (Psst.  If no one disagrees with that, then we have consensus)
>>>
>>> I modified the status to that no one has come through to volunteer to improve this.
>>>
>>> I guess you have a plan. Should you elaborate.
>>>
>>> I'll note that despite letting people know numerous times, I have been the only person who has reported otages to support@osusol.org.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) EIS, TCM, QUASTe, QATrack, Registration, Product improvement and
>>>> Crash Reporter --- does anyone disagree that the plan is that those
>>>> sites are gone and are not coming back?  Instead of "No decision yet",
>>>> are there any objections to me changing these to give a final status
>>>> of "Will not migrate"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If there are any other updates, please edit the wiki.
>>>
>>> I changed the MirrorBrain row to make it clear that this issue only effects the legacy OOo downloads. All AOO releases will be on the Apache Mirror system.
>>>
>>> Perhaps download.services.openoffice.org is one way that AOO can team up with TOOo?
>>
>> Maybe not a bad idea. AOO will take care of the code and produces the source release (and maybe also some binary releases) and hosting of install files can be done by TOO. Could be a good thing of collaboration.
>
> You have misunderstood me. I am only considering distributions of the legacy OOo releases that are LGPL that we cannot put on Apache Infrastructure like the maintenance release that is being proposed by TOOo.

OK, wasn't clear for me.

Marcus

Re: Can we update our migration status table?

Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 28, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

> Am 11/28/2011 05:48 AM, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>> 
>> On Nov 27, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> 
>>> If you recall, this is the site that we are pointing users to for the
>>> current status of the migration effort:
>>> 
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+Migration+Status
>>> 
>>> A few things that seem wrong:
>>> 
>>> 1) Why are we saying "no consensus" for the extension and template
>>> sites?  That makes it sound like we're having a discussion and we
>>> don't yet agree on how to handle these sites.  But isn't the truth
>>> more like we all agree to do nothing for the short term, but continue
>>> having this hosted by OSL?   Does anyone disagree that this is the
>>> plan?  (Psst.  If no one disagrees with that, then we have consensus)
>> 
>> I modified the status to that no one has come through to volunteer to improve this.
>> 
>> I guess you have a plan. Should you elaborate.
>> 
>> I'll note that despite letting people know numerous times, I have been the only person who has reported otages to support@osusol.org.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2) EIS, TCM, QUASTe, QATrack, Registration, Product improvement and
>>> Crash Reporter --- does anyone disagree that the plan is that those
>>> sites are gone and are not coming back?  Instead of "No decision yet",
>>> are there any objections to me changing these to give a final status
>>> of "Will not migrate"?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If there are any other updates, please edit the wiki.
>> 
>> I changed the MirrorBrain row to make it clear that this issue only effects the legacy OOo downloads. All AOO releases will be on the Apache Mirror system.
>> 
>> Perhaps download.services.openoffice.org is one way that AOO can team up with TOOo?
> 
> Maybe not a bad idea. AOO will take care of the code and produces the source release (and maybe also some binary releases) and hosting of install files can be done by TOO. Could be a good thing of collaboration.

You have misunderstood me. I am only considering distributions of the legacy OOo releases that are LGPL that we cannot put on Apache Infrastructure like the maintenance release that is being proposed by TOOo.

For all releases of AOO under the AL2.0 we will without any doubt be using the Apache mirror system. No way we can delegate our releases.

Regards,
Dave




> 
> Marcus

Re: Can we update our migration status table?

Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 11/28/2011 05:48 AM, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>
> On Nov 27, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> If you recall, this is the site that we are pointing users to for the
>> current status of the migration effort:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+Migration+Status
>>
>> A few things that seem wrong:
>>
>> 1) Why are we saying "no consensus" for the extension and template
>> sites?  That makes it sound like we're having a discussion and we
>> don't yet agree on how to handle these sites.  But isn't the truth
>> more like we all agree to do nothing for the short term, but continue
>> having this hosted by OSL?   Does anyone disagree that this is the
>> plan?  (Psst.  If no one disagrees with that, then we have consensus)
>
> I modified the status to that no one has come through to volunteer to improve this.
>
> I guess you have a plan. Should you elaborate.
>
> I'll note that despite letting people know numerous times, I have been the only person who has reported otages to support@osusol.org.
>
>>
>>
>> 2) EIS, TCM, QUASTe, QATrack, Registration, Product improvement and
>> Crash Reporter --- does anyone disagree that the plan is that those
>> sites are gone and are not coming back?  Instead of "No decision yet",
>> are there any objections to me changing these to give a final status
>> of "Will not migrate"?
>>
>>
>> If there are any other updates, please edit the wiki.
>
> I changed the MirrorBrain row to make it clear that this issue only effects the legacy OOo downloads. All AOO releases will be on the Apache Mirror system.
>
> Perhaps download.services.openoffice.org is one way that AOO can team up with TOOo?

Maybe not a bad idea. AOO will take care of the code and produces the 
source release (and maybe also some binary releases) and hosting of 
install files can be done by TOO. Could be a good thing of collaboration.

Marcus

Re: Can we update our migration status table?

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 27, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> If you recall, this is the site that we are pointing users to for the
>> current status of the migration effort:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+Migration+Status
>>
>> A few things that seem wrong:
>>
>> 1) Why are we saying "no consensus" for the extension and template
>> sites?  That makes it sound like we're having a discussion and we
>> don't yet agree on how to handle these sites.  But isn't the truth
>> more like we all agree to do nothing for the short term, but continue
>> having this hosted by OSL?   Does anyone disagree that this is the
>> plan?  (Psst.  If no one disagrees with that, then we have consensus)
>
> I modified the status to that no one has come through to volunteer to improve this.
>
> I guess you have a plan. Should you elaborate.
>
> I'll note that despite letting people know numerous times, I have been the only person who has reported otages to support@osusol.org.
>

The intro to that page says: "The following is a high-level summary of
the migration of content and services of www.openoffice.org from
Oracle-hosted to Apache-hosted infrastructure."

Since the extensions and template pages are not hosted by Oracle,
there is no need to migrate them to Apache.  So an accurate status
summary would say that.  "No consensus" or "No volunteers have come
forward", taken in the context of the page, gives the false impression
that these sites are currently at risj of not being migrated off of
Oracle servers.

I understand that the OSL hosting is not currently stable, and that
will only improve if we can find a Drupel expert to help, or find an
alternative solution, but that is not a migration issue.

-Rob


>>
>>
>> 2) EIS, TCM, QUASTe, QATrack, Registration, Product improvement and
>> Crash Reporter --- does anyone disagree that the plan is that those
>> sites are gone and are not coming back?  Instead of "No decision yet",
>> are there any objections to me changing these to give a final status
>> of "Will not migrate"?
>>
>>
>> If there are any other updates, please edit the wiki.
>
> I changed the MirrorBrain row to make it clear that this issue only effects the legacy OOo downloads. All AOO releases will be on the Apache Mirror system.
>
> Perhaps download.services.openoffice.org is one way that AOO can team up with TOOo?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -Rob
>
>

Re: Can we update our migration status table?

Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 27, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> If you recall, this is the site that we are pointing users to for the
> current status of the migration effort:
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+Migration+Status
> 
> A few things that seem wrong:
> 
> 1) Why are we saying "no consensus" for the extension and template
> sites?  That makes it sound like we're having a discussion and we
> don't yet agree on how to handle these sites.  But isn't the truth
> more like we all agree to do nothing for the short term, but continue
> having this hosted by OSL?   Does anyone disagree that this is the
> plan?  (Psst.  If no one disagrees with that, then we have consensus)

I modified the status to that no one has come through to volunteer to improve this.

I guess you have a plan. Should you elaborate.

I'll note that despite letting people know numerous times, I have been the only person who has reported otages to support@osusol.org.

> 
> 
> 2) EIS, TCM, QUASTe, QATrack, Registration, Product improvement and
> Crash Reporter --- does anyone disagree that the plan is that those
> sites are gone and are not coming back?  Instead of "No decision yet",
> are there any objections to me changing these to give a final status
> of "Will not migrate"?
> 
> 
> If there are any other updates, please edit the wiki.

I changed the MirrorBrain row to make it clear that this issue only effects the legacy OOo downloads. All AOO releases will be on the Apache Mirror system.

Perhaps download.services.openoffice.org is one way that AOO can team up with TOOo?

Regards,
Dave


> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -Rob