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 2011/08/24 14:23:33 UTC
Scope/Mission of AOOo
Simon stuck this in the next gen support technology thread, but I
think this deserves its own top level thread. He declined to move it
into its own thread, but I will.
If I understand Simon's recurring proposal correctly, he would like us to:
1) Not produce any AOOo binaries for end user use, especially not for Linux.
2) Not support end-users
3) Transfer the OpenOffice.org trademark and logo to The Document
Foundation/LibreOffice, if not permanently, then at least for a
long-term loan
4) Concentrate on producing source code components that can be used by
LibreOffice
So in general, he would like us to not do anything that could be seen
as a legitimate continuation of the OOo project or as an alternative
to LibreOffice, the fork he helped created and continues to advise.
He suggests that we have not given this proposal serious
consideration, and now that the source code is almost checked in, we
should do so.
So what do you think?
-Rob
Re: Scope/Mission of AOOo
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > So:
> >> >
> >> > * I suggest we review realistically what binaries (platforms and
> >> languages)
> >> > can be sustained once the project is fully operational, seeking named
> >> > participants to take responsibility for each of them, and then
> >> collaborate
> >> > with other projects to ensure that the user community continues to be
> >> fully
> >> > served. It may be too early for this discussion.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Apache projects tend to avoid carving out designated ownership of
> >> sub-project areas. That tends to degrade into territorial behavior
> >> that is anti-collaboration and anti-community. Although a person may
> >> take the lead on building the Windows port for a particular release,
> >> this is done without assumption that someone else might also work in
> >> that area. So I don't think we will have named/designated "owners"
> >> for various platforms. The project owns the release. The
> >> responsibility is with the PPMC.
> >>
> >
> >> That said, I believe we already have volunteers on board who have
> >> expressed interest in supporting all platforms that OOo has, except
> >> Solaris.
> >>
> >
> > All platform/language combinations? Do you have a pointer to the list
> > pelase?
> >
> >
>
> Is this really all you wanted to discuss when you said yesterday:
>
> "I think we still need to have a serious discussion about the scope of the
> ambitions of AOOo - it's been raised before but deferred pending actually
> having a repo to work on."
>
> Is that your "serious discussion about the scope of the ambitions of
> AOOo"? You just want to know what languages we will support?
>
> >>
> >> If anyone wants to collaborate on Solaris, please speak up.
> >>
> >> > * I suggest that end-users should be supported by shared forums or a
> >> > GetSatisfaction-style collaborative venue serving all
> OpenOffice-family
> >> > projects, hosted on the OpenOffice.org domain so it's easy to find.
> This
> >> > discussion is already in progress and my suggestion is a rough summary
> of
> >> > possible consensus.
> >> >
> >>
> >> We're already doing that today on the OOo support forums, yes? Are
> >> you proposing something different than that?
> >>
> >
> > This is the conversation that's in progress, about mailing lists needing
> > migration from Oracle infrastructure; I had assumed you were following
> it.
> >
>
> I'm giving you the opportunity to raise these "serious discussion
> about the scope of the ambitions of AOO". Are you saying that this is
> just a question about migrating support forums. Seriously?
>
I thought I was clear, my apologies for confusing you. /Once the project is
operational/, we need to have a serious discussion about our actual scope
and ability to deliver on it, rather than about the aspirations you
expressed in the incubator proposal.
In the mean time, the support discussion is the one that's active and I
assert we need to make sure we design what we do without presupposing what
the project scope will actually be once we are able to have a realistic
discussion.
That's why it didn't need a new thread :-) Clear?
S.
Re: Scope/Mission of AOOo
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>> > So:
>> >
>> > * I suggest we review realistically what binaries (platforms and
>> languages)
>> > can be sustained once the project is fully operational, seeking named
>> > participants to take responsibility for each of them, and then
>> collaborate
>> > with other projects to ensure that the user community continues to be
>> fully
>> > served. It may be too early for this discussion.
>> >
>>
>> Apache projects tend to avoid carving out designated ownership of
>> sub-project areas. That tends to degrade into territorial behavior
>> that is anti-collaboration and anti-community. Although a person may
>> take the lead on building the Windows port for a particular release,
>> this is done without assumption that someone else might also work in
>> that area. So I don't think we will have named/designated "owners"
>> for various platforms. The project owns the release. The
>> responsibility is with the PPMC.
>>
>
>> That said, I believe we already have volunteers on board who have
>> expressed interest in supporting all platforms that OOo has, except
>> Solaris.
>>
>
> All platform/language combinations? Do you have a pointer to the list
> pelase?
>
>
Is this really all you wanted to discuss when you said yesterday:
"I think we still need to have a serious discussion about the scope of the
ambitions of AOOo - it's been raised before but deferred pending actually
having a repo to work on."
Is that your "serious discussion about the scope of the ambitions of
AOOo"? You just want to know what languages we will support?
>>
>> If anyone wants to collaborate on Solaris, please speak up.
>>
>> > * I suggest that end-users should be supported by shared forums or a
>> > GetSatisfaction-style collaborative venue serving all OpenOffice-family
>> > projects, hosted on the OpenOffice.org domain so it's easy to find. This
>> > discussion is already in progress and my suggestion is a rough summary of
>> > possible consensus.
>> >
>>
>> We're already doing that today on the OOo support forums, yes? Are
>> you proposing something different than that?
>>
>
> This is the conversation that's in progress, about mailing lists needing
> migration from Oracle infrastructure; I had assumed you were following it.
>
I'm giving you the opportunity to raise these "serious discussion
about the scope of the ambitions of AOO". Are you saying that this is
just a question about migrating support forums. Seriously?
-Rob
> S.
>
Re: Scope/Mission of AOOo
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> > So:
> >
> > * I suggest we review realistically what binaries (platforms and
> languages)
> > can be sustained once the project is fully operational, seeking named
> > participants to take responsibility for each of them, and then
> collaborate
> > with other projects to ensure that the user community continues to be
> fully
> > served. It may be too early for this discussion.
> >
>
> Apache projects tend to avoid carving out designated ownership of
> sub-project areas. That tends to degrade into territorial behavior
> that is anti-collaboration and anti-community. Although a person may
> take the lead on building the Windows port for a particular release,
> this is done without assumption that someone else might also work in
> that area. So I don't think we will have named/designated "owners"
> for various platforms. The project owns the release. The
> responsibility is with the PPMC.
>
> That said, I believe we already have volunteers on board who have
> expressed interest in supporting all platforms that OOo has, except
> Solaris.
>
All platform/language combinations? Do you have a pointer to the list
pelase?
>
> If anyone wants to collaborate on Solaris, please speak up.
>
> > * I suggest that end-users should be supported by shared forums or a
> > GetSatisfaction-style collaborative venue serving all OpenOffice-family
> > projects, hosted on the OpenOffice.org domain so it's easy to find. This
> > discussion is already in progress and my suggestion is a rough summary of
> > possible consensus.
> >
>
> We're already doing that today on the OOo support forums, yes? Are
> you proposing something different than that?
>
This is the conversation that's in progress, about mailing lists needing
migration from Oracle infrastructure; I had assumed you were following it.
S.
Re: Scope/Mission of AOOo
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Could you point us to your proposal? Or should we still be looking at
>> your earlier proposal, the one I linked to? When you have a new
>> proposal, I'll be glad to comment.
>>
>
> The email you snipped all the content from in your reply included a number
> of proposals :-) I've reproduced some of them below for your convenience.
>
>
>>
>> But note that a proposal to discuss something isn't really a proposal.
>> A proposal is a proposal for a particular action. We should try to
>> limit undirected chatter on this list. This is a working list, for
>> AOOo dev. We need to preserve focus.
>>
>
> On the contrary, ideas that extend beyond the scope of "I would like to do"
> have to be discussed before firm proposals can be made. Otherwise the
> proposals get dismissed out of hand by opponents because they don't have
> consensus, as I think you have just proved.
>
> So:
>
> * I suggest we review realistically what binaries (platforms and languages)
> can be sustained once the project is fully operational, seeking named
> participants to take responsibility for each of them, and then collaborate
> with other projects to ensure that the user community continues to be fully
> served. It may be too early for this discussion.
>
Apache projects tend to avoid carving out designated ownership of
sub-project areas. That tends to degrade into territorial behavior
that is anti-collaboration and anti-community. Although a person may
take the lead on building the Windows port for a particular release,
this is done without assumption that someone else might also work in
that area. So I don't think we will have named/designated "owners"
for various platforms. The project owns the release. The
responsibility is with the PPMC.
That said, I believe we already have volunteers on board who have
expressed interest in supporting all platforms that OOo has, except
Solaris.
If anyone wants to collaborate on Solaris, please speak up.
> * I suggest that end-users should be supported by shared forums or a
> GetSatisfaction-style collaborative venue serving all OpenOffice-family
> projects, hosted on the OpenOffice.org domain so it's easy to find. This
> discussion is already in progress and my suggestion is a rough summary of
> possible consensus.
>
We're already doing that today on the OOo support forums, yes? Are
you proposing something different than that?
> Feel free to start new threads if you prefer :-)
>
> S.
>
Re: Scope/Mission of AOOo
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Could you point us to your proposal? Or should we still be looking at
> your earlier proposal, the one I linked to? When you have a new
> proposal, I'll be glad to comment.
>
The email you snipped all the content from in your reply included a number
of proposals :-) I've reproduced some of them below for your convenience.
>
> But note that a proposal to discuss something isn't really a proposal.
> A proposal is a proposal for a particular action. We should try to
> limit undirected chatter on this list. This is a working list, for
> AOOo dev. We need to preserve focus.
>
On the contrary, ideas that extend beyond the scope of "I would like to do"
have to be discussed before firm proposals can be made. Otherwise the
proposals get dismissed out of hand by opponents because they don't have
consensus, as I think you have just proved.
So:
* I suggest we review realistically what binaries (platforms and languages)
can be sustained once the project is fully operational, seeking named
participants to take responsibility for each of them, and then collaborate
with other projects to ensure that the user community continues to be fully
served. It may be too early for this discussion.
* I suggest that end-users should be supported by shared forums or a
GetSatisfaction-style collaborative venue serving all OpenOffice-family
projects, hosted on the OpenOffice.org domain so it's easy to find. This
discussion is already in progress and my suggestion is a rough summary of
possible consensus.
Feel free to start new threads if you prefer :-)
S.
Re: Scope/Mission of AOOo
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If you have withdrawn that proposal, then please state so and share
>>> with us with your new proposal. I'd love to hear it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I still believe we need a realistic discussion around those topics, Rob.
>> Your view appears to be that proposals are immutable and to be accepted or
>> rejected rather than considered, adapted and evolved. I just gave you
>> proposals for discussion and I invite you to attempt positive and
>> constructive discussion around them rather than conducting endless
>> standards-committee-points-scoring.
>>
>
> Could you point us to your proposal? Or should we still be looking at
> your earlier proposal, the one I linked to? When you have a new
> proposal, I'll be glad to comment.
>
> But note that a proposal to discuss something isn't really a proposal.
> A proposal is a proposal for a particular action. We should try to
> limit undirected chatter on this list. This is a working list, for
> AOOo dev. We need to preserve focus.
>
Should note also that proposals of the form "I think we should do X"
are a cheap, a dime a dozen, and rarely progress the project.
Proposals of the form "I would like do X" are golden and move the
project forward. That is the "do-ocracy" aspect of the Apache
meritocracy.
>
> -Rob
>
>> S.
>>
>
Re: Scope/Mission of AOOo
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> If you have withdrawn that proposal, then please state so and share
>> with us with your new proposal. I'd love to hear it.
>>
>
>
> I still believe we need a realistic discussion around those topics, Rob.
> Your view appears to be that proposals are immutable and to be accepted or
> rejected rather than considered, adapted and evolved. I just gave you
> proposals for discussion and I invite you to attempt positive and
> constructive discussion around them rather than conducting endless
> standards-committee-points-scoring.
>
Could you point us to your proposal? Or should we still be looking at
your earlier proposal, the one I linked to? When you have a new
proposal, I'll be glad to comment.
But note that a proposal to discuss something isn't really a proposal.
A proposal is a proposal for a particular action. We should try to
limit undirected chatter on this list. This is a working list, for
AOOo dev. We need to preserve focus.
-Rob
> S.
>
Re: Scope/Mission of AOOo
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> If you have withdrawn that proposal, then please state so and share
> with us with your new proposal. I'd love to hear it.
>
I still believe we need a realistic discussion around those topics, Rob.
Your view appears to be that proposals are immutable and to be accepted or
rejected rather than considered, adapted and evolved. I just gave you
proposals for discussion and I invite you to attempt positive and
constructive discussion around them rather than conducting endless
standards-committee-points-scoring.
S.
Re: Scope/Mission of AOOo
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Simon stuck this in the next gen support technology thread, but I
>> think this deserves its own top level thread. He declined to move it
>> into its own thread, but I will.
>>
>
> Thanks Rob. Very enlightening post that shows me just how much you
> misunderstand my position.
>
>
>>
>> If I understand Simon's recurring proposal correctly, he would like us to:
>>
>
> You don't. I am proposing discussion based on the levels of volunteering
> that are evident in the project ONCE IT IS OPERATIONAL.
>
>
Simon, I'm not just making this stuff up. This was your proposal:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C00EDD8E7-3429-486E-8E1A-7FBA310A1408@webmink.com%3E
=================
1. Apache should accept the contribution of both a copyright license to =
the code from Apache (and I suggest checking it's the full, =
multi-branched source including all the in-progress contributions that =
are in a CWS and not just the release) and the trademarks so that those =
resources are secured for the community.
2. This incubator project, which sets out to be the "Firefox of =
OpenOffice", should proceed pretty much as described, but under a name =
other than OpenOffice (just as Firefox got a different name). Something =
like "Apache ODF Suite" that describes the intent to be the core code of =
a fresh start. Picking an alternative name will help avoid those =
millions of current users getting confused, and I suspect will cool down =
some of the emotions in this discussion. I'm sure Rob and the others =
behind the proposal will be able to populate a podling to get this =
started.
3. Given that a substantial part of the effort that the LibreOffice =
project has committed has been the creation of an open repository and =
build system coupled with an effective international distribution =
system, I suggest that we collectively ask LibreOffice to take on the =
task of "business-as-usual" for OpenOffice, so that the Incubator =
project can focus on rebirth and not get swamped in the minutiae of =
"business as usual".
=================
If you have withdrawn that proposal, then please state so and share
with us with your new proposal. I'd love to hear it.
-Rob
Re: Scope/Mission of AOOo
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> Simon stuck this in the next gen support technology thread, but I
> think this deserves its own top level thread. He declined to move it
> into its own thread, but I will.
>
Thanks Rob. Very enlightening post that shows me just how much you
misunderstand my position.
>
> If I understand Simon's recurring proposal correctly, he would like us to:
>
You don't. I am proposing discussion based on the levels of volunteering
that are evident in the project ONCE IT IS OPERATIONAL.
>
> 1) Not produce any AOOo binaries for end user use, especially not for
> Linux.
>
No, I am not proposing that. I do propose we review realistically what
binaries can be sustained once the project is fully operational.
>
> 2) Not support end-users
>
No, I am not proposing that. I am proposing that end-users should be
supported by shared forums or a GetSatisfaction-style collaborative venue
serving all OpenOffice-family projects, hosted on the OpenOffice.org domain
and staffed by volunteers from all co-operating projects.
>
> 3) Transfer the OpenOffice.org trademark and logo to The Document
> Foundation/LibreOffice, if not permanently, then at least for a
> long-term loan
>
While I suggested early in the project that it would be smart to ensure that
the current huge market using OOo does not just get a "please wait" message
for the next six months any time they ask for a fresh download or for
support, I have invited discussion using that as an example of a possibility
and not made the firm proposal you assert.
>
> 4) Concentrate on producing source code components that can be used by
> LibreOffice
>
... and all the other projects you love listing, and probably in the form of
a reference implementation of the whole suite. But I have not made a
proposal, this is simply your assumption based, it seems, on the baseless
assumption I want to disrupt AOOo rather than contribute to it.
>
> So in general, he would like us to not do anything that could be seen
> as a legitimate continuation of the OOo project or as an alternative
> to LibreOffice, the fork he helped created and continues to advise.
>
Lovely framing, albeit inaccurate since I've participated in AOOo at least
as much as I have participated in TDF. Good to see what you are telling
people about me though. You are a pro :-)
>
> He suggests that we have not given this proposal serious
> consideration, and now that the source code is almost checked in, we
> should do so.
>
I'm not sure it's actually time yet, as without a functioning repo it's hard
to establish exactly how many volunteers are really present here. But
balanced discussion would be interesting. In particular, it's important that
we don't make default decisions now that exclude possibilities for
collaboration later. I'm a fan of YAGNI.
S.