You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net> on 2012/09/16 03:18:34 UTC
[User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Greetings All;
In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
no longer put this issue aside.
Please take a look at the page and eel free to comment there and on this
list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
Regards
Keith N. McKenna
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
RGB ES wrote:
> 2012/9/16 Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
>
>> Greetings All;
>>
>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
>> User+Guides+Revisted<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted>.
>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can no
>> longer put this issue aside.
>>
>> Please take a look at the page and eel free to comment there and on this
>> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith N. McKenna
>>
>>
> Thanks! That's a really good summary of our situation. Scenario 3 is
> possible the best alternative, but it need a lot of work and not only
> because the writing itself: we still need to discuss how 4.0 will look
> alike.
>
> But there are some parts that will not change, no matter how the UI is
> modified: what a style and a template are and why is it better to use them
> instead of direct formatting, for example.
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
Ricardo;
Thanks for reading the page and for the feedback. I agree that Scenario
3 is the best alternative for the short term. Yes it will take a lot of
work, but a lot of work is already done. I need to get a windows version
of AOO 3.5 so I can start doing some of the clean-up work that needs to
be done on the Getting Started Guide.
As for Version 4, I agree that we need to start discussions *NOW* on
what it will look like and on what the documentation will look like and
where the resources will come from. The latter is going to be a very big
deal if the documentation gets a complete re-write.
Regards
Keith
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2012/9/16 Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
> Greetings All;
>
> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
> User+Guides+Revisted<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted>.
> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can no
> longer put this issue aside.
>
> Please take a look at the page and eel free to comment there and on this
> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>
> Regards
> Keith N. McKenna
>
>
Thanks! That's a really good summary of our situation. Scenario 3 is
possible the best alternative, but it need a lot of work and not only
because the writing itself: we still need to discuss how 4.0 will look
alike.
But there are some parts that will not change, no matter how the UI is
modified: what a style and a template are and why is it better to use them
instead of direct formatting, for example.
Regards
Ricardo
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2012/11/13 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 5:05 PM, RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree as a general concept, but I think the possible uses of AOO are so
> > broad that it is quite difficult to identify definite tasks. For example,
> > writing a letter seems a quite different task from writing a book, but
> once
> > you learn how to use styles both tasks imply exactly the same actions
> from
> > the user: the only real change is in the "numbers" (more styles used,
> more
> > pages, more objects) but the "what do you need to do" is almost the same.
> > So if we write a task explaining how to write a letter, maybe a new user
> > that needs to write a thesis will skip that chapter, thinking it will not
> > help him/her because "it's too basic" while a task explaining how to
> write
> > a thesis will scare someone who just need to write a letter.
> >
>
> Well, I think we need the user to meet us half-way. I wouldn't have a
> task on "writing a letter". As you say, this is very broad. But
> having a comprehensive chapter on lists in all its gory detail might
> be too broad as well. It is purely conceptual and is the long way to
> a user with an immediate question .
>
> In the middle might be:
>
> -- How to number a list starting at something other than 1
>
> -- How to continue a list
>
> -- How to control bullet styles for nested lists.
>
> So my view of a "task" is much smaller.
>
A chapter with a collection of quick "cheat sheets" could be a good idea,
indeed: "to do 'this', follow 'these steps' and for more info see 'here'".
Regards
Ricardo
>
> In any case, this is not an either/or. It is good to have the
> reference and conceptual material as well. But easy-to-follow tasks
> (or think of them as "cookbook recipes") can help as well.
>
>
>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 5:05 PM, RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/11/12 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>
>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:07 PM, RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2012/9/20 RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>
>> >
>> >> 2012/9/16 Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
>> >>
>> >>> Greetings All;
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have
>> added
>> >>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>> >>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>> >>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we
>> can no
>> >>> longer put this issue aside.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I added a child page were I think aloud about scenario 3 and start the
>> >> discussion about how to organize the documentation if we decide to build
>> >> our own
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Details+on+Scenario+3
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> Ricardo
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Since some weeks there is an ongoing effort on the ES wiki to organize
>> the
>> > basic documentation for AOO.(1) I experimented with the distribution of
>> > different arguments and arrived to a configuration that I find
>> interesting.
>> > This distribution is different from usual user documentation in the sense
>> > that it is highly cross referenced: The first chapter try to give a
>> general
>> > description of AOO as a whole, without entering on the details of each
>> > specific app while the following chapters reference to the first one as
>> > much as possible. After that, each chapter clearly separate direct
>> > formatting from styles but trying to not explain same things twice:
>> > configuring a numbered list indent is the same when doing direct
>> formatting
>> > or modifying a list style, so... more cross referencing.
>> >
>> > Based on this (not completed yet) experience I added a "proposed TOC" to
>> > the "Details on Scenario 3" page. Only chapters 1 and 2 are really
>> > detailed, but the idea is to give to the Calc, Impress and Draw chapters
>> a
>> > structure similar to the one used on Writer's chapter.
>> >
>>
>> I like how you break it down. It is similar to how DITA looks at
>> technical documentation as being modular, with three main kinds of
>> topics: concept, reference and task.
>>
>> Reference would be like the detailed menu by menu item descriptions
>>
>> Concept would be explaining what a style is and why it is important.
>>
>> Tasks would be very direct, "How do I..." instructions.
>>
>> A very busy person might consult a task directly, to learn how to do
>> something. Maybe it has a link to a concept page to provide a higher
>> level view, if they want it. Or they could just follow the tasks
>> instructions and "get it done" without understanding the details.
>> That's fine.
>>
>> Now I must admit that IBM has never won a Nobel Prize in Literature
>> for our product manuals. But what we have learned is that there is
>> value in focusing on the user's tasks -- what they want to do -- from
>> their perspective, and not focus on the product.
>>
>
> I agree as a general concept, but I think the possible uses of AOO are so
> broad that it is quite difficult to identify definite tasks. For example,
> writing a letter seems a quite different task from writing a book, but once
> you learn how to use styles both tasks imply exactly the same actions from
> the user: the only real change is in the "numbers" (more styles used, more
> pages, more objects) but the "what do you need to do" is almost the same.
> So if we write a task explaining how to write a letter, maybe a new user
> that needs to write a thesis will skip that chapter, thinking it will not
> help him/her because "it's too basic" while a task explaining how to write
> a thesis will scare someone who just need to write a letter.
>
Well, I think we need the user to meet us half-way. I wouldn't have a
task on "writing a letter". As you say, this is very broad. But
having a comprehensive chapter on lists in all its gory detail might
be too broad as well. It is purely conceptual and is the long way to
a user with an immediate question .
In the middle might be:
-- How to number a list starting at something other than 1
-- How to continue a list
-- How to control bullet styles for nested lists.
So my view of a "task" is much smaller.
In any case, this is not an either/or. It is good to have the
reference and conceptual material as well. But easy-to-follow tasks
(or think of them as "cookbook recipes") can help as well.
> On the other hand, maintaining the focus on the firsts chapters we can add
> some "sample tasks" on the last part: "Integrating components". For
> example, a more or less detailed guide explaining how to write a report
> were you need to insert Charts from Calc, drawings from Draw, database
> info, multimedia files and so on, but always linking to the first chapters
> when details are needed.
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
>
>
>>
>> A little chapter on this idea here;
>> http://www.ibmpressbooks.com/articles/article.asp?p=327993
>>
>> But I think we can do a mix, since moving from basic tasks to being a
>> proficient user requires that the user eventually *understand* how the
>> product works, not just follow steps in a book. So eventually they
>> want concepts. But at first, they are probably more task-oriented.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>> > Regards
>> > Ricardo
>> >
>> > (1) http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/ES/Manuales/GuiaAOO
>>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2012/11/12 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:07 PM, RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2012/9/20 RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>
> >
> >> 2012/9/16 Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
> >>
> >>> Greetings All;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have
> added
> >>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
> >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
> >>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we
> can no
> >>> longer put this issue aside.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I added a child page were I think aloud about scenario 3 and start the
> >> discussion about how to organize the documentation if we decide to build
> >> our own
> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Details+on+Scenario+3
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Ricardo
> >>
> >
> >
> > Since some weeks there is an ongoing effort on the ES wiki to organize
> the
> > basic documentation for AOO.(1) I experimented with the distribution of
> > different arguments and arrived to a configuration that I find
> interesting.
> > This distribution is different from usual user documentation in the sense
> > that it is highly cross referenced: The first chapter try to give a
> general
> > description of AOO as a whole, without entering on the details of each
> > specific app while the following chapters reference to the first one as
> > much as possible. After that, each chapter clearly separate direct
> > formatting from styles but trying to not explain same things twice:
> > configuring a numbered list indent is the same when doing direct
> formatting
> > or modifying a list style, so... more cross referencing.
> >
> > Based on this (not completed yet) experience I added a "proposed TOC" to
> > the "Details on Scenario 3" page. Only chapters 1 and 2 are really
> > detailed, but the idea is to give to the Calc, Impress and Draw chapters
> a
> > structure similar to the one used on Writer's chapter.
> >
>
> I like how you break it down. It is similar to how DITA looks at
> technical documentation as being modular, with three main kinds of
> topics: concept, reference and task.
>
> Reference would be like the detailed menu by menu item descriptions
>
> Concept would be explaining what a style is and why it is important.
>
> Tasks would be very direct, "How do I..." instructions.
>
> A very busy person might consult a task directly, to learn how to do
> something. Maybe it has a link to a concept page to provide a higher
> level view, if they want it. Or they could just follow the tasks
> instructions and "get it done" without understanding the details.
> That's fine.
>
> Now I must admit that IBM has never won a Nobel Prize in Literature
> for our product manuals. But what we have learned is that there is
> value in focusing on the user's tasks -- what they want to do -- from
> their perspective, and not focus on the product.
>
I agree as a general concept, but I think the possible uses of AOO are so
broad that it is quite difficult to identify definite tasks. For example,
writing a letter seems a quite different task from writing a book, but once
you learn how to use styles both tasks imply exactly the same actions from
the user: the only real change is in the "numbers" (more styles used, more
pages, more objects) but the "what do you need to do" is almost the same.
So if we write a task explaining how to write a letter, maybe a new user
that needs to write a thesis will skip that chapter, thinking it will not
help him/her because "it's too basic" while a task explaining how to write
a thesis will scare someone who just need to write a letter.
On the other hand, maintaining the focus on the firsts chapters we can add
some "sample tasks" on the last part: "Integrating components". For
example, a more or less detailed guide explaining how to write a report
were you need to insert Charts from Calc, drawings from Draw, database
info, multimedia files and so on, but always linking to the first chapters
when details are needed.
Regards
Ricardo
>
> A little chapter on this idea here;
> http://www.ibmpressbooks.com/articles/article.asp?p=327993
>
> But I think we can do a mix, since moving from basic tasks to being a
> proficient user requires that the user eventually *understand* how the
> product works, not just follow steps in a book. So eventually they
> want concepts. But at first, they are probably more task-oriented.
>
> -Rob
>
>
> > Regards
> > Ricardo
> >
> > (1) http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/ES/Manuales/GuiaAOO
>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:07 PM, RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/9/20 RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>
>
>> 2012/9/16 Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
>>
>>> Greetings All;
>>>
>>>
>>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
>>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can no
>>> longer put this issue aside.
>>>
>>
>> I added a child page were I think aloud about scenario 3 and start the
>> discussion about how to organize the documentation if we decide to build
>> our own
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Details+on+Scenario+3
>>
>> Regards
>> Ricardo
>>
>
>
> Since some weeks there is an ongoing effort on the ES wiki to organize the
> basic documentation for AOO.(1) I experimented with the distribution of
> different arguments and arrived to a configuration that I find interesting.
> This distribution is different from usual user documentation in the sense
> that it is highly cross referenced: The first chapter try to give a general
> description of AOO as a whole, without entering on the details of each
> specific app while the following chapters reference to the first one as
> much as possible. After that, each chapter clearly separate direct
> formatting from styles but trying to not explain same things twice:
> configuring a numbered list indent is the same when doing direct formatting
> or modifying a list style, so... more cross referencing.
>
> Based on this (not completed yet) experience I added a "proposed TOC" to
> the "Details on Scenario 3" page. Only chapters 1 and 2 are really
> detailed, but the idea is to give to the Calc, Impress and Draw chapters a
> structure similar to the one used on Writer's chapter.
>
I like how you break it down. It is similar to how DITA looks at
technical documentation as being modular, with three main kinds of
topics: concept, reference and task.
Reference would be like the detailed menu by menu item descriptions
Concept would be explaining what a style is and why it is important.
Tasks would be very direct, "How do I..." instructions.
A very busy person might consult a task directly, to learn how to do
something. Maybe it has a link to a concept page to provide a higher
level view, if they want it. Or they could just follow the tasks
instructions and "get it done" without understanding the details.
That's fine.
Now I must admit that IBM has never won a Nobel Prize in Literature
for our product manuals. But what we have learned is that there is
value in focusing on the user's tasks -- what they want to do -- from
their perspective, and not focus on the product.
A little chapter on this idea here;
http://www.ibmpressbooks.com/articles/article.asp?p=327993
But I think we can do a mix, since moving from basic tasks to being a
proficient user requires that the user eventually *understand* how the
product works, not just follow steps in a book. So eventually they
want concepts. But at first, they are probably more task-oriented.
-Rob
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
> (1) http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/ES/Manuales/GuiaAOO
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ricardo,
2012/11/12 RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>
> 2012/9/20 RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>
>
> > 2012/9/16 Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
> >
> >> Greetings All;
> >>
> >>
> >> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
> >> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
> >> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we
> can no
> >> longer put this issue aside.
> >>
> >
> > I added a child page were I think aloud about scenario 3 and start the
> > discussion about how to organize the documentation if we decide to build
> > our own
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Details+on+Scenario+3
> >
> > Regards
> > Ricardo
> >
>
>
> Since some weeks there is an ongoing effort on the ES wiki to organize the
> basic documentation for AOO.(1) I experimented with the distribution of
> different arguments and arrived to a configuration that I find interesting.
> This distribution is different from usual user documentation in the sense
> that it is highly cross referenced: The first chapter try to give a general
> description of AOO as a whole, without entering on the details of each
> specific app while the following chapters reference to the first one as
> much as possible. After that, each chapter clearly separate direct
> formatting from styles but trying to not explain same things twice:
> configuring a numbered list indent is the same when doing direct formatting
> or modifying a list style, so... more cross referencing.
>
> Based on this (not completed yet) experience I added a "proposed TOC" to
> the "Details on Scenario 3" page. Only chapters 1 and 2 are really
> detailed, but the idea is to give to the Calc, Impress and Draw chapters a
> structure similar to the one used on Writer's chapter.
>
It's a good approach for an online documentation. This reduces its volume
and simplifies the updates. By the way, I have good results when I
translate your texts in french with Google Translator. I can easy
understand all even I don't know any word in spanish.
Many thanks for this work under Alv2.0.
>
>
> (1) http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/ES/Manuales/GuiaAOO
A+
--
gw
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2012/9/20 RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>
> 2012/9/16 Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
>
>> Greetings All;
>>
>>
>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can no
>> longer put this issue aside.
>>
>
> I added a child page were I think aloud about scenario 3 and start the
> discussion about how to organize the documentation if we decide to build
> our own
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Details+on+Scenario+3
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
Since some weeks there is an ongoing effort on the ES wiki to organize the
basic documentation for AOO.(1) I experimented with the distribution of
different arguments and arrived to a configuration that I find interesting.
This distribution is different from usual user documentation in the sense
that it is highly cross referenced: The first chapter try to give a general
description of AOO as a whole, without entering on the details of each
specific app while the following chapters reference to the first one as
much as possible. After that, each chapter clearly separate direct
formatting from styles but trying to not explain same things twice:
configuring a numbered list indent is the same when doing direct formatting
or modifying a list style, so... more cross referencing.
Based on this (not completed yet) experience I added a "proposed TOC" to
the "Details on Scenario 3" page. Only chapters 1 and 2 are really
detailed, but the idea is to give to the Calc, Impress and Draw chapters a
structure similar to the one used on Writer's chapter.
Regards
Ricardo
(1) http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/ES/Manuales/GuiaAOO
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2012/9/16 Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
> Greetings All;
>
> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can no
> longer put this issue aside.
>
I added a child page were I think aloud about scenario 3 and start the
discussion about how to organize the documentation if we decide to build
our own
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Details+on+Scenario+3
Regards
Ricardo
> Please take a look at the page and eel free to comment there and on this
> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>
> Regards
> Keith N. McKenna
>
>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Rob;
Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Keith N. McKenna
> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Greetings All;
>>
>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added the
>> hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can no
>> longer put this issue aside.
>>
>> Please take a look at the page and eel free to comment there and on this
>> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>>
>
> Keith,
>
> Thanks for putting together that list of options. A few short thoughts:
>
> On option 1, I'm not sure this is so bad. Does Microsoft Office ship
> with detailed user manuals? I don't think so. But there is a large
> market for 3rd party documentation, books, tutorials, websites, DVD's,
> training materials, certification exams, etc. The popularity of their
> software means that they do not need to do it all themselves. In
> fact, by not doing it (and they could do it if they wanted to) they
> allow others to make money filling in these details, thus supporting a
> vibrant ecosystem.
>
This is true, but then again Microsoft has never been known as a user
centric company. I thought when they discontinued documentation on not
only Microsoft Office but most all of there offerings that is was
unprofessional and still feel that way. Taking the time to write and
distribute good documentation is another way we can show commitment to
our end users.
> Of course, OpenOffice is not as popular as Microsoft Office, but if
> you search Amazon you'll find quite a few 3rd party books about it. I
> wonder if there is anything we can do to encourage that path?
>
>
I did search amazon and yes there are fair number of offerings about it.
There may well be things than can be done whether or not we choose to do
some documentation ourselves.
> Think of it this way: 16 million downloads of AOO 3.4. 100 million
> downloads of OOo 3.3. Even if only 1% of 1% of them would be
> interested in purchasing documentation this should be a sufficient
> opportunity for a 3rd party.
>
This is true and deserves to be looked at as part o an over all
marketing strategy.
> And note that to the extent we create such doc in the project we
> compete against the ecosystem and make it less likely that 3rd parties
> will invest in producing documentation for sale. That's the
> fundamental dynamic at play here.
>
This is where we start to diverge a bit. As I said I did search Amazon
and what I found was that most of the offerings were published while the
OOo documentation project was in full swing producing good quality
documentation for free. Given that I am not sure your fundamental
dynamic really holds up. Then again I have been known to be wrong as
often as I am right.
> Another angle on your option 2 might be to see if documentation could
> be packaged as an extension. If so then you could use the existing
> extensions website for distribution. The extension could be as
> trivial as adding a menu item to launch the PDF.
>
This is an avenue I had thought to explore and sounds interesting.
In closing I thank you for taking the time to read the wiki and to
respond. You have brought up some interesting ideas.
Regards
Keith
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> Regards
>> Keith N. McKenna
>>
>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Keith N. McKenna
<ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Greetings All;
>
> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added the
> hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can no
> longer put this issue aside.
>
> Please take a look at the page and eel free to comment there and on this
> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>
Keith,
Thanks for putting together that list of options. A few short thoughts:
On option 1, I'm not sure this is so bad. Does Microsoft Office ship
with detailed user manuals? I don't think so. But there is a large
market for 3rd party documentation, books, tutorials, websites, DVD's,
training materials, certification exams, etc. The popularity of their
software means that they do not need to do it all themselves. In
fact, by not doing it (and they could do it if they wanted to) they
allow others to make money filling in these details, thus supporting a
vibrant ecosystem.
Of course, OpenOffice is not as popular as Microsoft Office, but if
you search Amazon you'll find quite a few 3rd party books about it. I
wonder if there is anything we can do to encourage that path?
Think of it this way: 16 million downloads of AOO 3.4. 100 million
downloads of OOo 3.3. Even if only 1% of 1% of them would be
interested in purchasing documentation this should be a sufficient
opportunity for a 3rd party.
And note that to the extent we create such doc in the project we
compete against the ecosystem and make it less likely that 3rd parties
will invest in producing documentation for sale. That's the
fundamental dynamic at play here.
Another angle on your option 2 might be to see if documentation could
be packaged as an extension. If so then you could use the existing
extensions website for distribution. The extension could be as
trivial as adding a menu item to launch the PDF.
Regards,
-Rob
> Regards
> Keith N. McKenna
>
RE: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
It is my understanding that the openoffice.org web site content is not a subject of the Oracle grant. Although the ASF now has custody of the domains, there is no content grant.
The explicit licenses on content there continue to apply.
My personal preference would be to continue on ODF Authors so long as what is developed is a derivative of work already there.
Whether republishing directly on openoffice.org becomes appropriate or not can be resolved when the time comes. Also, if ODFAuthors were not to be perpetuated, it might be necessary to host it elsewhere, still not necessarily on ASF servers.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mckenna@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 19:03
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
[ ... ]
> Scenario 2 under "Cons":
> "Licensing issues". We are already hosting the existing "outdated"
> guides on Apache servers (eg.
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation).
My gut says that they were "grandfathered" in with the original grant to
Apache and that attempts to go forward with new docs would meet with
serious push back from many quarters.
[ ... ]
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Dave Barton wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 21:18:34 -0400
>
>> Greetings All;
>>
>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>
>> Please take a look at the page and eel free to comment there and on this
>> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith N. McKenna
>
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> This issue was extensively, although inconclusively, discussed last
> year. Thank you for revisiting a much neglected aspect of the project.
I tried valiantly to wade through that discussion in the archives. I got
most of it, but it took some pretty convoluted paths with no real
conclusion that I could see. It just sort of died.
> In order to avoid confusion I believe we should define "documentation"
> in the form that I believe you are referring to. I see this as
> documentation made available to end users, separate from, but in sync
> with, that which forms part of the released code. (eg. the in-built help
> facility.)
You are absolutely correct, that is the exactly the type o documentation
I am referring to. Along with the FAQ's, HowTos and tutorials.
> Obviously scenario 1 is not an option, because _good_ end user
> documentation is an essential component of post=installation support.
I couldn't agree more.
> Scenario 2 under "Cons":
> "Licensing issues". We are already hosting the existing "outdated"
> guides on Apache servers (eg.
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation).
My gut says that they were "grandfathered" in with the original grant to
Apache and that attempts to go forward with new docs would meet with
serious push back from many quarters.
> "Possible distribution issues". As stated above the type of
> "documentation" we are discussing here does not form part of the source
> or (convenience) binaries.
Again I foresee potential for serious push back. My admittedly hazy
understanding of Apache policy frowns on pointing users to fairly large
files on Apache controlled servers due to bandwidth and other concerns.
> In the event that either of the above were to be a graduation issue
> Apache Extras, ODFAuthors, could be options available to us.
I agree.
> I do not see Scenario 3 as a viable option. Yes it would give us all a
> nice warm fuzzy feeling to say that everything in any way related to AOO
> was ALV2 licensed. In reality we would need to recruit a large number of
> skilled technical writers, an animal which is extremely rare and
> difficult to catch. Even if this were possible, it would be unlikely
> that the end result would be very different, albeit more refined, from
> what we already have. The ODFAuthors (OOoAuthors) worked on the original
> documentation for ~10 years and it is still incomplete.
I share your concerns around option 3, but given that AOO 4.0 has the
potential for substantial UI changes along with enhancements and bug
fixes I believe that it does bare more than cursory consideration.
> Even though work on AOO documentation at ODFAuthors virtually stopped
> when Jean Hollis Weber resigned from this project, the door remains open
> for us to pick up and carry on the work already done there. Now that my
> health is returning to something approaching normal, this would be a
> good starting point for me to get fully involved.
That was the feeling I got also. I am not a coder, nor am I tech writer.
I am an manufacturing engineer that has some experience in reviewing
technical documentation. This looked to me like the bet way for me to
contribute to a project that I have used the output from for a number of
years.
> Hopefully we can quickly come to a consensus and start moving forward on
> this.
I whole heatedly second that motion.
Regards
Keith
> Regards
> Dave
>
>
>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or
AOO
Posted by js...@fastmail.fm.
You are failing to realize that when a user has only Java 6.35 or above
installed on their system, they can't use wizards. When they click
"Help" to figure out why, they can't use that either. Why? Because
msvcr100.dll is not included in your packaged release, and help within
Open Office relies on Java to work correctly. This will be compounded
when Oracle updates to MS VC++ 2012 and the users are using only java
that is built with that. Solution being to include the msvcr*.dll that
is included in that.
If you don't believe me, test it out on a computer with that
configuration. This is likely to be the state of nearly ALL new
computers.
--
jsmith321@fastmail.fm
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012, at 07:13 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:48:14PM +0200, Dave Barton wrote:
> > In order to avoid confusion I believe we should define "documentation"
> > in the form that I believe you are referring to. I see this as
> > documentation made available to end users, separate from, but in sync
> > with, that which forms part of the released code. (eg. the in-built help
> > facility.)
>
> IMHO the built-in help should be the first priority:
>
> - it is already released under the ALv2
>
> - it is what user face when they work with the product on daily base.
> Not only in the form of the Help Agent (a little old-fashioned stuff)
> but mainly in the form of (Extended) Tips and contextual help on
> dialogs.
>
> For the questions I often read, it seems users don't read the Online
> Help that often, but I guest that at least tips and "Help" button on
> dialogs are used, and there is fact that menu "Help" buttons in many AOO
> dialogs lead to a help page that does not exist.
>
>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina
> Email had 1 attachment:
> + Attachment2
> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user
documentation or AOO
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:48:14PM +0200, Dave Barton wrote:
> In order to avoid confusion I believe we should define "documentation"
> in the form that I believe you are referring to. I see this as
> documentation made available to end users, separate from, but in sync
> with, that which forms part of the released code. (eg. the in-built help
> facility.)
IMHO the built-in help should be the first priority:
- it is already released under the ALv2
- it is what user face when they work with the product on daily base.
Not only in the form of the Help Agent (a little old-fashioned stuff)
but mainly in the form of (Extended) Tips and contextual help on
dialogs.
For the questions I often read, it seems users don't read the Online
Help that often, but I guest that at least tips and "Help" button on
dialogs are used, and there is fact that menu "Help" buttons in many AOO
dialogs lead to a help page that does not exist.
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by Dave Barton <bm...@apache.org>.
-------- Original Message --------
From: Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 21:18:34 -0400
> Greetings All;
>
> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
> no longer put this issue aside.
>
> Please take a look at the page and eel free to comment there and on this
> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>
> Regards
> Keith N. McKenna
Hi Keith,
This issue was extensively, although inconclusively, discussed last
year. Thank you for revisiting a much neglected aspect of the project.
In order to avoid confusion I believe we should define "documentation"
in the form that I believe you are referring to. I see this as
documentation made available to end users, separate from, but in sync
with, that which forms part of the released code. (eg. the in-built help
facility.)
Obviously scenario 1 is not an option, because _good_ end user
documentation is an essential component of post=installation support.
Scenario 2 under "Cons":
"Licensing issues". We are already hosting the existing "outdated"
guides on Apache servers (eg.
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation).
"Possible distribution issues". As stated above the type of
"documentation" we are discussing here does not form part of the source
or (convenience) binaries.
In the event that either of the above were to be a graduation issue
Apache Extras, ODFAuthors, could be options available to us.
I do not see Scenario 3 as a viable option. Yes it would give us all a
nice warm fuzzy feeling to say that everything in any way related to AOO
was ALV2 licensed. In reality we would need to recruit a large number of
skilled technical writers, an animal which is extremely rare and
difficult to catch. Even if this were possible, it would be unlikely
that the end result would be very different, albeit more refined, from
what we already have. The ODFAuthors (OOoAuthors) worked on the original
documentation for ~10 years and it is still incomplete.
Even though work on AOO documentation at ODFAuthors virtually stopped
when Jean Hollis Weber resigned from this project, the door remains open
for us to pick up and carry on the work already done there. Now that my
health is returning to something approaching normal, this would be a
good starting point for me to get fully involved.
Hopefully we can quickly come to a consensus and start moving forward on
this.
Regards
Dave
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
RGB ES wrote:
> 2012/9/16 Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
>
>> As an aside, is there a developer snapshot available or 3.5 yet? I would
>> like to start work on the Getting Started Guide on the ODFAuthors site and
>> it makes sense to make edits based on 3.5 since that will be the most
>> likely next release.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith
>>
>
> There are snapshot build for Linux:
>
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
>
> They do not look any different from 3.4.x yet.
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
Thanks Ricardo. Unfortunately all I have is a Toshiba Portage M200
tablet running Windows XP-Pro Tablet Edition. I was hoping to get a jump
on screen shots and such, but much of the preliminary work can still be
done with 3.4.1.
Regards
Keith
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2012/9/16 Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
> As an aside, is there a developer snapshot available or 3.5 yet? I would
> like to start work on the Getting Started Guide on the ODFAuthors site and
> it makes sense to make edits based on 3.5 since that will be the most
> likely next release.
>
> Regards
> Keith
>
There are snapshot build for Linux:
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
They do not look any different from 3.4.x yet.
Regards
Ricardo
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 09/16/2012 03:24 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>> TJ Frazier wrote:
>>>
>>> As a long-time volunteer with ODFA (formerly OOA), I can promise that we
>>> (AOO) can get documents from them. The cost of this option is (1) a
>>> legal review and approval of CC-BY v3; (2) some storage (WG v3.2 is 15.5
>>> MB, so call it 100 or 200 MB per version, probably as .odt and .pdf
>>> files on the Mwiki. The download volume/bandwidth has been too low to
>>> cause any problems, but I have no stats); and (3) a little politeness.
>>
>>
>> Point (1), like all legal reviews, sounds scary, but it could be quite easy:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a says
>> ---
>> For the purposes of being a dependency to an Apache product, which licenses
>> are considered to be similar in terms to the Apache License 2.0?
>> Works under the following licenses may be included within Apache products:
>> ...
>> Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A)
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
>> ---
>> Now, besides the fact that the license is called "CC-A" instead of "CC-BY"
>> (but the name and link make it clear it's CC-BY), and the fact that the link
>> is to version 2.5 and not version 3.0, Point (1) should already be done.
>>
>> What's needed is just to open a LEGAL JIRA issue like
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-117
>> but merely asking whether CC-BY 3.0
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
>> can be considered "Category A" and added to / mentioned in
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
>>
>
> Actually, I did this last August (2011) to help Jean Weber try to get
> the doc project started. You can see the JIRA issue here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-96
>
> See also the related discussion on the legal-discuss.
>
> The conclusion was that CC-BY-3.0 had an anti-DRM clause that
> prevented it from being considered fully category-a.
>
> But that shouldn't prevent us from seeking a narrower permission for
> hosting on our website. But note that hosting might have additional
> Infra considerations in terms of bandwidth, etc. Remember, even if we
> have stuff as category-a we're not supposed to be distributing it
> outside of a release and outside of approved mirrors. Pointing users
> to large files of any kind on the website will be a problem.
>
> So this leads to questions:
>
> 1) Within the AOO project can we do substantive work on material that
> is not ALv2?
This is my question also.
>
> 2) If so, can we include this work in an official release?
>
> 3) If not in a release, can we host such materials on Apache-owned websites?
And another question. Are User Guides considered part of a release?
I fully understand the need for quality User Guides apart from simpler
documentation scenarios, I'm just confused over some of these licensing
issues, and how they affect what we determine/say is the "official" User
Guide.
>
> My guess is we would have a lot less trouble if we either started new
> doc from scratch under ALv2, or did this work via ODFA, e..g, outside
> of Apache. Mixing the two will be a headache.
>
> -Rob
>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"We never sit anything out. We are cups, constantly and quietly
being filled. The trick is, knowing how to tip ourselves over and
let the beautiful stuff out."
-- Ray Bradbury, "Zen in the Art of Writing"
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 17/09/2012 Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a says
>> ---
>> For the purposes of being a dependency to an Apache product, which licenses
>> are considered to be similar in terms to the Apache License 2.0?
>> Works under the following licenses may be included within Apache products:
>> ...
>> Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A)
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
>> ---
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-96
> See also the related discussion on the legal-discuss.
> The conclusion was that CC-BY-3.0 had an anti-DRM clause that
> prevented it from being considered fully category-a.
OK, but that clause exists in the (approved) 2.5 version too:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode (4a)
So, if it was not an obstacle when approving version 2.5, it shouldn't
be an obstacle for 3.0 either (assuming it was not overlooked of course).
> Pointing users
> to large files of any kind on the website will be a problem.
Yes, but these files are not so large (Italian version: 200-1500 KBytes
per chapter) to pose problems.
> My guess is we would have a lot less trouble if we either started new
> doc from scratch under ALv2, or did this work via ODFA, e..g, outside
> of Apache. Mixing the two will be a headache.
I agree. The ODFAuthors material is a solid basis to build upon, so, if
we decide that in the end the licensing issues are not so relevant, we
could redirect volunteers there and link the guides from our website (as
it has been the case for years, actually). They already offer drafts for
Apache OpenOffice and have a solid infrastructure and good quality.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> TJ Frazier wrote:
>>
>> As a long-time volunteer with ODFA (formerly OOA), I can promise that we
>> (AOO) can get documents from them. The cost of this option is (1) a
>> legal review and approval of CC-BY v3; (2) some storage (WG v3.2 is 15.5
>> MB, so call it 100 or 200 MB per version, probably as .odt and .pdf
>> files on the Mwiki. The download volume/bandwidth has been too low to
>> cause any problems, but I have no stats); and (3) a little politeness.
>
>
> Point (1), like all legal reviews, sounds scary, but it could be quite easy:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a says
> ---
> For the purposes of being a dependency to an Apache product, which licenses
> are considered to be similar in terms to the Apache License 2.0?
> Works under the following licenses may be included within Apache products:
> ...
> Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A)
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
> ---
> Now, besides the fact that the license is called "CC-A" instead of "CC-BY"
> (but the name and link make it clear it's CC-BY), and the fact that the link
> is to version 2.5 and not version 3.0, Point (1) should already be done.
>
> What's needed is just to open a LEGAL JIRA issue like
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-117
> but merely asking whether CC-BY 3.0
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
> can be considered "Category A" and added to / mentioned in
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
>
Actually, I did this last August (2011) to help Jean Weber try to get
the doc project started. You can see the JIRA issue here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-96
See also the related discussion on the legal-discuss.
The conclusion was that CC-BY-3.0 had an anti-DRM clause that
prevented it from being considered fully category-a.
But that shouldn't prevent us from seeking a narrower permission for
hosting on our website. But note that hosting might have additional
Infra considerations in terms of bandwidth, etc. Remember, even if we
have stuff as category-a we're not supposed to be distributing it
outside of a release and outside of approved mirrors. Pointing users
to large files of any kind on the website will be a problem.
So this leads to questions:
1) Within the AOO project can we do substantive work on material that
is not ALv2?
2) If so, can we include this work in an official release?
3) If not in a release, can we host such materials on Apache-owned websites?
My guess is we would have a lot less trouble if we either started new
doc from scratch under ALv2, or did this work via ODFA, e..g, outside
of Apache. Mixing the two will be a headache.
-Rob
> Regards,
> Andrea.
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
TJ Frazier wrote:
> As a long-time volunteer with ODFA (formerly OOA), I can promise that we
> (AOO) can get documents from them. The cost of this option is (1) a
> legal review and approval of CC-BY v3; (2) some storage (WG v3.2 is 15.5
> MB, so call it 100 or 200 MB per version, probably as .odt and .pdf
> files on the Mwiki. The download volume/bandwidth has been too low to
> cause any problems, but I have no stats); and (3) a little politeness.
Point (1), like all legal reviews, sounds scary, but it could be quite
easy: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a says
---
For the purposes of being a dependency to an Apache product, which
licenses are considered to be similar in terms to the Apache License 2.0?
Works under the following licenses may be included within Apache
products: ...
Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
---
Now, besides the fact that the license is called "CC-A" instead of
"CC-BY" (but the name and link make it clear it's CC-BY), and the fact
that the link is to version 2.5 and not version 3.0, Point (1) should
already be done.
What's needed is just to open a LEGAL JIRA issue like
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-117
but merely asking whether CC-BY 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
can be considered "Category A" and added to / mentioned in
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
Regards,
Andrea.
RE: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
If, as Keith proposes, the work is conducted at the ODFAUthors site and the ODFAuthors licensing is retained, the question then becomes simply whether redistribution on a site in ASF custody is appropriate.
That seems simplest and appropriate. Even if there is a concern about the dual-license affixed to the material, it can always be referenced in a location on the ODFAUthors site.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: TJ Frazier [mailto:tjfrazier@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 13:17
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
On 9/16/2012 14:04, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
[ ... ]
Hi, Keith,
As a long-time volunteer with ODFA (formerly OOA), I can promise that we
(AOO) can get documents from them. The cost of this option is (1) a
legal review and approval of CC-BY v3; (2) some storage (WG v3.2 is 15.5
MB, so call it 100 or 200 MB per version, probably as .odt and .pdf
files on the Mwiki. The download volume/bandwidth has been too low to
cause any problems, but I have no stats); and (3) a little politeness.
If someone will handle Point (1), so that we have our ducks in a row, I
will volunteer to handle Point (3). I can check on Point (2), but I
don't think it's a problem.
/tj/
>
> I will look forward to your edits on the wiki and the doc site.
>
> As an aside, is there a developer snapshot available or 3.5 yet? I would
> like to start work on the Getting Started Guide on the ODFAuthors site
> and it makes sense to make edits based on 3.5 since that will be the
> most likely next release.
>
> Regards
> Keith
>
>
>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
TJ Frazier wrote:
> On 9/16/2012 14:04, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/15/2012 06:18 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
<snip>
>
> Hi, Keith,
>
> As a long-time volunteer with ODFA (formerly OOA), I can promise that we
> (AOO) can get documents from them. The cost of this option is (1) a
> legal review and approval of CC-BY v3; (2) some storage (WG v3.2 is 15.5
> MB, so call it 100 or 200 MB per version, probably as .odt and .pdf
> files on the Mwiki. The download volume/bandwidth has been too low to
> cause any problems, but I have no stats); and (3) a little politeness.
>
> If someone will handle Point (1), so that we have our ducks in a row, I
> will volunteer to handle Point (3). I can check on Point (2), but I
> don't think it's a problem.
>
> /tj/
<snip>
Hi tj;
It was actually some off list e-mails with personal from ODFA that
prompted me to tackle this again. Looking at Rob's email regarding point
1 and reading the JIRA discussion around it, blessing by legal of CC-BY
v3 as a category A license is not going to happen. The next question
becomes is it worth trying to get an exemption to host the distribution
of the docs on Apache controlled servers. I am open for suggestions on
that one.
It may be a good idea to check on point 2 as well to see if INFRA will
have issues with pointing general users to relatively large files
outside of the mirrors. Better to know now than have it come as a
surprise if and when a Legal JIRA is opened.
Regards
Keith
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
On 9/16/2012 14:04, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/15/2012 06:18 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>> Greetings All;
>>>
>>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
>>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>>>
>>>
>>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
>>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>>
>>> Please take a look at the page and eel free to comment there and on this
>>> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Keith N. McKenna
>>
>> Keith,
>>
>> Thanks for starting this and for the wiki doc -- it will be very
>> helpful. Because writing documentation (user guides, howtos, tutorials)
>> is a relatively easy entry point for new volunteers to help out, I've
>> been thinking about this as well the last few days. So, I will make some
>> comments on the wiki page, and probably some changes on both
>> www.openoffice.org/documentation area and the Documentation wiki start
>> page as well.
>>
>>
>>>
>>
> Hi Kay;
>
> Thanks or the comments, fell free to edit the hell out of the wiki doc.
> It is meant to generate some serious discussion on how we go about
> getting *Quality* documentation.
>
> I agree that Howtos and even some tutorials are a good entry point for
> people, user guides however may be a bit of a different story. There the
> services of good tech writers are important. That point is what drove
> Scenario 2. Utilizing the work that has already been done as a leverage
> point to get Quality work out in a timely manner. Also there are some
> folks at the ODFAuthors site that have expressed an interest in working
> on the AOO docs, but have shied away due to inactivity. Hopefully if we
> show that we are serious in our attempt we *_MAY_* be able to get some
> additional help.
Hi, Keith,
As a long-time volunteer with ODFA (formerly OOA), I can promise that we
(AOO) can get documents from them. The cost of this option is (1) a
legal review and approval of CC-BY v3; (2) some storage (WG v3.2 is 15.5
MB, so call it 100 or 200 MB per version, probably as .odt and .pdf
files on the Mwiki. The download volume/bandwidth has been too low to
cause any problems, but I have no stats); and (3) a little politeness.
If someone will handle Point (1), so that we have our ducks in a row, I
will volunteer to handle Point (3). I can check on Point (2), but I
don't think it's a problem.
/tj/
>
> I will look forward to your edits on the wiki and the doc site.
>
> As an aside, is there a developer snapshot available or 3.5 yet? I would
> like to start work on the Getting Started Guide on the ODFAuthors site
> and it makes sense to make edits based on 3.5 since that will be the
> most likely next release.
>
> Regards
> Keith
>
>
>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>
> On 09/15/2012 06:18 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> Greetings All;
>>
>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>>
>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>
>> Please take a look at the page and eel free to comment there and on this
>> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith N. McKenna
>
> Keith,
>
> Thanks for starting this and for the wiki doc -- it will be very
> helpful. Because writing documentation (user guides, howtos, tutorials)
> is a relatively easy entry point for new volunteers to help out, I've
> been thinking about this as well the last few days. So, I will make some
> comments on the wiki page, and probably some changes on both
> www.openoffice.org/documentation area and the Documentation wiki start
> page as well.
>
>
>>
>
Hi Kay;
Thanks or the comments, fell free to edit the hell out of the wiki doc.
It is meant to generate some serious discussion on how we go about
getting *Quality* documentation.
I agree that Howtos and even some tutorials are a good entry point for
people, user guides however may be a bit of a different story. There the
services of good tech writers are important. That point is what drove
Scenario 2. Utilizing the work that has already been done as a leverage
point to get Quality work out in a timely manner. Also there are some
folks at the ODFAuthors site that have expressed an interest in working
on the AOO docs, but have shied away due to inactivity. Hopefully if we
show that we are serious in our attempt we *_MAY_* be able to get some
additional help.
I will look forward to your edits on the wiki and the doc site.
As an aside, is there a developer snapshot available or 3.5 yet? I would
like to start work on the Getting Started Guide on the ODFAuthors site
and it makes sense to make edits based on 3.5 since that will be the
most likely next release.
Regards
Keith
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 09/15/2012 06:18 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> Greetings All;
>
> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
> no longer put this issue aside.
>
> Please take a look at the page and eel free to comment there and on this
> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>
> Regards
> Keith N. McKenna
Keith,
Thanks for starting this and for the wiki doc -- it will be very
helpful. Because writing documentation (user guides, howtos, tutorials)
is a relatively easy entry point for new volunteers to help out, I've
been thinking about this as well the last few days. So, I will make some
comments on the wiki page, and probably some changes on both
www.openoffice.org/documentation area and the Documentation wiki start
page as well.
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"We never sit anything out. We are cups, constantly and quietly
being filled. The trick is, knowing how to tip ourselves over and
let the beautiful stuff out."
-- Ray Bradbury, "Zen in the Art of Writing"
Re: Cancel Request for lazy Consensus. Was Re: [User Docs] What do
we as a community want for user documentation or AOO)
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 09/23/2012 03:13 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> Based on much feedback it appears that my enthusiasm got a little wild
> and that re Reguest for lazy consensus was not the right approach.
Well I'm not sure I would say this...but...
Given
> that I hereby Rescind the Request or Lazy Consensus on the documentation
> and will proceed to JFDI.
Great! I'm sure I speak for quite a few here that we're happy you have
taken this lead and look forward to the results of the efforts of
ODFAuthors on the 3.4.x documentation.
For any that are interested in helping with
> this effort more information on working at ODFAuthors can be obtained at
> there website: http://www.odfauthors.org/
>
> This will close this thread. Hopefully there will be more as the eort
> progresses. Tank you all for your patience with my inexperience and your
> guidance. It is truly appreciated.
Thanks again for taking the lead on resuming this effort. I think we'll
be pleased to link this in when it's complete.
>
> Regards
> Keith
>
>
>
> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>> Greetings All;
>>>
>>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
>>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>>>
>>>
>>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
>>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>>
>>> Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and on
>>> this
>>> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Keith N. McKenna
>>>
>>>
>> Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it appears
>> for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At this point
>> I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors site and the
>> 3.4 documents already there to create and publish updated documentation.
>> I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at 05:45 UTC.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith N. McKenna
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Just 'cause you got the monkey off your back
doesn't mean the circus has left town."
-- George Carlin
Cancel Request for lazy Consensus. Was Re: [User Docs] What do we
as a community want for user documentation or AOO)
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Based on much feedback it appears that my enthusiasm got a little wild
and that re Reguest for lazy consensus was not the right approach. Given
that I hereby Rescind the Request or Lazy Consensus on the documentation
and will proceed to JFDI. For any that are interested in helping with
this effort more information on working at ODFAuthors can be obtained at
there website: http://www.odfauthors.org/
This will close this thread. Hopefully there will be more as the eort
progresses. Tank you all for your patience with my inexperience and your
guidance. It is truly appreciated.
Regards
Keith
Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> Greetings All;
>>
>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>>
>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>
>> Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and on this
>> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith N. McKenna
>>
>>
> Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it appears
> for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At this point
> I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors site and the
> 3.4 documents already there to create and publish updated documentation.
> I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at 05:45 UTC.
>
> Regards
> Keith N. McKenna
>
>
>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Juan C. Sanz wrote:
> I think these documents are just a copy of OOo-3.3's ones with a new
> template to use as a base for the new work, but as I can remember no
> work has been made in them but in chapter one. Any case it is a good
> point to start
> Regards
> Juan Carlos
Juan, I believe that Jean did a good deal of work in those before she
stopped working on them. Then again I have been known to be wrong.
> El 23/09/2012 23:57, Keith N. McKenna escribió:
>> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>> Hey, let's get review of that document. I didn't realized it had
>>> been updated beyond being a placeholder for the needed document.
>>>
>>> Where is it found on the ODFAUthors repository?
>> www.odfauthors.org/apache-openoffice/english/user-guides/getting-started-3.4/drafts
>>
>> is where it resides. There are indivivual chapters and also a full
>> book. I believe that Jean has notes in the chapters of details she was
>> unsure of and other things. Chapter one is currently checked out to me
>> for a review.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith
>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mckenna@comcast.net]
>>> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:39
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user
>>> documentation or AOO
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>> ... there is
>>> a complete Getting Started Guide or AOO v3.4. The chapters are complete
>>> and waiting for review.
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by "Juan C. Sanz" <ju...@hotmail.com>.
I think these documents are just a copy of OOo-3.3's ones with a new
template to use as a base for the new work, but as I can remember no
work has been made in them but in chapter one. Any case it is a good
point to start
Regards
Juan Carlos
El 23/09/2012 23:57, Keith N. McKenna escribió:
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> Hey, let's get review of that document. I didn't realized it had
>> been updated beyond being a placeholder for the needed document.
>>
>> Where is it found on the ODFAUthors repository?
> www.odfauthors.org/apache-openoffice/english/user-guides/getting-started-3.4/drafts
>
> is where it resides. There are indivivual chapters and also a full
> book. I believe that Jean has notes in the chapters of details she was
> unsure of and other things. Chapter one is currently checked out to me
> for a review.
>
> Regards
> Keith
>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mckenna@comcast.net]
>> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:39
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user
>> documentation or AOO
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> ... there is
>> a complete Getting Started Guide or AOO v3.4. The chapters are complete
>> and waiting for review.
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Hey, let's get review of that document. I didn't realized it had been updated beyond being a placeholder for the needed document.
>
> Where is it found on the ODFAUthors repository?
www.odfauthors.org/apache-openoffice/english/user-guides/getting-started-3.4/drafts
is where it resides. There are indivivual chapters and also a full book.
I believe that Jean has notes in the chapters of details she was unsure
of and other things. Chapter one is currently checked out to me for a
review.
Regards
Keith
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mckenna@comcast.net]
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:39
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
>
> [ ... ]
>
> ... there is
> a complete Getting Started Guide or AOO v3.4. The chapters are complete
> and waiting for review.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
>
RE: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Hey, let's get review of that document. I didn't realized it had been updated beyond being a placeholder for the needed document.
Where is it found on the ODFAUthors repository?
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mckenna@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:39
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
[ ... ]
... there is
a complete Getting Started Guide or AOO v3.4. The chapters are complete
and waiting for review.
[ ... ]
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>
> On 09/22/2012 04:42 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>> I am not clear what the lazy consensus is about.
>>>
>>> Clearly, there is no restriction on anyone contributing to User
>>> Guides for Apache OpenOffice on ODFAUthors, beyond the
>>> terms/conventions/what-ever that apply to contributions there.
>>>
>>> So I suppose what is being asked for is consensus that there will
>>> not, at this time, be any separate effort inside of the Apache
>>> OpenOffice project and the project will look to relying on the
>>> ODFAuthors site for emergence of updated User Guides. Contributions
>>> should be made there.
>>>
>>> In other words, there won't be any forking of ODFAuthors work into
>>> the project. I assume that means avoidance of duplicate effort as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> I'm aligned with that direction.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>> First of all let me apologize if either my as yet limited understanding
>> of "The Apache Way" or my sometimes terse writing style added to any
>> confusion.
>>
>> My intention was to seek lazy consensus o Scenario 2 rom the wiki page
>> as the preferred way to go for getting an updated Getting Started Guide
>> and or other documentation ready for the 3.5 release. The main reason I
>> did it was because there was Option 1 which was to shelve it. It was in
>> no way intended to cut off discussion of where we should go where we go
>> with documentation for AOO version 4 as that is a major release and has
>> the potential for major changes to the UI that may influence a
>> re-evaluation of not only the structure of the documentation but also
>> the presentation of it.
>>
>> I hope I have cleared up my intentions and again apologies or the
>> inadvertent ailure to clearly communicate.
>
Kay;
> Keith --
>
> I think what you did was fine. I just have one quick question on
> Scenario 2. I know a lot of effort has already gone into the the User
> Guide to Apache 3.4 by ODFAuthors. I remember seeing a comment/post from
> someone which I can NOT now locate, that essentially said folks involved
> with ODFAuthors were still very interested in this documentation but
> that progress had languished due to to lack of leadership -- i.e.
> someone from the AOO "team" to move this along?
>
Thank you for the vote of confidence. I answer to your question there is
a complete Getting Started Guide or AOO v3.4. The chapters are complete
and waiting for review.
> Is this an accurate statement? If it is, assuming you will now head up
> this effort, I think your recommendation on Scenario 2 is fine and I'm
> sure the current writers at ODFAuthors would be happy to see us progress
> with the existing drafts.
>
I believe it is an accurate statement. A lot of the reason the drafts
lingered is that it was difficult to get people from the AOO "team" to
do a review for technical accuracy of the individual chapters. I think I
pretty much volunteered when I wrote the first posts in this group about
the subject. I only hope that I can do it the justice that it deserves.
> I truly appreciate your efforts in all this.
Thank you Kay. It means a lot coming from someone with your stature and
experience with the project.
Regards
Keith
>
>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Keith N. McKenna
>>> [mailto:keith.mckenna@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012
>>> 07:47 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [User Docs] What
>>> do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
>>>
>>> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>> Greetings All;
>>>>
>>>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have
>>>> added the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the
>>>> Plannig Wiki:
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
>>>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>>>
>>>> Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and
>>>> on this list. Also feel free to add to or change any content
>>>> there.
>>>>
>>>> Regards Keith N. McKenna
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it
>>> appears for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At
>>> this point I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors
>>> site and the 3.4 documents already there to create and publish
>>> updated documentation. I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at
>>> 05:45 UTC.
>>>
>>> Regards Keith N. McKenna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 09/22/2012 04:42 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> I am not clear what the lazy consensus is about.
>>
>> Clearly, there is no restriction on anyone contributing to User
>> Guides for Apache OpenOffice on ODFAUthors, beyond the
>> terms/conventions/what-ever that apply to contributions there.
>>
>> So I suppose what is being asked for is consensus that there will
>> not, at this time, be any separate effort inside of the Apache
>> OpenOffice project and the project will look to relying on the
>> ODFAuthors site for emergence of updated User Guides. Contributions
>> should be made there.
>>
>> In other words, there won't be any forking of ODFAuthors work into
>> the project. I assume that means avoidance of duplicate effort as
>> well.
>>
>> I'm aligned with that direction.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
> First of all let me apologize if either my as yet limited understanding
> of "The Apache Way" or my sometimes terse writing style added to any
> confusion.
>
> My intention was to seek lazy consensus o Scenario 2 rom the wiki page
> as the preferred way to go for getting an updated Getting Started Guide
> and or other documentation ready for the 3.5 release. The main reason I
> did it was because there was Option 1 which was to shelve it. It was in
> no way intended to cut off discussion of where we should go where we go
> with documentation for AOO version 4 as that is a major release and has
> the potential for major changes to the UI that may influence a
> re-evaluation of not only the structure of the documentation but also
> the presentation of it.
>
> I hope I have cleared up my intentions and again apologies or the
> inadvertent ailure to clearly communicate.
Keith --
I think what you did was fine. I just have one quick question on
Scenario 2. I know a lot of effort has already gone into the the User
Guide to Apache 3.4 by ODFAuthors. I remember seeing a comment/post from
someone which I can NOT now locate, that essentially said folks involved
with ODFAuthors were still very interested in this documentation but
that progress had languished due to to lack of leadership -- i.e.
someone from the AOO "team" to move this along?
Is this an accurate statement? If it is, assuming you will now head up
this effort, I think your recommendation on Scenario 2 is fine and I'm
sure the current writers at ODFAuthors would be happy to see us progress
with the existing drafts.
I truly appreciate your efforts in all this.
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Keith N. McKenna
>> [mailto:keith.mckenna@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012
>> 07:47 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [User Docs] What
>> do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
>>
>> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>> Greetings All;
>>>
>>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have
>>> added the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the
>>> Plannig Wiki:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
>>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>>
>>> Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and
>>> on this list. Also feel free to add to or change any content
>>> there.
>>>
>>> Regards Keith N. McKenna
>>>
>>>
>> Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it
>> appears for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At
>> this point I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors
>> site and the 3.4 documents already there to create and publish
>> updated documentation. I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at
>> 05:45 UTC.
>>
>> Regards Keith N. McKenna
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Just 'cause you got the monkey off your back
doesn't mean the circus has left town."
-- George Carlin
RE: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
+1 on JFDI (though declare yourself to wrap-up the [User Docs] thread.
+1 on Project Blog post
and have fun
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mckenna@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:21
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
[ ... ]
As a process engineer I appreciate that; all overhead does is add to the
cost with often minimal benefit. After a fairly decent night sleep and
some further reflection I had though that it might be better to cancel
the request for lazy consensus and just forge ahead.
[ ... ]
I agree that the nitty gritty of getting it done will be the more
difficult part. I have some ideas that still need some fleshing out. A
project blog post sounds like an interesting recruiting idea.
[ ... ]
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2012, at 7:43 PM, "Keith N. McKenna"
> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>> I am not clear what the lazy consensus is about.
>>>
>>> Clearly, there is no restriction on anyone contributing to User
>>> Guides for Apache OpenOffice on ODFAUthors, beyond the
>>> terms/conventions/what-ever that apply to contributions there.
>>>
>>> So I suppose what is being asked for is consensus that there
>>> will not, at this time, be any separate effort inside of the
>>> Apache OpenOffice project and the project will look to relying on
>>> the ODFAuthors site for emergence of updated User Guides.
>>> Contributions should be made there.
>>>
>>> In other words, there won't be any forking of ODFAuthors work
>>> into the project. I assume that means avoidance of duplicate
>>> effort as well.
>>>
>>> I'm aligned with that direction.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>> First of all let me apologize if either my as yet limited
>> understanding of "The Apache Way" or my sometimes terse writing
>> style added to any confusion.
>>
>
> No worries; no problem. You are doing fine. We're generally
> oriented toward making it easy for volunteers to do non-controversial
> things without additional process overhead.
>
As a process engineer I appreciate that; all overhead does is add to the
cost with often minimal benefit. After a fairly decent night sleep and
some further reflection I had though that it might be better to cancel
the request for lazy consensus and just forge ahead.
> In the present case (IMHO) the hard part will not be reaching
> consensus on where to do the works. Harder will be agreeing on the
> outline of tasks and finding volunteers to do the tasks. One
> approach that might help is to get enough structure developed for
> the work that we can recruit more volunteers, perhaps via a project
> blog post.
I agree that the nitty gritty of getting it done will be the more
difficult part. I have some ideas that still need some fleshing out. A
project blog post sounds like an interesting recruiting idea.
>
>> My intention was to seek lazy consensus o Scenario 2 rom the wiki
>> page as the preferred way to go for getting an updated Getting
>> Started Guide and or other documentation ready for the 3.5 release.
>> The main reason I did it was because there was Option 1 which was
>> to shelve it. It was in no way intended to cut off discussion of
>> where we should go where we go with documentation for AOO version 4
>> as that is a major release and has the potential for major changes
>> to the UI that may influence a re-evaluation of not only the
>> structure of the documentation but also the presentation of it.
>>
>
>> I hope I have cleared up my intentions and again apologies or the
>> inadvertent ailure to clearly communicate.
>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Keith N. McKenna
>>> [mailto:keith.mckenna@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, September 22,
>>> 2012 07:47 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [User
>>> Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or
>>> AOO
>>>
>>> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>> Greetings All;
>>>>
>>>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I
>>>> have added the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on
>>>> the Plannig Wiki:
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>>
>>>>
It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
>>>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>>>
>>>> Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there
>>>> and on this list. Also feel free to add to or change any
>>>> content there.
>>>>
>>>> Regards Keith N. McKenna
>>> Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it
>>> appears for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go.
>>> At this point I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use
>>> ODFAuthors site and the 3.4 documents already there to create and
>>> publish updated documentation. I will leave this open until
>>> 2012-09-26 at 05:45 UTC.
>>>
>>> Regards Keith N. McKenna
>>
>>
>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by Rob Weir <ra...@gmail.com>.
On Sep 22, 2012, at 7:43 PM, "Keith N. McKenna"
<ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> I am not clear what the lazy consensus is about.
>>
>> Clearly, there is no restriction on anyone contributing to User
>> Guides for Apache OpenOffice on ODFAUthors, beyond the
>> terms/conventions/what-ever that apply to contributions there.
>>
>> So I suppose what is being asked for is consensus that there will
>> not, at this time, be any separate effort inside of the Apache
>> OpenOffice project and the project will look to relying on the
>> ODFAuthors site for emergence of updated User Guides. Contributions
>> should be made there.
>>
>> In other words, there won't be any forking of ODFAuthors work into
>> the project. I assume that means avoidance of duplicate effort as
>> well.
>>
>> I'm aligned with that direction.
>>
>> - Dennis
> First of all let me apologize if either my as yet limited understanding of "The Apache Way" or my sometimes terse writing style added to any confusion.
>
No worries; no problem. You are doing fine. We're generally oriented
toward making it easy for volunteers to do non-controversial things
without additional process overhead.
In the present case (IMHO) the hard part will not be reaching
consensus on where to do the works. Harder will be agreeing on the
outline of tasks and finding volunteers to do the tasks. One
approach that might help is to get enough structure developed for the
work that we can recruit more volunteers, perhaps via a project blog
post.
> My intention was to seek lazy consensus o Scenario 2 rom the wiki page as the preferred way to go for getting an updated Getting Started Guide and or other documentation ready for the 3.5 release. The main reason I did it was because there was Option 1 which was to shelve it. It was in no way intended to cut off discussion of where we should go where we go with documentation for AOO version 4 as that is a major release and has the potential for major changes to the UI that may influence a re-evaluation of not only the structure of the documentation but also the presentation of it.
>
> I hope I have cleared up my intentions and again apologies or the inadvertent ailure to clearly communicate.
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Keith N. McKenna
>> [mailto:keith.mckenna@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012
>> 07:47 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [User Docs] What
>> do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
>>
>> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>> Greetings All;
>>>
>>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have
>>> added the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the
>>> Plannig Wiki:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
>>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>>
>>> Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and
>>> on this list. Also feel free to add to or change any content
>>> there.
>>>
>>> Regards Keith N. McKenna
>> Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it
>> appears for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At
>> this point I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors
>> site and the 3.4 documents already there to create and publish
>> updated documentation. I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at
>> 05:45 UTC.
>>
>> Regards Keith N. McKenna
>
>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I am not clear what the lazy consensus is about.
>
> Clearly, there is no restriction on anyone contributing to User
> Guides for Apache OpenOffice on ODFAUthors, beyond the
> terms/conventions/what-ever that apply to contributions there.
>
> So I suppose what is being asked for is consensus that there will
> not, at this time, be any separate effort inside of the Apache
> OpenOffice project and the project will look to relying on the
> ODFAuthors site for emergence of updated User Guides. Contributions
> should be made there.
>
> In other words, there won't be any forking of ODFAuthors work into
> the project. I assume that means avoidance of duplicate effort as
> well.
>
> I'm aligned with that direction.
>
> - Dennis
>
First of all let me apologize if either my as yet limited understanding
of "The Apache Way" or my sometimes terse writing style added to any
confusion.
My intention was to seek lazy consensus o Scenario 2 rom the wiki page
as the preferred way to go for getting an updated Getting Started Guide
and or other documentation ready for the 3.5 release. The main reason I
did it was because there was Option 1 which was to shelve it. It was in
no way intended to cut off discussion of where we should go where we go
with documentation for AOO version 4 as that is a major release and has
the potential for major changes to the UI that may influence a
re-evaluation of not only the structure of the documentation but also
the presentation of it.
I hope I have cleared up my intentions and again apologies or the
inadvertent ailure to clearly communicate.
> -----Original Message----- From: Keith N. McKenna
> [mailto:keith.mckenna@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012
> 07:47 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [User Docs] What
> do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
>
> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> Greetings All;
>>
>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have
>> added the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the
>> Plannig Wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>>
>>
It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>
>> Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and
>> on this list. Also feel free to add to or change any content
>> there.
>>
>> Regards Keith N. McKenna
>>
>>
> Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it
> appears for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At
> this point I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors
> site and the 3.4 documents already there to create and publish
> updated documentation. I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at
> 05:45 UTC.
>
> Regards Keith N. McKenna
>
>
>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
> Disclaimer: I am tired, I don't feel well, and I did not follow the
> precursors in detail, so this is the tired faulty memories of me.
>
> On 09/22/2012 05:17 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I am not clear what the lazy consensus is about.
>>>
>>> Clearly, there is no restriction on anyone contributing to User
>>> Guides for Apache OpenOffice on ODFAUthors, beyond the
>>> terms/conventions/what-ever that apply to contributions there.
>>>
>>> So I suppose what is being asked for is consensus that there will
>>> not, at this time, be any separate effort inside of the Apache
>>> OpenOffice project and the project will look to relying on the
>>> ODFAuthors site for emergence of updated User Guides. Contributions
>>> should be made there.
>>>
>> In other words, that a non-existent effort in the project not be
>> started to compete with the non-existent effort at ODFAuthors? IMHO
>> this not the ideal use of lazy consensus. You should seek lazy
>> consensus for what you want to do, not what you want someone else not
>> to do. In the end, if someone came to the project with documentation
>> to contribute, I think we would be happy accept it under ALv2 and not
>> turn them away and tell them to go elsewhere. Or are you suggesting
>> that we would reject such contributions?
>
> This is my understanding, which may be completely wrong:
>
> 1. I thought that ODF Authors operated independently of Libre (LO) or
> Apache (AOO).
>
> 2. ODF Authors was creating documentation for both LO and AOO.
>
> 3. Not many people were contributing to the documentation from the AOO
> camp.
>
> 4. A request was made for help (probably from Jean).
>
> 5. There were no positive responses and some that sounded a bit negative
> (this is where my memory is really fuzzy). I think it was something
> like.... not on our radar yet, focusing on other stuff, find your own
> people to do it. (was it Rob that said that??)
>
> 6. Primary ODF lead stopped working on AOO documentation.
>
> I assumed that Scenario 2 likely kept the resulting documentation at ODF
> Authors. It would be difficult to move it without some level of approval
> for them to license it with something that Apache would allow (although
> I vaguely remember seeing that perhaps this has been done).
>
@Andrew;
My reading of the lists archives gives much the same rendering of the
history as yours does. Not on the radar, lack of response for review,
etc. This has been an attempt to restart the documentation effort. It
appeared to me that t least or the short term the best way to do that
was though the ODFA.
>>> In other words, there won't be any forking of ODFAuthors work into
>>> the project. I assume that means avoidance of duplicate effort as well.
>>>
>>> I'm aligned with that direction.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mckenna@comcast.net]
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 07:47
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user
>>> documentation or AOO
>>>
>>> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>> Greetings All;
>>>>
>>>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have
>>>> added
>>>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>>>>
>>>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we
>>>> can
>>>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>>>
>>>> Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and on
>>>> this
>>>> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Keith N. McKenna
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it appears
>>> for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At this point
>>> I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors site and the
>>> 3.4 documents already there to create and publish updated documentation.
>>> I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at 05:45 UTC.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Keith N. McKenna
> I am not sufficiently aware of how much (if any) code sharing occurs
> between AOO and LO. I expect that if there is no code sharing, then the
> two products will diverge, and there will be no ability to remotely keep
> the documentation related. I expect the differences to start small with
> things such as what charts are supported, what happens when you try to
> search (LO uses a Firefox type search in the status bar, AOO does not),
> etc.
>
> I do remember that someone said something that implied to me that either
> code sharing was occurring, or that it was plausible to do. In my tired
> stupor, I would guess that it might have Juergen Schmidt, but that is a
> real reach (so I should probably just apologize to Juergen now and offer
> to buy him a beer).
>
>
I also remember some discussion of the possibility of some one way code
sharing in that LO had at one point re-based on the Aoo code.
Regards
Keith
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by "Juan C. Sanz" <ju...@hotmail.com>.
El 23/09/2012 6:41, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak escribió:
> Disclaimer: I am tired, I don't feel well, and I did not follow the
> precursors in detail, so this is the tired faulty memories of me.
>
> On 09/22/2012 05:17 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I am not clear what the lazy consensus is about.
>>>
>>> Clearly, there is no restriction on anyone contributing to User
>>> Guides for Apache OpenOffice on ODFAUthors, beyond the
>>> terms/conventions/what-ever that apply to contributions there.
>>>
>>> So I suppose what is being asked for is consensus that there will
>>> not, at this time, be any separate effort inside of the Apache
>>> OpenOffice project and the project will look to relying on the
>>> ODFAuthors site for emergence of updated User Guides. Contributions
>>> should be made there.
>>>
>> In other words, that a non-existent effort in the project not be
>> started to compete with the non-existent effort at ODFAuthors? IMHO
>> this not the ideal use of lazy consensus. You should seek lazy
>> consensus for what you want to do, not what you want someone else not
>> to do. In the end, if someone came to the project with documentation
>> to contribute, I think we would be happy accept it under ALv2 and not
>> turn them away and tell them to go elsewhere. Or are you suggesting
>> that we would reject such contributions?
>
> This is my understanding, which may be completely wrong:
>
> 1. I thought that ODF Authors operated independently of Libre (LO) or
> Apache (AOO).
>
> 2. ODF Authors was creating documentation for both LO and AOO.
>
> 3. Not many people were contributing to the documentation from the AOO
> camp.
>
> 4. A request was made for help (probably from Jean).
>
> 5. There were no positive responses and some that sounded a bit
> negative (this is where my memory is really fuzzy). I think it was
> something like.... not on our radar yet, focusing on other stuff, find
> your own people to do it. (was it Rob that said that??)
>
> 6. Primary ODF lead stopped working on AOO documentation.
>
> I assumed that Scenario 2 likely kept the resulting documentation at
> ODF Authors. It would be difficult to move it without some level of
> approval for them to license it with something that Apache would allow
> (although I vaguely remember seeing that perhaps this has been done).
>
>>> In other words, there won't be any forking of ODFAuthors work into
>>> the project. I assume that means avoidance of duplicate effort as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> I'm aligned with that direction.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mckenna@comcast.net]
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 07:47
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user
>>> documentation or AOO
>>>
>>> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>> Greetings All;
>>>>
>>>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have
>>>> added
>>>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>>>>
>>>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that
>>>> we can
>>>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>>>
>>>> Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and
>>>> on this
>>>> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Keith N. McKenna
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it appears
>>> for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At this point
>>> I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors site and the
>>> 3.4 documents already there to create and publish updated
>>> documentation.
>>> I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at 05:45 UTC.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Keith N. McKenna
> I am not sufficiently aware of how much (if any) code sharing occurs
> between AOO and LO. I expect that if there is no code sharing, then
> the two products will diverge, and there will be no ability to
> remotely keep the documentation related. I expect the differences to
> start small with things such as what charts are supported, what
> happens when you try to search (LO uses a Firefox type search in the
> status bar, AOO does not), etc.
AFAIK at ODFAuthors there were (there are) two different branches, one
for LO and another for AOO, and the only related thing between them were
the authors and the origin of both branches (OOo 3.3 documentation). I
think the branches were created because it was difficult to maintain one
documentation for both products because the increasing differences.
>
> I do remember that someone said something that implied to me that
> either code sharing was occurring, or that it was plausible to do. In
> my tired stupor, I would guess that it might have Juergen Schmidt, but
> that is a real reach (so I should probably just apologize to Juergen
> now and offer to buy him a beer).
>
>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>.
Disclaimer: I am tired, I don't feel well, and I did not follow the
precursors in detail, so this is the tired faulty memories of me.
On 09/22/2012 05:17 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I am not clear what the lazy consensus is about.
>>
>> Clearly, there is no restriction on anyone contributing to User Guides for Apache OpenOffice on ODFAUthors, beyond the terms/conventions/what-ever that apply to contributions there.
>>
>> So I suppose what is being asked for is consensus that there will not, at this time, be any separate effort inside of the Apache OpenOffice project and the project will look to relying on the ODFAuthors site for emergence of updated User Guides. Contributions should be made there.
>>
> In other words, that a non-existent effort in the project not be
> started to compete with the non-existent effort at ODFAuthors? IMHO
> this not the ideal use of lazy consensus. You should seek lazy
> consensus for what you want to do, not what you want someone else not
> to do. In the end, if someone came to the project with documentation
> to contribute, I think we would be happy accept it under ALv2 and not
> turn them away and tell them to go elsewhere. Or are you suggesting
> that we would reject such contributions?
This is my understanding, which may be completely wrong:
1. I thought that ODF Authors operated independently of Libre (LO) or
Apache (AOO).
2. ODF Authors was creating documentation for both LO and AOO.
3. Not many people were contributing to the documentation from the AOO
camp.
4. A request was made for help (probably from Jean).
5. There were no positive responses and some that sounded a bit negative
(this is where my memory is really fuzzy). I think it was something
like.... not on our radar yet, focusing on other stuff, find your own
people to do it. (was it Rob that said that??)
6. Primary ODF lead stopped working on AOO documentation.
I assumed that Scenario 2 likely kept the resulting documentation at ODF
Authors. It would be difficult to move it without some level of approval
for them to license it with something that Apache would allow (although
I vaguely remember seeing that perhaps this has been done).
>> In other words, there won't be any forking of ODFAuthors work into the project. I assume that means avoidance of duplicate effort as well.
>>
>> I'm aligned with that direction.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mckenna@comcast.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 07:47
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
>>
>> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>> Greetings All;
>>>
>>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
>>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
>>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>>
>>> Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and on this
>>> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Keith N. McKenna
>>>
>>>
>> Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it appears
>> for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At this point
>> I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors site and the
>> 3.4 documents already there to create and publish updated documentation.
>> I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at 05:45 UTC.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith N. McKenna
I am not sufficiently aware of how much (if any) code sharing occurs
between AOO and LO. I expect that if there is no code sharing, then the
two products will diverge, and there will be no ability to remotely keep
the documentation related. I expect the differences to start small with
things such as what charts are supported, what happens when you try to
search (LO uses a Firefox type search in the status bar, AOO does not),
etc.
I do remember that someone said something that implied to me that either
code sharing was occurring, or that it was plausible to do. In my tired
stupor, I would guess that it might have Juergen Schmidt, but that is a
real reach (so I should probably just apologize to Juergen now and offer
to buy him a beer).
--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
RE: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
Rob,
I agree, there is no reason to turn away new contributions brought to the project by their contributors.
I agree, the lazy consensus on this one is odd.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 14:18
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
[ ... ]
In other words, that a non-existent effort in the project not be
started to compete with the non-existent effort at ODFAuthors? IMHO
this not the ideal use of lazy consensus. You should seek lazy
consensus for what you want to do, not what you want someone else not
to do. In the end, if someone came to the project with documentation
to contribute, I think we would be happy accept it under ALv2 and not
turn them away and tell them to go elsewhere. Or are you suggesting
that we would reject such contributions?
> In other words, there won't be any forking of ODFAuthors work into the project. I assume that means avoidance of duplicate effort as well.
>
> I'm aligned with that direction.
>
> - Dennis
[ ... ]
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> I am not clear what the lazy consensus is about.
>
> Clearly, there is no restriction on anyone contributing to User Guides for Apache OpenOffice on ODFAUthors, beyond the terms/conventions/what-ever that apply to contributions there.
>
> So I suppose what is being asked for is consensus that there will not, at this time, be any separate effort inside of the Apache OpenOffice project and the project will look to relying on the ODFAuthors site for emergence of updated User Guides. Contributions should be made there.
>
In other words, that a non-existent effort in the project not be
started to compete with the non-existent effort at ODFAuthors? IMHO
this not the ideal use of lazy consensus. You should seek lazy
consensus for what you want to do, not what you want someone else not
to do. In the end, if someone came to the project with documentation
to contribute, I think we would be happy accept it under ALv2 and not
turn them away and tell them to go elsewhere. Or are you suggesting
that we would reject such contributions?
> In other words, there won't be any forking of ODFAuthors work into the project. I assume that means avoidance of duplicate effort as well.
>
> I'm aligned with that direction.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mckenna@comcast.net]
> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 07:47
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
>
> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> Greetings All;
>>
>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>
>> Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and on this
>> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith N. McKenna
>>
>>
> Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it appears
> for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At this point
> I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors site and the
> 3.4 documents already there to create and publish updated documentation.
> I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at 05:45 UTC.
>
> Regards
> Keith N. McKenna
>
>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> So I suppose what is being asked for is consensus that there will
> not, at this time, be any separate effort inside of the Apache
> OpenOffice project and the project will look to relying on the
> ODFAuthors site for emergence of updated User Guides.
Exactly, this is how I understand it too. And I agree this is the best
choice for the 3.x releases.
Of course ODFAuthors is external to the Apache project so we have no
licensing constraints, but it might make sense to contribute new
materials under AL2 + GPL3 + CCBY3, so that if we write new chapters and
we want to reuse them for the Online Help or for new materials like the
ones proposed by RGB, we can do it effortlessly. This might require a
better tracking of new chapters that get added, but I don't expect
ODFAuthors to make difficulties with this.
Regards,
Andrea.
RE: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
I am not clear what the lazy consensus is about.
Clearly, there is no restriction on anyone contributing to User Guides for Apache OpenOffice on ODFAUthors, beyond the terms/conventions/what-ever that apply to contributions there.
So I suppose what is being asked for is consensus that there will not, at this time, be any separate effort inside of the Apache OpenOffice project and the project will look to relying on the ODFAuthors site for emergence of updated User Guides. Contributions should be made there.
In other words, there won't be any forking of ODFAuthors work into the project. I assume that means avoidance of duplicate effort as well.
I'm aligned with that direction.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mckenna@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 07:47
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> Greetings All;
>
> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
> no longer put this issue aside.
>
> Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and on this
> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>
> Regards
> Keith N. McKenna
>
>
Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it appears
for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At this point
I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors site and the
3.4 documents already there to create and publish updated documentation.
I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at 05:45 UTC.
Regards
Keith N. McKenna
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org>.
On 9/22/12, Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> Greetings All;
>>
>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>
>> Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and on this
>> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith N. McKenna
>>
>>
> Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it appears
> for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At this point
> I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors site and the
> 3.4 documents already there to create and publish updated documentation.
> I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at 05:45 UTC.
>
> Regards
> Keith N. McKenna
>
>
>
+1 I think thats a good choice.
--
Alexandro Colorado
PPMC Apache OpenOffice
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Keith N. McKenna
<ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>
>> Greetings All;
>>
>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>
>> Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and on this
>>
>> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith N. McKenna
>>
>>
> Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it appears for
> the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At this point I would
> like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors site and the 3.4 documents
> already there to create and publish updated documentation.
> I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at 05:45 UTC.
>
This is probably the best choice for now, especially for an
incremental update effort. It is what I recommended quite a long time
ago to Jean Weber, but that seems to have caused offense at the time.
Hopefully the same idea coming from someone else will be taken more
seriously.
However, if you start any new piece of documentation, not based on an
exiting document, it would be great if you could include the Apache
License 2.0 on it, in addition to whatever other compatible licenses
you use. This would maximize the flexibility the project has for
using the documentation in the future.
Regards,
-Rob
> Regards
> Keith N. McKenna
>
>
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by "Juan C. Sanz" <ju...@hotmail.com>.
El 22/09/2012 16:47, Keith N. McKenna escribió:
> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> Greetings All;
>>
>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>>
>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>
>> Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and on
>> this
>> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith N. McKenna
>>
>>
> Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it appears
> for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At this
> point I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors site
> and the 3.4 documents already there to create and publish updated
> documentation.
> I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at 05:45 UTC.
>
> Regards
> Keith N. McKenna
Yes, I think scenario 2 is the best option.
Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation
or AOO
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> Greetings All;
>
> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have added
> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we can
> no longer put this issue aside.
>
> Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and on this
> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>
> Regards
> Keith N. McKenna
>
>
Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it appears
for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At this point
I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors site and the
3.4 documents already there to create and publish updated documentation.
I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at 05:45 UTC.
Regards
Keith N. McKenna