Areas for cooperation between AOOO and LO [was: Cooperation withRe: Neutral / shared security list ...]

[Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>]

Updating the subject to something that hopefully will attract fewer
trolls.  I'm the perennial optimist.

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 23 Oct 2011, at 04:37, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> Simon,
>>
>> I hope TDF members (and members of other related source projects) will
>> accept our hospitality and join us on the securityteam list.
>
> Your words show you missed the entire point of my proposal, Rob, and leave me too frustrated to want to discuss the matter with you any further; we were all so close to agreement when you were on vacation.  My attempted contribution on this list and at TDF is to envisage grounds for co-operation between these two divided parts of the legacy StarOffice/OpenOffice community. It is not to be a messenger for your alternative ideas.
>

Hi Simon, do you have any other ideas for cooperation, preferably ones
that are not redundant?    I suggested cooperating on translations via
a shard Pootle instance.   Or maybe code browsing/searching facilities
with OpenGrok.  Or either of those possible?

Or maybe work on a collaborative Q&A site as an alternative user
support option?   Or maybe a shared template and extensions site?  Do
any of these items sound interesting to you?  I think you'd be much
more success in your attempt "to envisage grounds for co-operation" if
you explored one of those areas.

Does anyone else have some ideas on where we could cooperate?

-Rob

> I suggest you go to their mailing lists and make your proposals. Maybe you can earn TDF membership with your contributions?
>
> S.
>
>

Re: Areas for cooperation between AOOO and LO [was: Cooperation withRe: Neutral / shared security list ...]

[Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>]

On Oct 25, 2011 5:28 PM, "Dave Fisher" <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2011, at 2:38 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> > Seems to me that while the focus is political point scoring, aggression,
> > sarcasm and such the chances of getting cooperation are zero.
>
> +1. We will need to crawl to co-operation before we walk and run.

I've found your approach of seeking discussion over positive points without
counterbalancing with point-scoring very helpful Dave, by the way.  Thanks
for trying, it's really appreciated.

S.

Re: Areas for cooperation between AOOO and LO [was: Cooperation withRe: Neutral / shared security list ...]

[Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>]

On Oct 25, 2011, at 2:38 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:

> Seems to me that while the focus is political point scoring, aggression,
> sarcasm and such the chances of getting cooperation are zero.

+1. We will need to crawl to co-operation before we walk and run.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> On 25 October 2011 00:32, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 25 Oct 2011, at 00:56, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Simon, do you have any other ideas for cooperation, preferably ones
>>>> that are not redundant?
>>> 
>>> While I am amused that your first words after "hopefully will attract
>> fewer trolls" themselves include a mean-spirited troll, I'm sorry you think
>> a collaborative security mailing list with shared, collaborative ownership
>> is "redundant".
>>> 
>> 
>> We already have a collaborative security mailing list that has 4 LO
>> members on it, as well as several AOOo members, representatives from
>> other vendors, security experts from Linux distros, etc.  So we are
>> already there.  Creating a new list for the same thing would be
>> redundant.
>> 
>>> We clearly have very different views of the world. I continue to think
>> such a list holds great opportunity for collaboration since it was working
>> in that role for many months, but it's hard to see how it can now be the
>> securityteam@ list, unfortunately (unless your'e speaking alone, of
>> course).
>>> 
>> 
>> As above, the list exists and LO and AOOo members are already on it,
>> Time to declare success and find additional areas to collaborate.
>> 
>>>> I suggested cooperating on translations via
>>>> a shard Pootle instance.
>>> 
>>> Hard to see how that would work since it would require the source to be
>> highly similar and that looks unlikely to be the case.
>>> 
>> 
>> I think the value would come from the "translation memory" aspect.  So
>> even if we had different source files, the UI's of the products are
>> nearly identical, and the underlying concepts of the products remain
>> very the same and likely will remain so for the foreseeable future.
>> (it is not like spreadsheets and word processors have changed much in
>> the past decade).  So there may be some value in sharing translation
>> memory of basic concepts and repeated patterns that are common to
>> describing both products.
>> 
>> It also makes it easier for translators who wish to contribute to both
>> products at once, similar to what ODF Authors has done for
>> documentation.
>> 
>>>>  Or maybe code browsing/searching facilities
>>>> with OpenGrok.  Or either of those possible?
>>> 
>>> Hard to see how two very different source trees can have a shared
>> browser. It would be best for Apache to run its own instance.
>>> 
>>>> Or maybe work on a collaborative Q&A site as an alternative user
>>>> support option?
>>> 
>>> Plausible in the future but a little early to be proposing it - YAGNI
>> applies.
>>> 
>> 
>> A little too early? It looks like someone is already trying this for
>> LO, but they are failing to get enough participation needed to
>> graduate on StackExchange.  So it looks like an area ripe for
>> collaboration:
>> 
>> http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/24564/libreoffice
>> 
>>>>  Or maybe a shared template and extensions site?
>>> 
>>> I believe I once proposed such a thing, and was told by both communities
>> that licensing issues would largely prevent it.
>>> 
>> 
>> I certainly proposed such a thing, and licensing was not an issue in
>> my proposal.  Maybe we should revisit, if you think this is a possible
>> area for collaboration?
>> 
>> Any other ideas?
>> 
>>> Delighted to hear you are now such a fan of co-operation though, Rob.
>> I'll be sure to support any viable proposals you present to both
>> communities.
>>> 
>> 
>> I'll continue to float the ideas by you first, Simon.  I'd like you to
>> be able to find some success in your goal to lead these projects to
>> find areas to collaborate.
>> 
>> -Rob
>> 
>>> S.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ian
> 
> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
> 
> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
> 
> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
> Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
> Wales.

Re: Areas for cooperation between AOOO and LO [was: Cooperation withRe: Neutral / shared security list ...]

[Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>]

Seems to me that while the focus is political point scoring, aggression,
sarcasm and such the chances of getting cooperation are zero.

On 25 October 2011 00:32, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 25 Oct 2011, at 00:56, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Simon, do you have any other ideas for cooperation, preferably ones
> >> that are not redundant?
> >
> > While I am amused that your first words after "hopefully will attract
> fewer trolls" themselves include a mean-spirited troll, I'm sorry you think
> a collaborative security mailing list with shared, collaborative ownership
> is "redundant".
> >
>
> We already have a collaborative security mailing list that has 4 LO
> members on it, as well as several AOOo members, representatives from
> other vendors, security experts from Linux distros, etc.  So we are
> already there.  Creating a new list for the same thing would be
> redundant.
>
> > We clearly have very different views of the world. I continue to think
> such a list holds great opportunity for collaboration since it was working
> in that role for many months, but it's hard to see how it can now be the
> securityteam@ list, unfortunately (unless your'e speaking alone, of
> course).
> >
>
> As above, the list exists and LO and AOOo members are already on it,
> Time to declare success and find additional areas to collaborate.
>
> >>  I suggested cooperating on translations via
> >> a shard Pootle instance.
> >
> > Hard to see how that would work since it would require the source to be
> highly similar and that looks unlikely to be the case.
> >
>
> I think the value would come from the "translation memory" aspect.  So
> even if we had different source files, the UI's of the products are
> nearly identical, and the underlying concepts of the products remain
> very the same and likely will remain so for the foreseeable future.
> (it is not like spreadsheets and word processors have changed much in
> the past decade).  So there may be some value in sharing translation
> memory of basic concepts and repeated patterns that are common to
> describing both products.
>
> It also makes it easier for translators who wish to contribute to both
> products at once, similar to what ODF Authors has done for
> documentation.
>
> >>   Or maybe code browsing/searching facilities
> >> with OpenGrok.  Or either of those possible?
> >
> > Hard to see how two very different source trees can have a shared
> browser. It would be best for Apache to run its own instance.
> >
> >> Or maybe work on a collaborative Q&A site as an alternative user
> >> support option?
> >
> > Plausible in the future but a little early to be proposing it - YAGNI
> applies.
> >
>
> A little too early? It looks like someone is already trying this for
> LO, but they are failing to get enough participation needed to
> graduate on StackExchange.  So it looks like an area ripe for
> collaboration:
>
> http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/24564/libreoffice
>
> >>   Or maybe a shared template and extensions site?
> >
> > I believe I once proposed such a thing, and was told by both communities
> that licensing issues would largely prevent it.
> >
>
> I certainly proposed such a thing, and licensing was not an issue in
> my proposal.  Maybe we should revisit, if you think this is a possible
> area for collaboration?
>
> Any other ideas?
>
> > Delighted to hear you are now such a fan of co-operation though, Rob.
> I'll be sure to support any viable proposals you present to both
> communities.
> >
>
> I'll continue to float the ideas by you first, Simon.  I'd like you to
> be able to find some success in your goal to lead these projects to
> find areas to collaborate.
>
> -Rob
>
> > S.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.

Re: Areas for cooperation between AOOO and LO [was: Cooperation withRe: Neutral / shared security list ...]

[Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 25 Oct 2011, at 00:56, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> Hi Simon, do you have any other ideas for cooperation, preferably ones
>> that are not redundant?
>
> While I am amused that your first words after "hopefully will attract fewer trolls" themselves include a mean-spirited troll, I'm sorry you think a collaborative security mailing list with shared, collaborative ownership is "redundant".
>

We already have a collaborative security mailing list that has 4 LO
members on it, as well as several AOOo members, representatives from
other vendors, security experts from Linux distros, etc.  So we are
already there.  Creating a new list for the same thing would be
redundant.

> We clearly have very different views of the world. I continue to think such a list holds great opportunity for collaboration since it was working in that role for many months, but it's hard to see how it can now be the securityteam@ list, unfortunately (unless your'e speaking alone, of course).
>

As above, the list exists and LO and AOOo members are already on it,
Time to declare success and find additional areas to collaborate.

>>  I suggested cooperating on translations via
>> a shard Pootle instance.
>
> Hard to see how that would work since it would require the source to be highly similar and that looks unlikely to be the case.
>

I think the value would come from the "translation memory" aspect.  So
even if we had different source files, the UI's of the products are
nearly identical, and the underlying concepts of the products remain
very the same and likely will remain so for the foreseeable future.
(it is not like spreadsheets and word processors have changed much in
the past decade).  So there may be some value in sharing translation
memory of basic concepts and repeated patterns that are common to
describing both products.

It also makes it easier for translators who wish to contribute to both
products at once, similar to what ODF Authors has done for
documentation.

>>   Or maybe code browsing/searching facilities
>> with OpenGrok.  Or either of those possible?
>
> Hard to see how two very different source trees can have a shared browser. It would be best for Apache to run its own instance.
>
>> Or maybe work on a collaborative Q&A site as an alternative user
>> support option?
>
> Plausible in the future but a little early to be proposing it - YAGNI applies.
>

A little too early? It looks like someone is already trying this for
LO, but they are failing to get enough participation needed to
graduate on StackExchange.  So it looks like an area ripe for
collaboration:

http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/24564/libreoffice

>>   Or maybe a shared template and extensions site?
>
> I believe I once proposed such a thing, and was told by both communities that licensing issues would largely prevent it.
>

I certainly proposed such a thing, and licensing was not an issue in
my proposal.  Maybe we should revisit, if you think this is a possible
area for collaboration?

Any other ideas?

> Delighted to hear you are now such a fan of co-operation though, Rob. I'll be sure to support any viable proposals you present to both communities.
>

I'll continue to float the ideas by you first, Simon.  I'd like you to
be able to find some success in your goal to lead these projects to
find areas to collaborate.

-Rob

> S.
>
>
>
>

Re: Areas for cooperation between AOOO and LO [was: Cooperation withRe: Neutral / shared security list ...]

[Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>]

On 25 Oct 2011, at 00:56, Rob Weir wrote:
> 
> Hi Simon, do you have any other ideas for cooperation, preferably ones
> that are not redundant?  

While I am amused that your first words after "hopefully will attract fewer trolls" themselves include a mean-spirited troll, I'm sorry you think a collaborative security mailing list with shared, collaborative ownership is "redundant". 

We clearly have very different views of the world. I continue to think such a list holds great opportunity for collaboration since it was working in that role for many months, but it's hard to see how it can now be the securityteam@ list, unfortunately (unless your'e speaking alone, of course).

>  I suggested cooperating on translations via
> a shard Pootle instance.

Hard to see how that would work since it would require the source to be highly similar and that looks unlikely to be the case.

>   Or maybe code browsing/searching facilities
> with OpenGrok.  Or either of those possible?

Hard to see how two very different source trees can have a shared browser. It would be best for Apache to run its own instance.

> Or maybe work on a collaborative Q&A site as an alternative user
> support option?

Plausible in the future but a little early to be proposing it - YAGNI applies.

>   Or maybe a shared template and extensions site?

I believe I once proposed such a thing, and was told by both communities that licensing issues would largely prevent it.

Delighted to hear you are now such a fan of co-operation though, Rob. I'll be sure to support any viable proposals you present to both communities.

S.