You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org> on 2011/06/24 23:16:18 UTC
RE: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
I think this is extremely important and I'm embarrassed that I missed it.
I'm also thinking that we need an ooo-user list pretty soon.
It should be here, so we can subscribe it or NNTP it and have it appear in the same context in which we observe and participate on ooo-DEV. But it needs to be more comfortable for users and not putting dev-lingo in their face (until, perhaps, they finally nerve up and come over to the dark side).
- Dennis
Watching the different lists at LibreOffice, I see a different liveliness with the user list (and the usual cacophony too). It is basically where one learns about the difficulties and barriers that users are experiencing at the surface of the software and in their work. Other users and devs can offer workarounds, but it is having the experience of users inside the radar of devs, such as on a companion list, that there can be a big contribution to all of us.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.mail@wtnet.de]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 07:29
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members
Am 06/24/2011 03:48 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> Since almost all of us are new to Apache we're learning a lot about
> how Apache projects organize themselves. Based on my reading, I
> understand that Apache projects have three degrees of participation:
0) Users that are just working with the software. Since this is the most
wanted thing we want to reach, IMHO we shouldn't forget for whom we are
doing all this stuff.
Especially when these users are also talking about the software (and/or
the project, too) and therefor are spreading the word about OOo, we
should count them to the circle of participants.
> 1) - 3)
ACK
[ ... ]
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dick,
Sorry. My mistake.
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Dick Groskamp <th...@quicknet.nl> wrote:
> However, you seemed to have missed the most important one :-)
>
> 10.ooo-nl-users@incubator.apache.org for 6.NL Nederlandstalige Gemeenschap
> (=Dutch language Community)
http://user.services.openoffice.org/
You are right! We have forums supporting 10 languages!
:)
Thanks,
khirano
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Dick Groskamp <th...@quicknet.nl>.
Op 25-6-2011 6:37, Kazunari Hirano schreef:
> Hi Dennis and all,
>
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> I agree about both.
> +1
>
> And they should be multilingual.
>
> With regard to forums, they are OK so far, I think.
> http://user.services.openoffice.org/
> 1.EN OpenOffice.org Community Forum, 2.ES OpenOffice.org Foro de la
> comunidad, 3.FR Forum francophone OpenOffice.org, HU OpenOffice.org
> Közösségi fórum, 4.IT Forum della comunità OpenOffice.org, 5.JA
> OpenOffice.org コミュニティーフォーラム, 6.NL Nederlandstalige Gemeenschap, 7.PL
> Forum społeczności OpenOffice.org, 8.VI Diễn đàn viOOo, 9.ZH
> OpenOffice.org 中文社区论坛.
> Nine languages look good. I hope these forums be migrated on to
> Apache infrastructure safe :)
>
> With regard to mailing lists, can we set up a user list if there is a
> request from a certain language user?
> If there are requests, can we set up, for example, nine user lists
> such as 1.ooo-en-users@incubator.apache.org,
> 2.ooo-es-users@incubator.apache.org,
> 3.ooo-fr-users@incubator.apache.org,
> 4.ooo-hu-users@incubator.apache.org,
> 5,ooo-it-users@incubator.apache.org,
> 6.ooo-ja-users@incubator.apache.org,
> 7.ooo-pl-users@incubator.apache.org,
> 8.ooo-vi-users@incubator.apache.org,
> 9.ooo-zh-users@incubator.apache.org?
> Make sure we set them up on request.
>
> Thanks,
> khirano
>
+1
Khirano-san,
thanks for this.
However, you seemed to have missed the most important one :-)
10.ooo-nl-users@incubator.apache.org for 6.NL Nederlandstalige Gemeenschap (=Dutch language Community)
Greetings all from rainy Holland
--
DiGro
Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3
Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
> > Do we know how many language-specific user lists we have at OOo today?
> > Not forums, but user mailing lists.
>
> I don't know the total figures, but the Italian N-L project has 10, 5 of
> which active:
> - utenti (generic users list, about 500 subscribers)
> - discussioni (for discussions not related to user support)
> - qa (to coordinate QA activities)
> - localizzazione (to coordinate localization activities)
> - dev (user support for macros/extensions; not core development)
>
> Other major N-L projects (around 10-20) probably have a similar
> structure. The remaining N-L projects probably only have one user list.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
>
In ES we actually make a pretty controvertial push to move our ML to our own
servers. We got much heat from it, but in the end we enjoy a more autonomous
system. localizacion@oooes.org and soporte@oooes.org
--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Preserving Legacy Content
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jun 29, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Andrew Rist wrote:
>
> On 6/28/2011 7:39 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> Were you able to get a copy of the zone file?
>>
>> Is there an Oracle web admin contact that we should be going to for
>> request like this?
>>
>> It would be good to have a single contact point at Oracle, and a
>> single contact point for the project, for requests like this to flow
>> through. Or at least a well-understood list of people.
>>
>> I'm thinking of security here. I don't think we should expect Oracle
>> to hunt through the mailAlias.txt and committer and IPMC lists to see
>> if an email request is actually from the project.
>>
>> Andrew, does this make sense? I think this is one of a list similar
>> admin requests that will be coming your way, from doing database
>> dumps, to setting up redirects, etc. We need a way to get these
>> requests and their status documented. JIRA or Bugzilla would be
>> idea, but we don't have that set up yet, since we'll need some Oracle
>> admin help moving the OOo bugzilla database over. So a chicken and
>> egg problem.
> I am a good initial contact for stuff like this. Availability will obviously be gated by licensing and security/privacy considerations.
> For stuff like the translations and the bugzilla content, I have backups and we can create current snapshots.
> For much of this we can move first and solve SGA second (similar to the source code).
Kay started this page https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice+Domains
We've done some editing and I started going through looking at each "project". It might be good to pick one - like about.openoffice.org - and see what it would be like to export from Kenai and import to Confluence.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Joe Schaefer<jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> At this point infrastructure would be interested in
>>> seeing the DNS zone file for openoffice.org, so we
>>> can get some idea of how many different services
>>> we're talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>> If someone has that information, please forward it
>>> to me privately. Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: Preserving Legacy Content
Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.
On 6/28/2011 7:39 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> Were you able to get a copy of the zone file?
>
> Is there an Oracle web admin contact that we should be going to for
> request like this?
>
> It would be good to have a single contact point at Oracle, and a
> single contact point for the project, for requests like this to flow
> through. Or at least a well-understood list of people.
>
> I'm thinking of security here. I don't think we should expect Oracle
> to hunt through the mailAlias.txt and committer and IPMC lists to see
> if an email request is actually from the project.
>
> Andrew, does this make sense? I think this is one of a list similar
> admin requests that will be coming your way, from doing database
> dumps, to setting up redirects, etc. We need a way to get these
> requests and their status documented. JIRA or Bugzilla would be
> idea, but we don't have that set up yet, since we'll need some Oracle
> admin help moving the OOo bugzilla database over. So a chicken and
> egg problem.
I am a good initial contact for stuff like this. Availability will
obviously be gated by licensing and security/privacy considerations.
For stuff like the translations and the bugzilla content, I have backups
and we can create current snapshots.
For much of this we can move first and solve SGA second (similar to the
source code).
Andrew
> -Rob
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Joe Schaefer<jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> At this point infrastructure would be interested in
>> seeing the DNS zone file for openoffice.org, so we
>> can get some idea of how many different services
>> we're talking about.
>>
>>
>> If someone has that information, please forward it
>> to me privately. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
Re: Preserving Legacy Content (was: Contributors versus Committers
versus PMC members - AND USERS)
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
Hi Joe,
Were you able to get a copy of the zone file?
Is there an Oracle web admin contact that we should be going to for
request like this?
It would be good to have a single contact point at Oracle, and a
single contact point for the project, for requests like this to flow
through. Or at least a well-understood list of people.
I'm thinking of security here. I don't think we should expect Oracle
to hunt through the mailAlias.txt and committer and IPMC lists to see
if an email request is actually from the project.
Andrew, does this make sense? I think this is one of a list similar
admin requests that will be coming your way, from doing database
dumps, to setting up redirects, etc. We need a way to get these
requests and their status documented. JIRA or Bugzilla would be
idea, but we don't have that set up yet, since we'll need some Oracle
admin help moving the OOo bugzilla database over. So a chicken and
egg problem.
-Rob
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> At this point infrastructure would be interested in
> seeing the DNS zone file for openoffice.org, so we
> can get some idea of how many different services
> we're talking about.
>
>
> If someone has that information, please forward it
> to me privately. Thanks.
>
>
>
Re: Preserving Legacy Content (was: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jun 26, 2011, at 8:57 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>> From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Sun, June 26, 2011 11:52:37 AM
>> Subject: Re: Preserving Legacy Content (was: Contributors versus Committers
>> versus PMC members - AND USERS)
>>
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>
>>> At this point infrastructure would be interested in
>>> seeing the DNS zone file for openoffice.org, so we
>>> can get some idea of how many different services
>>> we're talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>> If someone has that information, please forward it
>>> to me privately. Thanks.
>>
>> I was interested in the zone file, but couldn't get oracle's dns to send it to
>> me.
>
> That's not surprising.
>
>> Why privately? Are you preparing to do the Domain Name registration change
>> followed by a Zone transfer? At which point it is possible to replace services
>> as we wish.
>
> So I can forward it to the appropriate (private) infrastructure list
> for discussion. Yes, at some point we'll want to transfer control
> of DNS to apache, but we're not there yet.
Please share what you can with the list when you can.
>> There is a mapping being built here:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OOo-Sitemap
>>
>> and a little differently here
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Transition+Planning
>
> Every little bit helps, but the zone file will give us an authoritative
> reference.
Yes, that's why I went looking for it.
Regards,
Dave
Re: Preserving Legacy Content (was: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sun, June 26, 2011 11:52:37 AM
> Subject: Re: Preserving Legacy Content (was: Contributors versus Committers
>versus PMC members - AND USERS)
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> > At this point infrastructure would be interested in
> > seeing the DNS zone file for openoffice.org, so we
> > can get some idea of how many different services
> > we're talking about.
> >
> >
> > If someone has that information, please forward it
> > to me privately. Thanks.
>
> I was interested in the zone file, but couldn't get oracle's dns to send it to
>me.
That's not surprising.
> Why privately? Are you preparing to do the Domain Name registration change
>followed by a Zone transfer? At which point it is possible to replace services
>as we wish.
So I can forward it to the appropriate (private) infrastructure list
for discussion. Yes, at some point we'll want to transfer control
of DNS to apache, but we're not there yet.
>
> There is a mapping being built here:
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OOo-Sitemap
>
> and a little differently here
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Transition+Planning
Every little bit helps, but the zone file will give us an authoritative
reference.
Re: Preserving Legacy Content (was: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jun 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> At this point infrastructure would be interested in
> seeing the DNS zone file for openoffice.org, so we
> can get some idea of how many different services
> we're talking about.
>
>
> If someone has that information, please forward it
> to me privately. Thanks.
I was interested in the zone file, but couldn't get oracle's dns to send it to me.
Why privately? Are you preparing to do the Domain Name registration change followed by a Zone transfer? At which point it is possible to replace services as we wish.
There is a mapping being built here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OOo-Sitemap
and a little differently here https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Transition+Planning
Regards,
Dave
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Sun, June 26, 2011 11:33:09 AM
>> Subject: Preserving Legacy Content (was: Contributors versus Committers versus
>> PMC members - AND USERS)
>>
>>
>> On 26 Jun 2011, at 12:21, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> We have three basic options for legacy content:
>>>
>>> 1) Migrate it to a dynamic equivalent, e.g. form to forum, list to
>>> list, wiki to wiki. This might be using the same software or a
>>> different one, though obviously migration is more difficult cross
>>> apps, especially in the absence of standard formats.
>>>
>>> 2) Archive the content statically, e..g., wget the entire wiki, forum
>>> or list and store the static pages for reference. Ideally, search
>>> engines and external links don't notice the change.
>>>
>>> 3) Ignore the legacy content and let it disappear.
>>>
>>> I think this is a case-by-case decision that we'll want to make, based
>>> at least partially on how how active the existing service is. If it
>>> gets no writes, but many reads, then #2 might be appropriate. If it
>>> is active with both reads and writes then that would recommend #1.
>>
>> I think option 2 ought to be our default for the whole project, with all links
>> always working. From the discussions so far, it seems we are likely to
>> establish new venues and modes of interaction that would make option 1 an
>> exception, and option 3 is always to be avoided in a community with as long as
>> legacy as OpenOffice.org
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> S.
>>
>>
Re: Preserving Legacy Content (was: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
At this point infrastructure would be interested in
seeing the DNS zone file for openoffice.org, so we
can get some idea of how many different services
we're talking about.
If someone has that information, please forward it
to me privately. Thanks.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sun, June 26, 2011 11:33:09 AM
> Subject: Preserving Legacy Content (was: Contributors versus Committers versus
>PMC members - AND USERS)
>
>
> On 26 Jun 2011, at 12:21, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> > We have three basic options for legacy content:
> >
> > 1) Migrate it to a dynamic equivalent, e.g. form to forum, list to
> > list, wiki to wiki. This might be using the same software or a
> > different one, though obviously migration is more difficult cross
> > apps, especially in the absence of standard formats.
> >
> > 2) Archive the content statically, e..g., wget the entire wiki, forum
> > or list and store the static pages for reference. Ideally, search
> > engines and external links don't notice the change.
> >
> > 3) Ignore the legacy content and let it disappear.
> >
> > I think this is a case-by-case decision that we'll want to make, based
> > at least partially on how how active the existing service is. If it
> > gets no writes, but many reads, then #2 might be appropriate. If it
> > is active with both reads and writes then that would recommend #1.
>
> I think option 2 ought to be our default for the whole project, with all links
>always working. From the discussions so far, it seems we are likely to
>establish new venues and modes of interaction that would make option 1 an
>exception, and option 3 is always to be avoided in a community with as long as
>legacy as OpenOffice.org
>
> Cheers,
>
> S.
>
>
Preserving Legacy Content (was: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS)
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 26 Jun 2011, at 12:21, Rob Weir wrote:
> We have three basic options for legacy content:
>
> 1) Migrate it to a dynamic equivalent, e.g. form to forum, list to
> list, wiki to wiki. This might be using the same software or a
> different one, though obviously migration is more difficult cross
> apps, especially in the absence of standard formats.
>
> 2) Archive the content statically, e..g., wget the entire wiki, forum
> or list and store the static pages for reference. Ideally, search
> engines and external links don't notice the change.
>
> 3) Ignore the legacy content and let it disappear.
>
> I think this is a case-by-case decision that we'll want to make, based
> at least partially on how how active the existing service is. If it
> gets no writes, but many reads, then #2 might be appropriate. If it
> is active with both reads and writes then that would recommend #1.
I think option 2 ought to be our default for the whole project, with all links always working. From the discussions so far, it seems we are likely to establish new venues and modes of interaction that would make option 1 an exception, and option 3 is always to be avoided in a community with as long as legacy as OpenOffice.org
Cheers,
S.
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Wolf Halton <wo...@gmail.com>.
What I like most about mailing lists is the ability to tightly focus the
topics. What I like about forums is the large number of categorizations
possible. My main platform allows threading of headers in email, but it
fails when threads are forked or subject/title is changed.
I am strongly in favour of putting general and support lists on forum
mostly, and lower-volume action-based stuff mostly in mailing lists.
It has not been mentioned, or I missed the comment, but I am not a fan of
irc as an interface.
Just my 2 cents. I guess forums with an autosubscribe feature for questions
a user has originated or replied to works great for most things.
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jun 26, 2011, at 8:21 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> We have three basic options for legacy content:
>
> 1) Migrate it to a dynamic equivalent, e.g. form to forum, list to
> list, wiki to wiki. This might be using the same software or a
> different one, though obviously migration is more difficult cross
> apps, especially in the absence of standard formats.
>
> 2) Archive the content statically, e..g., wget the entire wiki, forum
> or list and store the static pages for reference. Ideally, search
> engines and external links don't notice the change.
>
> 3) Ignore the legacy content and let it disappear.
>
> I think this is a case-by-case decision that we'll want to make, based
> at least partially on how how active the existing service is. If it
> gets no writes, but many reads, then #2 might be appropriate. If it
> is active with both reads and writes then that would recommend #1.
The content won't disappear, existing mailing lists are archived externally here gmane.org[1] and markmail.org[2]
(I would suggest nabble as well, but I always find it hard to access mailing lists from their home page.)
From MarkMail I see that Louis Saurez-Potts has sent 10,984 emails to the archived openoffice mailing lists.
Regards,
Dave
[1] http://gmane.org/find.php?list=openoffice
[2] http://markmail.org/search/?q=openoffice
>
>
> -Rob
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 25 Jun 2011, at 12:23, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project
>>> members on the Apache list asking for new list.
>>>
>>> I think I like approach #3 better. There are downsides to having more
>>> lists than we need. It fragments the discussion. If we have 93
>>> language projects with each one having dev/marketing/user, etc.,
>>> lists, then we have 500 or so mailing lists, most of which see little
>>> or no traffic. Do we really want to recreate that at Apache?
>>
>> If this approach was taken, what would you propose should happen to the "history" for all the lists that had not been migrated here by the time the Oracle-hosted servers were turned off?
>>
>> S.
>>
>>
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
We have three basic options for legacy content:
1) Migrate it to a dynamic equivalent, e.g. form to forum, list to
list, wiki to wiki. This might be using the same software or a
different one, though obviously migration is more difficult cross
apps, especially in the absence of standard formats.
2) Archive the content statically, e..g., wget the entire wiki, forum
or list and store the static pages for reference. Ideally, search
engines and external links don't notice the change.
3) Ignore the legacy content and let it disappear.
I think this is a case-by-case decision that we'll want to make, based
at least partially on how how active the existing service is. If it
gets no writes, but many reads, then #2 might be appropriate. If it
is active with both reads and writes then that would recommend #1.
-Rob
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 25 Jun 2011, at 12:23, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project
>> members on the Apache list asking for new list.
>>
>> I think I like approach #3 better. There are downsides to having more
>> lists than we need. It fragments the discussion. If we have 93
>> language projects with each one having dev/marketing/user, etc.,
>> lists, then we have 500 or so mailing lists, most of which see little
>> or no traffic. Do we really want to recreate that at Apache?
>
> If this approach was taken, what would you propose should happen to the "history" for all the lists that had not been migrated here by the time the Oracle-hosted servers were turned off?
>
> S.
>
>
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 25 Jun 2011, at 12:23, Rob Weir wrote:
> 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project
> members on the Apache list asking for new list.
>
> I think I like approach #3 better. There are downsides to having more
> lists than we need. It fragments the discussion. If we have 93
> language projects with each one having dev/marketing/user, etc.,
> lists, then we have 500 or so mailing lists, most of which see little
> or no traffic. Do we really want to recreate that at Apache?
If this approach was taken, what would you propose should happen to the "history" for all the lists that had not been migrated here by the time the Oracle-hosted servers were turned off?
S.
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Reizinger Zoltán <zr...@hdsnet.hu>.
2011.06.25. 17:23 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta:
...
> Of course, language differences and the need to encourage
> participation by all is critical as well. We may all speak C++ very
> well, but not all speak English well. But I wonder if things like
> Google translate are now good enough that we could manage,...
May be it is true for some "big" language - in case of Hungarian it is
create a more a crap, than usable translations at least in present state.
Zoltan
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Thanks.
>
> I said, "Make sure we set them up on request."
>
> And Marcus said, "But only when it's requested. We can start with the
> normal one in English and see which other languages are requested
> again and again."
>
I have my questions regarding this method, just because I have seen them
before. Usually the admin has to lock himself on a rehabilitation center
after the initital 3 waves of request and angry people because they
requested and no action was followed.
The opposite effect is to just migrate them all 100% with users and
archieved, and then strip the ones that have never been active or are just
full of spam.
Sure I agree it fragment the discussion, the question is if the swahilli
discussion was meant to be in the general list on the first place or not?
>
> I agree with him.
> :)
> Thanks,
> khirano
>
--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Rob,
Thanks.
I said, "Make sure we set them up on request."
And Marcus said, "But only when it's requested. We can start with the
normal one in English and see which other languages are requested
again and again."
I agree with him.
:)
Thanks,
khirano
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jun 25, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the list. I looked around. Some lists are very active.
>>>> Some have not seen activity for a year or more. Some seem to never
>>>> have been active. And some are just full of spam :-(
>>>>
>>>> I can see three ways to decide what to do (but maybe someone has other
>>>> ideas?):
>>>>
>>>> 1) Recreate the structure of the OOo lists, making lists for all
>>>> language groups, whether or not they are active.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Define activity criteria for what we will create, such as number of
>>>> posts in last 12 months. Create lists of whatever was active (by an
>>>> agreed on definition).
>>>>
>>>> 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project
>>>> members on the Apache list asking for new list.
>>>>
>>>> I think I like approach #3 better. There are downsides to having more
>>>> lists than we need. It fragments the discussion. If we have 93
>>>> language projects with each one having dev/marketing/user, etc.,
>>>> lists, then we have 500 or so mailing lists, most of which see little
>>>> or no traffic. Do we really want to recreate that at Apache?
>>>>
>>>> Right now we have just a single discussion pubic list, ooo-dev. I can
>>>> easily imagine, that once we have some code checked in and start
>>>> actively working on making our first release, that the traffic in that
>>>> one list will be larger enough that we'll want to split into
>>>> specialized functional lists, maybe:
>>>>
>>>> ooo-general == general project discussion that crosses over functional
>>>> areas of project. Everything that doesn't fit elsewhere goes here.
>>>>
>>>> ooo-user == user discussion threads
>>>>
>>>> ooo-dev == programming, including QA, UI design, accessibility, etc.
>>>>
>>>> ooo-doc == help and documentation
>>>>
>>>> ooo-translate == translation
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we're there yet, but I can certainly see that happening
>>>> in the next few weeks/months.
>>>>
>>>> It is also possible that when we get very active, that the
>>>> conversation level on ooo-translate becomes so high that we need to
>>>> split some language discussions into their own list:
>>>>
>>>> ooo-translate-jp, ooo-translate-es, ooo-translate-pt, etc.
>>>>
>>>> I think we might want that to be driven by actual observed demand. We
>>>> can always create new lists when they are actually needed.
>>>>
>>>> But I think for now we want to keep the discussion together in larger
>>>> groups. For example, before we think of having a detailed group on
>>>> Japanese translation, we should probably have higher level discussions
>>>> in common, like:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Do we want Apache to host a Pootle server? If so, we need to put
>>>> together that request and make it happen.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Did the Oracle SGA include all of the language translation sources?
>>>> If not, we need to identify what is missing.
>>>>
>>>> Another thing to consider is this. We've all heard the complaints
>>>> about Sun/Oracle and how they managed the OOo project. Maybe the core
>>>> development project was not as open as it could have been to outside
>>>> contributions. Maybe the project leadership was centralized with
>>>> their employees. Maybe the power was not shared broadly. These are
>>>> all valid criticisms of *that* project. The natural tendency of this
>>>> was to create satellite power centers in the language projects,
>>>> because that was the primary place where you were permitted a sphere
>>>> of influence and control.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the new Apache project needs to be, or should be, the
>>>> same way. There is no central corporate control. Volunteers from all
>>>> former OOo language projects are welcome, and are even encouraged, to
>>>> participate directly in all functions of the project. I'd like OOo to
>>>> be a strong *global* open source project.
>>>>
>>>> I guess I'm saying this: Let's not automatically create the same
>>>> project structures as OOo had. Those were partially created to work
>>>> within a corporate-led open source project that distributed power in a
>>>> very different way. Some of the hierarchical structures of that
>>>> project were made to deal with that power arrangement and the friction
>>>> is produced. Apache is different.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, language differences and the need to encourage
>>>> participation by all is critical as well. We may all speak C++ very
>>>> well, but not all speak English well. But I wonder if things like
>>>> Google translate are now good enough that we could manage, with a
>>>> little patience and understanding, to have multilingual conversations
>>>> on a single list, at least until the traffic is so high that we need
>>>> to split the lists?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wow I am getting a very bleak view of all this, maybe I have just watched
>>> too many world wide II movies recently. But this seems a lot like the
>>> hanging of the Japanese military generals after the war. Or to quote one
>> of
>>> the classics:
>>>
>>> "Do they speak English in What?" -- Pulp fiction
>>>
>>
>> I hope you don't get that impression. Language is one cross-cutting
>> concern. Another is operating system. I could argue that Windows
>> programmers don't want to look at all the Linux-specific discussions
>> on the list. And the 32-bit Windows programmings could say that they
>> don't want to deal with the 64-bit Windows threads. But I think we
>> would agree that having a list called ooo-dev-windows-64bit-es would
>> be fragmenting things too far.
>>
>> The question in my mind is not whether we will need more lists, but
>> when and which ones.
>>
>> I think it is absolutely imperative that the programmers be aware of
>> the work going in on the code on *all* platforms, regardless of what
>> platform the programmer is working on personally. It is one project,
>> one repository. We can't segregate it.
>>
>> On the localization side, I also think it is necessary for all
>> programmers to be aware of all the issues, since they are the ones
>> writing and maintaining the code. Maybe they won't be experts, but
>> they need to know the basics and be aware of the issues. So an issue
>> in Japan localization may also be an issue in China and Korea. We
>> need to have a core discussion on localization and translation that
>> everyone participates in. Remember also that the issues that come up
>> for us, may be also issues in the ODF standard, and that needs to be
>> escalated, in English, to OASIS and ISO. And new localization
>> capabilities get added to the standard, in English, and this needs to
>> be discussed in the project, together.
>>
>> I understand that when it comes to the translation of individual UI
>> strings, that the discussion then becomes very narrow and specialized
>> and that this will not be of interest to everyone. But that is no
>> different than a discussion that is only relevant to 64bit Windows.
>>
>>> I don't think we should hold a gun to people's head to join a ML that
>> they
>>> might not be interested on the first place. Even if it's just to request
>> a
>>> new one.
>>>
>>
>> Would you agree that we need at least a single list, like ooo-general,
>> that everyone on the project subscribes to? I think that is hard to
>> avoid and still call us one project.
>>
>
> We did had that list http://www.openoffice.org/mail_list.html#general and
> even myself wasn't subscribed. So from experince I will say that just
> because we have it doesn't mean that all people in teh project will use it.
> Also the issue that we asume that everything will happen on an ML might not
> be true.
>
> As an example, if you find a bug, you can submit it to the issue tracker,
> then a dev will inquiry for additional data and replicate it, forward it to
> another dev and fix it. -- No ML necessary. If all the only truly unique
> conversation happening should be the comments on the DSCR. Which is a
> monolitic tree and isn't really replicated.
All commits to svn will end up in the ooo-commits mailing list. That qualifies as everything in the mailing list.
Also bug reports from either bugzilla or JIRA are typically directed to the dev list when that is done it ought to be ooo-dev@i.a.o.
So we are in the mailing list even with the bug tracker. In fact that is important because then it is easy for a developer to JFDI.
I like this discussion, in time we'll come up with a good balance between what exists and landing at Apache. I see this discussion falling into a matrix.
On one axis - Roles - at one or two levels
Marketing -
?
Users -
in general
native language - special needs
Developers -
code,
qa,
language,
docs,
PPMC -
On the other axis - Tools
Mailing list
User Forum
Issue Tracker
Wikis
Web Site
Pootle Server
Build Servers
What else?
In each cell describe the interaction with the tool, if any.
There can be three versions of this matrix - The existing openoffice.org, a functional plan and finally a map to Apache Infrastructure
Best Regards,
Dave
>
> At the moment different facebook groups and conversations on linkedin and
> twitter are happening that we can argue that is not on one channel or even
> ever will connect. I got a user asking a few minutes ago asking on the
> linkedin about if this group will continue now that apache is taking over.
>
> So again, diversity, key fact to keep in mind.
>
>
>
>>> So I am gonna partially play devils advocate and partially push some
>> things
>>> I have considered a good choice here.
>>>
>>> play 1: "Another thing to consider is this. We've all heard the
>> complaints
>>> about Sun/Oracle and how they managed the OOo project. Maybe the core
>>> development project was not as open as it could have been to outside
>>> contributions. Maybe the project leadership was centralized with
>>> their employees. Maybe the power was not shared broadly. These are
>>> all valid criticisms of *that* project. The natural tendency of this
>>> was to create satellite power centers in the language projects,
>>> because that was the primary place where you were permitted a sphere
>>> of influence and control."
>>>
>>> The funny things about complains is that the minute you stop listening to
>>> them, is the minute you start listening to the opposite ones. So I'm
>> foward
>>> on the idea that fragmentation of communication is bad. At the same time,
>>> ignoring the size and the diverse of the project is also bad.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. Those are the forces we need to understand: diversity and
>> fragmentation.
>>
>>> play 2: "I guess I'm saying this: Let's not automatically create the
>> same
>>> project structures as OOo had. Those were partially created to work
>>> within a corporate-led open source project that distributed power in a
>>> very different way." ---
>>>
>>> Aren't you using your corporate power exactly to do this in an opposite
>> way?
>>> The structure of OOo had issues, but changing for changing sake also
>> seems a
>>> bit of an overkill. Like I said, we needed a change of the way we did
>>> things, but flipping it completely oppoiste is not an answer. I
>> acknowledge
>>> thtat positons in OOo were too bureacratic. But at the same time, it gave
>> me
>>> a good framwork to se who to address if there was a need to do anything.
>> And
>>> believe me, throwing a question on a general ML was not a good way to
>>> identify people responsible in certain part of the site, code, etc.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think I'm using any corporate power.
>>
>> I agree that "change for change's sake" is not a good idea. But I
>> hope you'll agree that preserving the past forms, just because they
>> are familiar, is not necessary the best choice either, especially if
>> we're now in a different environment.
>>
>> I think we need to think about what did OOo do before because it had
>> no other choice? Versus what it did because that is, in the
>> collective experience of the community, the best way of collaborating?
>>
>
> I think we should solve one problem at a time. Trying to engage in too many
> battles might make this a big mess. So first I would say, lets find a home
> (servers) for OOo. And then hack on it's management, communication channels,
> localization processes etc..
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> As a general reference, when Google got usenet, he got it all, along with
>>> Viagra commercials, and questionable material. I think we should first
>> focus
>>> on the migration in its entirety.
>>>
>>> The idea of let's start from scratch and grow organically does sound
>> cute,
>>> but I think it will do more damage than good in the close future.
>>>
>>
>> I think it is worth a discussion, to see what the consensus is.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please take a look at the Native Language Confederation Projects of
>>>>> OpenOffice.org page.
>>>>> http://projects.openoffice.org/native-lang.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Every language project has mailing lists.
>>>>> You can check which list is active or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 - Afar - http://openoffice.org/projects/aa/lists
>>>>> 2 - Albanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sq/lists
>>>>> 3 - Afrikaans - http://openoffice.org/projects/af/lists
>>>>> 4 - Amharic - http://openoffice.org/projects/am/lists
>>>>> 5 - Arabic - http://openoffice.org/projects/ar/lists
>>>>> 6 - Armenian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hy/lists
>>>>> 7 - Asturian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ast/lists
>>>>> 8 - Azeri - http://openoffice.org/projects/az/lists
>>>>> 9 - Balochi - http://openoffice.org/projects/bal/lists
>>>>> 10 - Basque - http://openoffice.org/projects/eu/lists
>>>>> 11 - Bengali - http://openoffice.org/projects/bn/lists
>>>>> 12 - Bosnian - http://openoffice.org/projects/bs/lists
>>>>> 13 - Breton - http://openoffice.org/projects/bre/lists
>>>>> 14 - Bulgarian - http://openoffice.org/projects/bg/lists
>>>>> 15 - Burmese - http://openoffice.org/projects/my/lists
>>>>> 16 - Catalan - http://openoffice.org/projects/ca/lists
>>>>> 17 - ChiNyanja - http://openoffice.org/projects/ny/lists
>>>>> 18 - Chinese - http://openoffice.org/projects/zh/lists
>>>>> 19 - Czech - http://openoffice.org/projects/cs/lists
>>>>> 20 - Croatian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hr/lists
>>>>> 21 - Danish - http://openoffice.org/projects/da/lists
>>>>> 22 - Dutch - http://openoffice.org/projects/nl/lists
>>>>> 23 - Dzongkha - http://openoffice.org/projects/dz/lists
>>>>> 24 - Esperanto - http://openoffice.org/projects/eo/lists
>>>>> 25 - Estonian - http://openoffice.org/projects/et/lists
>>>>> 26 - Finnish - http://openoffice.org/projects/fi/lists
>>>>> 27 - French - http://openoffice.org/projects/fr/lists
>>>>> 28 - Friulian - http://openoffice.org/projects/fur/lists
>>>>> 29 - Galician - http://openoffice.org/projects/gl/lists
>>>>> 30 - Gaelic Irish - http://openoffice.org/projects/ga/lists
>>>>> 31 - Gaelic Scottish - http://openoffice.org/projects/gd/lists
>>>>> 32 - Georgian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ka/lists
>>>>> 33 - German - http://openoffice.org/projects/de/lists
>>>>> 34 - Greek - http://openoffice.org/projects/el/lists
>>>>> 35 - Gujarati - http://openoffice.org/projects/gu/lists
>>>>> 36 - Haitian Creole - http://openoffice.org/projects/ht/lists
>>>>> 37 - Hebrew - http://openoffice.org/projects/he/lists
>>>>> 38 - Hindi - http://openoffice.org/projects/hi/lists
>>>>> 39 - Hungarian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hu/lists
>>>>> 40 - Icelandic - http://openoffice.org/projects/is/lists
>>>>> 41 - Indonesian - http://openoffice.org/projects/id/lists
>>>>> 42 - Irish Gaelic - http://openoffice.org/projects/ga/lists
>>>>> 43 - Italiano - http://openoffice.org/projects/it/lists
>>>>> 44 - Japanese - http://openoffice.org/projects/ja/lists
>>>>> 45 - Khmer - http://openoffice.org/projects/km/lists
>>>>> 46 - Korean - http://openoffice.org/projects/ko/lists
>>>>> 47 - Kurdish - http://openoffice.org/projects/ku/lists
>>>>> 48 - Lao - http://openoffice.org/projects/lo/lists
>>>>> 49 - Latvian - http://openoffice.org/projects/lv/lists
>>>>> 50 - Lithuanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/lt/lists
>>>>> 51 - Macedonian - http://openoffice.org/projects/mk/lists
>>>>> 52 - Malayalam - http://openoffice.org/projects/ml/lists
>>>>> 53 - Marathi - http://openoffice.org/projects/mr/lists
>>>>> 54 - Malagasy - http://openoffice.org/projects/mg/lists
>>>>> 55 - Malaysian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ms/lists
>>>>> 56 - Miskito - http://openoffice.org/projects/miq/lists
>>>>> 57 - Mongolian - http://openoffice.org/projects/mn/lists
>>>>> 58 - Nepali - http://openoffice.org/projects/ne/lists
>>>>> 59 - Norwegian - http://openoffice.org/projects/no/lists
>>>>> 60 - Oromoo - http://openoffice.org/projects/om/lists
>>>>> 61 - Papmiento - http://openoffice.org/projects/pa/lists
>>>>> 62 - Pashto - http://openoffice.org/projects/ps/lists
>>>>> 63 - Persian - http://openoffice.org/projects/fa/lists
>>>>> 64 - Polish - http://openoffice.org/projects/pl/lists
>>>>> 65 - Portuguese - http://openoffice.org/projects/pt/lists
>>>>> 66 - Portuguese of Brasil -
>> http://openoffice.org/projects/br-pt/lists
>>>>> 67 - Punjabi - http://openoffice.org/projects/pa/lists
>>>>> 68 - Romanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ro/lists
>>>>> 69 - Russian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ru/lists
>>>>> 70 - Sängö - http://openoffice.org/projects/sg/lists
>>>>> 71 - Serbian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sr/lists
>>>>> 72 - Shuswa - http://openoffice.org/projects/shs/lists
>>>>> 73 - Sidama - http://openoffice.org/projects/dm/lists
>>>>> 74 - Sinhala - http://openoffice.org/projects/si/lists
>>>>> 75 - Slovenian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sl/lists
>>>>> 76 - Slovakian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sk/lists
>>>>> 77 - Somali - http://openoffice.org/projects/so/lists
>>>>> 78 - Spanish - http://openoffice.org/projects/es/lists
>>>>> 79 - Swedish - http://openoffice.org/projects/sv/lists
>>>>> 80 - Tajik - http://openoffice.org/projects/tg/lists
>>>>> 81 - Tamil - http://openoffice.org/projects/ta/lists
>>>>> 82 - Tatar - http://openoffice.org/projects/tt-crh/lists
>>>>> 83 - Telugu - http://openoffice.org/projects/te/lists
>>>>> 84 - Tetum - http://openoffice.org/projects/tet/lists
>>>>> 85 - Thai - http://openoffice.org/projects/th/lists
>>>>> 86 - Tibetan - http://openoffice.org/projects/bo/lists
>>>>> 87 - Tigrinya - http://openoffice.org/projects//lists
>>>>> 88 - Turkish - http://openoffice.org/projects/tr/lists
>>>>> 89 - Ukrainian - http://openoffice.org/projects/uk/lists
>>>>> 90 - Urdu - http://openoffice.org/projects/urd/lists
>>>>> 91 - Uzbek - http://openoffice.org/projects/uz/lists
>>>>> 92 - Vietnamese - http://openoffice.org/projects/vi/lists
>>>>> 93 - Welsh - http://openoffice.org/projects/cy/lists
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> khirano
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Alexandro Colorado*
>>> *OpenOffice.org* Español
>>> http://es.openoffice.org
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Alexandro Colorado*
> *OpenOffice.org* Español
> http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for the list. I looked around. Some lists are very active.
> >> Some have not seen activity for a year or more. Some seem to never
> >> have been active. And some are just full of spam :-(
> >>
> >> I can see three ways to decide what to do (but maybe someone has other
> >> ideas?):
> >>
> >> 1) Recreate the structure of the OOo lists, making lists for all
> >> language groups, whether or not they are active.
> >>
> >> 2) Define activity criteria for what we will create, such as number of
> >> posts in last 12 months. Create lists of whatever was active (by an
> >> agreed on definition).
> >>
> >> 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project
> >> members on the Apache list asking for new list.
> >>
> >> I think I like approach #3 better. There are downsides to having more
> >> lists than we need. It fragments the discussion. If we have 93
> >> language projects with each one having dev/marketing/user, etc.,
> >> lists, then we have 500 or so mailing lists, most of which see little
> >> or no traffic. Do we really want to recreate that at Apache?
> >>
> >> Right now we have just a single discussion pubic list, ooo-dev. I can
> >> easily imagine, that once we have some code checked in and start
> >> actively working on making our first release, that the traffic in that
> >> one list will be larger enough that we'll want to split into
> >> specialized functional lists, maybe:
> >>
> >> ooo-general == general project discussion that crosses over functional
> >> areas of project. Everything that doesn't fit elsewhere goes here.
> >>
> >> ooo-user == user discussion threads
> >>
> >> ooo-dev == programming, including QA, UI design, accessibility, etc.
> >>
> >> ooo-doc == help and documentation
> >>
> >> ooo-translate == translation
> >>
> >> I don't think we're there yet, but I can certainly see that happening
> >> in the next few weeks/months.
> >>
> >> It is also possible that when we get very active, that the
> >> conversation level on ooo-translate becomes so high that we need to
> >> split some language discussions into their own list:
> >>
> >> ooo-translate-jp, ooo-translate-es, ooo-translate-pt, etc.
> >>
> >> I think we might want that to be driven by actual observed demand. We
> >> can always create new lists when they are actually needed.
> >>
> >> But I think for now we want to keep the discussion together in larger
> >> groups. For example, before we think of having a detailed group on
> >> Japanese translation, we should probably have higher level discussions
> >> in common, like:
> >>
> >> 1) Do we want Apache to host a Pootle server? If so, we need to put
> >> together that request and make it happen.
> >>
> >> 2) Did the Oracle SGA include all of the language translation sources?
> >> If not, we need to identify what is missing.
> >>
> >> Another thing to consider is this. We've all heard the complaints
> >> about Sun/Oracle and how they managed the OOo project. Maybe the core
> >> development project was not as open as it could have been to outside
> >> contributions. Maybe the project leadership was centralized with
> >> their employees. Maybe the power was not shared broadly. These are
> >> all valid criticisms of *that* project. The natural tendency of this
> >> was to create satellite power centers in the language projects,
> >> because that was the primary place where you were permitted a sphere
> >> of influence and control.
> >>
> >> I don't think the new Apache project needs to be, or should be, the
> >> same way. There is no central corporate control. Volunteers from all
> >> former OOo language projects are welcome, and are even encouraged, to
> >> participate directly in all functions of the project. I'd like OOo to
> >> be a strong *global* open source project.
> >>
> >> I guess I'm saying this: Let's not automatically create the same
> >> project structures as OOo had. Those were partially created to work
> >> within a corporate-led open source project that distributed power in a
> >> very different way. Some of the hierarchical structures of that
> >> project were made to deal with that power arrangement and the friction
> >> is produced. Apache is different.
> >>
> >> Of course, language differences and the need to encourage
> >> participation by all is critical as well. We may all speak C++ very
> >> well, but not all speak English well. But I wonder if things like
> >> Google translate are now good enough that we could manage, with a
> >> little patience and understanding, to have multilingual conversations
> >> on a single list, at least until the traffic is so high that we need
> >> to split the lists?
> >>
> >
> > Wow I am getting a very bleak view of all this, maybe I have just watched
> > too many world wide II movies recently. But this seems a lot like the
> > hanging of the Japanese military generals after the war. Or to quote one
> of
> > the classics:
> >
> > "Do they speak English in What?" -- Pulp fiction
> >
>
> I hope you don't get that impression. Language is one cross-cutting
> concern. Another is operating system. I could argue that Windows
> programmers don't want to look at all the Linux-specific discussions
> on the list. And the 32-bit Windows programmings could say that they
> don't want to deal with the 64-bit Windows threads. But I think we
> would agree that having a list called ooo-dev-windows-64bit-es would
> be fragmenting things too far.
>
> The question in my mind is not whether we will need more lists, but
> when and which ones.
>
> I think it is absolutely imperative that the programmers be aware of
> the work going in on the code on *all* platforms, regardless of what
> platform the programmer is working on personally. It is one project,
> one repository. We can't segregate it.
>
> On the localization side, I also think it is necessary for all
> programmers to be aware of all the issues, since they are the ones
> writing and maintaining the code. Maybe they won't be experts, but
> they need to know the basics and be aware of the issues. So an issue
> in Japan localization may also be an issue in China and Korea. We
> need to have a core discussion on localization and translation that
> everyone participates in. Remember also that the issues that come up
> for us, may be also issues in the ODF standard, and that needs to be
> escalated, in English, to OASIS and ISO. And new localization
> capabilities get added to the standard, in English, and this needs to
> be discussed in the project, together.
>
> I understand that when it comes to the translation of individual UI
> strings, that the discussion then becomes very narrow and specialized
> and that this will not be of interest to everyone. But that is no
> different than a discussion that is only relevant to 64bit Windows.
>
> > I don't think we should hold a gun to people's head to join a ML that
> they
> > might not be interested on the first place. Even if it's just to request
> a
> > new one.
> >
>
> Would you agree that we need at least a single list, like ooo-general,
> that everyone on the project subscribes to? I think that is hard to
> avoid and still call us one project.
>
We did had that list http://www.openoffice.org/mail_list.html#general and
even myself wasn't subscribed. So from experince I will say that just
because we have it doesn't mean that all people in teh project will use it.
Also the issue that we asume that everything will happen on an ML might not
be true.
As an example, if you find a bug, you can submit it to the issue tracker,
then a dev will inquiry for additional data and replicate it, forward it to
another dev and fix it. -- No ML necessary. If all the only truly unique
conversation happening should be the comments on the DSCR. Which is a
monolitic tree and isn't really replicated.
At the moment different facebook groups and conversations on linkedin and
twitter are happening that we can argue that is not on one channel or even
ever will connect. I got a user asking a few minutes ago asking on the
linkedin about if this group will continue now that apache is taking over.
So again, diversity, key fact to keep in mind.
> > So I am gonna partially play devils advocate and partially push some
> things
> > I have considered a good choice here.
> >
> > play 1: "Another thing to consider is this. We've all heard the
> complaints
> > about Sun/Oracle and how they managed the OOo project. Maybe the core
> > development project was not as open as it could have been to outside
> > contributions. Maybe the project leadership was centralized with
> > their employees. Maybe the power was not shared broadly. These are
> > all valid criticisms of *that* project. The natural tendency of this
> > was to create satellite power centers in the language projects,
> > because that was the primary place where you were permitted a sphere
> > of influence and control."
> >
> > The funny things about complains is that the minute you stop listening to
> > them, is the minute you start listening to the opposite ones. So I'm
> foward
> > on the idea that fragmentation of communication is bad. At the same time,
> > ignoring the size and the diverse of the project is also bad.
> >
>
> Agreed. Those are the forces we need to understand: diversity and
> fragmentation.
>
> > play 2: "I guess I'm saying this: Let's not automatically create the
> same
> > project structures as OOo had. Those were partially created to work
> > within a corporate-led open source project that distributed power in a
> > very different way." ---
> >
> > Aren't you using your corporate power exactly to do this in an opposite
> way?
> > The structure of OOo had issues, but changing for changing sake also
> seems a
> > bit of an overkill. Like I said, we needed a change of the way we did
> > things, but flipping it completely oppoiste is not an answer. I
> acknowledge
> > thtat positons in OOo were too bureacratic. But at the same time, it gave
> me
> > a good framwork to se who to address if there was a need to do anything.
> And
> > believe me, throwing a question on a general ML was not a good way to
> > identify people responsible in certain part of the site, code, etc.
> >
>
>
> I don't think I'm using any corporate power.
>
> I agree that "change for change's sake" is not a good idea. But I
> hope you'll agree that preserving the past forms, just because they
> are familiar, is not necessary the best choice either, especially if
> we're now in a different environment.
>
> I think we need to think about what did OOo do before because it had
> no other choice? Versus what it did because that is, in the
> collective experience of the community, the best way of collaborating?
>
I think we should solve one problem at a time. Trying to engage in too many
battles might make this a big mess. So first I would say, lets find a home
(servers) for OOo. And then hack on it's management, communication channels,
localization processes etc..
>
>
> > As a general reference, when Google got usenet, he got it all, along with
> > Viagra commercials, and questionable material. I think we should first
> focus
> > on the migration in its entirety.
> >
> > The idea of let's start from scratch and grow organically does sound
> cute,
> > but I think it will do more damage than good in the close future.
> >
>
> I think it is worth a discussion, to see what the consensus is.
>
> -Rob
>
> >
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi Rob,
> >> >
> >> > Please take a look at the Native Language Confederation Projects of
> >> > OpenOffice.org page.
> >> > http://projects.openoffice.org/native-lang.html
> >> >
> >> > Every language project has mailing lists.
> >> > You can check which list is active or not.
> >> >
> >> > 1 - Afar - http://openoffice.org/projects/aa/lists
> >> > 2 - Albanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sq/lists
> >> > 3 - Afrikaans - http://openoffice.org/projects/af/lists
> >> > 4 - Amharic - http://openoffice.org/projects/am/lists
> >> > 5 - Arabic - http://openoffice.org/projects/ar/lists
> >> > 6 - Armenian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hy/lists
> >> > 7 - Asturian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ast/lists
> >> > 8 - Azeri - http://openoffice.org/projects/az/lists
> >> > 9 - Balochi - http://openoffice.org/projects/bal/lists
> >> > 10 - Basque - http://openoffice.org/projects/eu/lists
> >> > 11 - Bengali - http://openoffice.org/projects/bn/lists
> >> > 12 - Bosnian - http://openoffice.org/projects/bs/lists
> >> > 13 - Breton - http://openoffice.org/projects/bre/lists
> >> > 14 - Bulgarian - http://openoffice.org/projects/bg/lists
> >> > 15 - Burmese - http://openoffice.org/projects/my/lists
> >> > 16 - Catalan - http://openoffice.org/projects/ca/lists
> >> > 17 - ChiNyanja - http://openoffice.org/projects/ny/lists
> >> > 18 - Chinese - http://openoffice.org/projects/zh/lists
> >> > 19 - Czech - http://openoffice.org/projects/cs/lists
> >> > 20 - Croatian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hr/lists
> >> > 21 - Danish - http://openoffice.org/projects/da/lists
> >> > 22 - Dutch - http://openoffice.org/projects/nl/lists
> >> > 23 - Dzongkha - http://openoffice.org/projects/dz/lists
> >> > 24 - Esperanto - http://openoffice.org/projects/eo/lists
> >> > 25 - Estonian - http://openoffice.org/projects/et/lists
> >> > 26 - Finnish - http://openoffice.org/projects/fi/lists
> >> > 27 - French - http://openoffice.org/projects/fr/lists
> >> > 28 - Friulian - http://openoffice.org/projects/fur/lists
> >> > 29 - Galician - http://openoffice.org/projects/gl/lists
> >> > 30 - Gaelic Irish - http://openoffice.org/projects/ga/lists
> >> > 31 - Gaelic Scottish - http://openoffice.org/projects/gd/lists
> >> > 32 - Georgian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ka/lists
> >> > 33 - German - http://openoffice.org/projects/de/lists
> >> > 34 - Greek - http://openoffice.org/projects/el/lists
> >> > 35 - Gujarati - http://openoffice.org/projects/gu/lists
> >> > 36 - Haitian Creole - http://openoffice.org/projects/ht/lists
> >> > 37 - Hebrew - http://openoffice.org/projects/he/lists
> >> > 38 - Hindi - http://openoffice.org/projects/hi/lists
> >> > 39 - Hungarian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hu/lists
> >> > 40 - Icelandic - http://openoffice.org/projects/is/lists
> >> > 41 - Indonesian - http://openoffice.org/projects/id/lists
> >> > 42 - Irish Gaelic - http://openoffice.org/projects/ga/lists
> >> > 43 - Italiano - http://openoffice.org/projects/it/lists
> >> > 44 - Japanese - http://openoffice.org/projects/ja/lists
> >> > 45 - Khmer - http://openoffice.org/projects/km/lists
> >> > 46 - Korean - http://openoffice.org/projects/ko/lists
> >> > 47 - Kurdish - http://openoffice.org/projects/ku/lists
> >> > 48 - Lao - http://openoffice.org/projects/lo/lists
> >> > 49 - Latvian - http://openoffice.org/projects/lv/lists
> >> > 50 - Lithuanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/lt/lists
> >> > 51 - Macedonian - http://openoffice.org/projects/mk/lists
> >> > 52 - Malayalam - http://openoffice.org/projects/ml/lists
> >> > 53 - Marathi - http://openoffice.org/projects/mr/lists
> >> > 54 - Malagasy - http://openoffice.org/projects/mg/lists
> >> > 55 - Malaysian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ms/lists
> >> > 56 - Miskito - http://openoffice.org/projects/miq/lists
> >> > 57 - Mongolian - http://openoffice.org/projects/mn/lists
> >> > 58 - Nepali - http://openoffice.org/projects/ne/lists
> >> > 59 - Norwegian - http://openoffice.org/projects/no/lists
> >> > 60 - Oromoo - http://openoffice.org/projects/om/lists
> >> > 61 - Papmiento - http://openoffice.org/projects/pa/lists
> >> > 62 - Pashto - http://openoffice.org/projects/ps/lists
> >> > 63 - Persian - http://openoffice.org/projects/fa/lists
> >> > 64 - Polish - http://openoffice.org/projects/pl/lists
> >> > 65 - Portuguese - http://openoffice.org/projects/pt/lists
> >> > 66 - Portuguese of Brasil -
> http://openoffice.org/projects/br-pt/lists
> >> > 67 - Punjabi - http://openoffice.org/projects/pa/lists
> >> > 68 - Romanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ro/lists
> >> > 69 - Russian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ru/lists
> >> > 70 - Sängö - http://openoffice.org/projects/sg/lists
> >> > 71 - Serbian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sr/lists
> >> > 72 - Shuswa - http://openoffice.org/projects/shs/lists
> >> > 73 - Sidama - http://openoffice.org/projects/dm/lists
> >> > 74 - Sinhala - http://openoffice.org/projects/si/lists
> >> > 75 - Slovenian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sl/lists
> >> > 76 - Slovakian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sk/lists
> >> > 77 - Somali - http://openoffice.org/projects/so/lists
> >> > 78 - Spanish - http://openoffice.org/projects/es/lists
> >> > 79 - Swedish - http://openoffice.org/projects/sv/lists
> >> > 80 - Tajik - http://openoffice.org/projects/tg/lists
> >> > 81 - Tamil - http://openoffice.org/projects/ta/lists
> >> > 82 - Tatar - http://openoffice.org/projects/tt-crh/lists
> >> > 83 - Telugu - http://openoffice.org/projects/te/lists
> >> > 84 - Tetum - http://openoffice.org/projects/tet/lists
> >> > 85 - Thai - http://openoffice.org/projects/th/lists
> >> > 86 - Tibetan - http://openoffice.org/projects/bo/lists
> >> > 87 - Tigrinya - http://openoffice.org/projects//lists
> >> > 88 - Turkish - http://openoffice.org/projects/tr/lists
> >> > 89 - Ukrainian - http://openoffice.org/projects/uk/lists
> >> > 90 - Urdu - http://openoffice.org/projects/urd/lists
> >> > 91 - Uzbek - http://openoffice.org/projects/uz/lists
> >> > 92 - Vietnamese - http://openoffice.org/projects/vi/lists
> >> > 93 - Welsh - http://openoffice.org/projects/cy/lists
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > khirano
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Alexandro Colorado*
> > *OpenOffice.org* Español
> > http://es.openoffice.org
> >
>
--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Dick Groskamp <th...@quicknet.nl>wrote:
> Op 25-6-2011 18:36, Rob Weir schreef:
>
>> I hope you don't get that impression. Language is one cross-cutting
>> [snip]
>>
>> I understand that when it comes to the translation of individual UI
>> strings, that the discussion then becomes very narrow and specialized
>> and that this will not be of interest to everyone. But that is no
>> different than a discussion that is only relevant to 64bit Windows.
>>
>> I don't think we should hold a gun to people's head to join a ML that
>>> they
>>> might not be interested on the first place. Even if it's just to request
>>> a
>>> new one.
>>>
>> Well, I can only talk for Dutch OOo community but this is how it worked in
> the past for us.
>
> We had a userlist inside nl.openoffice.org where all was discussed
> on/about localisation ( level of Native Language)
>
> If we found issues or problems we couldn't realize within that area, we
> went over to the userllist L10n from OOo (worldwide level)
>
> On the L10n all issues from all NLC came together but they merely concerned
> localization as is.
> It were more technical discussions and issues that arose during
> translations. (like for instance adjustments to GUI if a string was too
> long)
>
> On L10n we also monitored status of translations and work to come and so
> forth.
>
> So in our case it was more a two step ladder, keeping small issues on low
> level and the rest up to L10n
Similar process took for things like Documentation with the OOoAuthors list
at the documentation project.
Also some marketing prospects (specially budget related)
>
>
> --
> DiGro
>
> Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3
> Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
>
>
--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Dick Groskamp <th...@quicknet.nl>.
Op 25-6-2011 18:36, Rob Weir schreef:
> I hope you don't get that impression. Language is one cross-cutting
> [snip]
> I understand that when it comes to the translation of individual UI
> strings, that the discussion then becomes very narrow and specialized
> and that this will not be of interest to everyone. But that is no
> different than a discussion that is only relevant to 64bit Windows.
>
>> I don't think we should hold a gun to people's head to join a ML that they
>> might not be interested on the first place. Even if it's just to request a
>> new one.
Well, I can only talk for Dutch OOo community but this is how it worked
in the past for us.
We had a userlist inside nl.openoffice.org where all was discussed
on/about localisation ( level of Native Language)
If we found issues or problems we couldn't realize within that area, we
went over to the userllist L10n from OOo (worldwide level)
On the L10n all issues from all NLC came together but they merely
concerned localization as is.
It were more technical discussions and issues that arose during
translations. (like for instance adjustments to GUI if a string was too
long)
On L10n we also monitored status of translations and work to come and so
forth.
So in our case it was more a two step ladder, keeping small issues on
low level and the rest up to L10n
--
DiGro
Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3
Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the list. I looked around. Some lists are very active.
>> Some have not seen activity for a year or more. Some seem to never
>> have been active. And some are just full of spam :-(
>>
>> I can see three ways to decide what to do (but maybe someone has other
>> ideas?):
>>
>> 1) Recreate the structure of the OOo lists, making lists for all
>> language groups, whether or not they are active.
>>
>> 2) Define activity criteria for what we will create, such as number of
>> posts in last 12 months. Create lists of whatever was active (by an
>> agreed on definition).
>>
>> 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project
>> members on the Apache list asking for new list.
>>
>> I think I like approach #3 better. There are downsides to having more
>> lists than we need. It fragments the discussion. If we have 93
>> language projects with each one having dev/marketing/user, etc.,
>> lists, then we have 500 or so mailing lists, most of which see little
>> or no traffic. Do we really want to recreate that at Apache?
>>
>> Right now we have just a single discussion pubic list, ooo-dev. I can
>> easily imagine, that once we have some code checked in and start
>> actively working on making our first release, that the traffic in that
>> one list will be larger enough that we'll want to split into
>> specialized functional lists, maybe:
>>
>> ooo-general == general project discussion that crosses over functional
>> areas of project. Everything that doesn't fit elsewhere goes here.
>>
>> ooo-user == user discussion threads
>>
>> ooo-dev == programming, including QA, UI design, accessibility, etc.
>>
>> ooo-doc == help and documentation
>>
>> ooo-translate == translation
>>
>> I don't think we're there yet, but I can certainly see that happening
>> in the next few weeks/months.
>>
>> It is also possible that when we get very active, that the
>> conversation level on ooo-translate becomes so high that we need to
>> split some language discussions into their own list:
>>
>> ooo-translate-jp, ooo-translate-es, ooo-translate-pt, etc.
>>
>> I think we might want that to be driven by actual observed demand. We
>> can always create new lists when they are actually needed.
>>
>> But I think for now we want to keep the discussion together in larger
>> groups. For example, before we think of having a detailed group on
>> Japanese translation, we should probably have higher level discussions
>> in common, like:
>>
>> 1) Do we want Apache to host a Pootle server? If so, we need to put
>> together that request and make it happen.
>>
>> 2) Did the Oracle SGA include all of the language translation sources?
>> If not, we need to identify what is missing.
>>
>> Another thing to consider is this. We've all heard the complaints
>> about Sun/Oracle and how they managed the OOo project. Maybe the core
>> development project was not as open as it could have been to outside
>> contributions. Maybe the project leadership was centralized with
>> their employees. Maybe the power was not shared broadly. These are
>> all valid criticisms of *that* project. The natural tendency of this
>> was to create satellite power centers in the language projects,
>> because that was the primary place where you were permitted a sphere
>> of influence and control.
>>
>> I don't think the new Apache project needs to be, or should be, the
>> same way. There is no central corporate control. Volunteers from all
>> former OOo language projects are welcome, and are even encouraged, to
>> participate directly in all functions of the project. I'd like OOo to
>> be a strong *global* open source project.
>>
>> I guess I'm saying this: Let's not automatically create the same
>> project structures as OOo had. Those were partially created to work
>> within a corporate-led open source project that distributed power in a
>> very different way. Some of the hierarchical structures of that
>> project were made to deal with that power arrangement and the friction
>> is produced. Apache is different.
>>
>> Of course, language differences and the need to encourage
>> participation by all is critical as well. We may all speak C++ very
>> well, but not all speak English well. But I wonder if things like
>> Google translate are now good enough that we could manage, with a
>> little patience and understanding, to have multilingual conversations
>> on a single list, at least until the traffic is so high that we need
>> to split the lists?
>>
>
> Wow I am getting a very bleak view of all this, maybe I have just watched
> too many world wide II movies recently. But this seems a lot like the
> hanging of the Japanese military generals after the war. Or to quote one of
> the classics:
>
> "Do they speak English in What?" -- Pulp fiction
>
I hope you don't get that impression. Language is one cross-cutting
concern. Another is operating system. I could argue that Windows
programmers don't want to look at all the Linux-specific discussions
on the list. And the 32-bit Windows programmings could say that they
don't want to deal with the 64-bit Windows threads. But I think we
would agree that having a list called ooo-dev-windows-64bit-es would
be fragmenting things too far.
The question in my mind is not whether we will need more lists, but
when and which ones.
I think it is absolutely imperative that the programmers be aware of
the work going in on the code on *all* platforms, regardless of what
platform the programmer is working on personally. It is one project,
one repository. We can't segregate it.
On the localization side, I also think it is necessary for all
programmers to be aware of all the issues, since they are the ones
writing and maintaining the code. Maybe they won't be experts, but
they need to know the basics and be aware of the issues. So an issue
in Japan localization may also be an issue in China and Korea. We
need to have a core discussion on localization and translation that
everyone participates in. Remember also that the issues that come up
for us, may be also issues in the ODF standard, and that needs to be
escalated, in English, to OASIS and ISO. And new localization
capabilities get added to the standard, in English, and this needs to
be discussed in the project, together.
I understand that when it comes to the translation of individual UI
strings, that the discussion then becomes very narrow and specialized
and that this will not be of interest to everyone. But that is no
different than a discussion that is only relevant to 64bit Windows.
> I don't think we should hold a gun to people's head to join a ML that they
> might not be interested on the first place. Even if it's just to request a
> new one.
>
Would you agree that we need at least a single list, like ooo-general,
that everyone on the project subscribes to? I think that is hard to
avoid and still call us one project.
> So I am gonna partially play devils advocate and partially push some things
> I have considered a good choice here.
>
> play 1: "Another thing to consider is this. We've all heard the complaints
> about Sun/Oracle and how they managed the OOo project. Maybe the core
> development project was not as open as it could have been to outside
> contributions. Maybe the project leadership was centralized with
> their employees. Maybe the power was not shared broadly. These are
> all valid criticisms of *that* project. The natural tendency of this
> was to create satellite power centers in the language projects,
> because that was the primary place where you were permitted a sphere
> of influence and control."
>
> The funny things about complains is that the minute you stop listening to
> them, is the minute you start listening to the opposite ones. So I'm foward
> on the idea that fragmentation of communication is bad. At the same time,
> ignoring the size and the diverse of the project is also bad.
>
Agreed. Those are the forces we need to understand: diversity and
fragmentation.
> play 2: "I guess I'm saying this: Let's not automatically create the same
> project structures as OOo had. Those were partially created to work
> within a corporate-led open source project that distributed power in a
> very different way." ---
>
> Aren't you using your corporate power exactly to do this in an opposite way?
> The structure of OOo had issues, but changing for changing sake also seems a
> bit of an overkill. Like I said, we needed a change of the way we did
> things, but flipping it completely oppoiste is not an answer. I acknowledge
> thtat positons in OOo were too bureacratic. But at the same time, it gave me
> a good framwork to se who to address if there was a need to do anything. And
> believe me, throwing a question on a general ML was not a good way to
> identify people responsible in certain part of the site, code, etc.
>
I don't think I'm using any corporate power.
I agree that "change for change's sake" is not a good idea. But I
hope you'll agree that preserving the past forms, just because they
are familiar, is not necessary the best choice either, especially if
we're now in a different environment.
I think we need to think about what did OOo do before because it had
no other choice? Versus what it did because that is, in the
collective experience of the community, the best way of collaborating?
> As a general reference, when Google got usenet, he got it all, along with
> Viagra commercials, and questionable material. I think we should first focus
> on the migration in its entirety.
>
> The idea of let's start from scratch and grow organically does sound cute,
> but I think it will do more damage than good in the close future.
>
I think it is worth a discussion, to see what the consensus is.
-Rob
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Rob,
>> >
>> > Please take a look at the Native Language Confederation Projects of
>> > OpenOffice.org page.
>> > http://projects.openoffice.org/native-lang.html
>> >
>> > Every language project has mailing lists.
>> > You can check which list is active or not.
>> >
>> > 1 - Afar - http://openoffice.org/projects/aa/lists
>> > 2 - Albanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sq/lists
>> > 3 - Afrikaans - http://openoffice.org/projects/af/lists
>> > 4 - Amharic - http://openoffice.org/projects/am/lists
>> > 5 - Arabic - http://openoffice.org/projects/ar/lists
>> > 6 - Armenian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hy/lists
>> > 7 - Asturian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ast/lists
>> > 8 - Azeri - http://openoffice.org/projects/az/lists
>> > 9 - Balochi - http://openoffice.org/projects/bal/lists
>> > 10 - Basque - http://openoffice.org/projects/eu/lists
>> > 11 - Bengali - http://openoffice.org/projects/bn/lists
>> > 12 - Bosnian - http://openoffice.org/projects/bs/lists
>> > 13 - Breton - http://openoffice.org/projects/bre/lists
>> > 14 - Bulgarian - http://openoffice.org/projects/bg/lists
>> > 15 - Burmese - http://openoffice.org/projects/my/lists
>> > 16 - Catalan - http://openoffice.org/projects/ca/lists
>> > 17 - ChiNyanja - http://openoffice.org/projects/ny/lists
>> > 18 - Chinese - http://openoffice.org/projects/zh/lists
>> > 19 - Czech - http://openoffice.org/projects/cs/lists
>> > 20 - Croatian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hr/lists
>> > 21 - Danish - http://openoffice.org/projects/da/lists
>> > 22 - Dutch - http://openoffice.org/projects/nl/lists
>> > 23 - Dzongkha - http://openoffice.org/projects/dz/lists
>> > 24 - Esperanto - http://openoffice.org/projects/eo/lists
>> > 25 - Estonian - http://openoffice.org/projects/et/lists
>> > 26 - Finnish - http://openoffice.org/projects/fi/lists
>> > 27 - French - http://openoffice.org/projects/fr/lists
>> > 28 - Friulian - http://openoffice.org/projects/fur/lists
>> > 29 - Galician - http://openoffice.org/projects/gl/lists
>> > 30 - Gaelic Irish - http://openoffice.org/projects/ga/lists
>> > 31 - Gaelic Scottish - http://openoffice.org/projects/gd/lists
>> > 32 - Georgian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ka/lists
>> > 33 - German - http://openoffice.org/projects/de/lists
>> > 34 - Greek - http://openoffice.org/projects/el/lists
>> > 35 - Gujarati - http://openoffice.org/projects/gu/lists
>> > 36 - Haitian Creole - http://openoffice.org/projects/ht/lists
>> > 37 - Hebrew - http://openoffice.org/projects/he/lists
>> > 38 - Hindi - http://openoffice.org/projects/hi/lists
>> > 39 - Hungarian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hu/lists
>> > 40 - Icelandic - http://openoffice.org/projects/is/lists
>> > 41 - Indonesian - http://openoffice.org/projects/id/lists
>> > 42 - Irish Gaelic - http://openoffice.org/projects/ga/lists
>> > 43 - Italiano - http://openoffice.org/projects/it/lists
>> > 44 - Japanese - http://openoffice.org/projects/ja/lists
>> > 45 - Khmer - http://openoffice.org/projects/km/lists
>> > 46 - Korean - http://openoffice.org/projects/ko/lists
>> > 47 - Kurdish - http://openoffice.org/projects/ku/lists
>> > 48 - Lao - http://openoffice.org/projects/lo/lists
>> > 49 - Latvian - http://openoffice.org/projects/lv/lists
>> > 50 - Lithuanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/lt/lists
>> > 51 - Macedonian - http://openoffice.org/projects/mk/lists
>> > 52 - Malayalam - http://openoffice.org/projects/ml/lists
>> > 53 - Marathi - http://openoffice.org/projects/mr/lists
>> > 54 - Malagasy - http://openoffice.org/projects/mg/lists
>> > 55 - Malaysian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ms/lists
>> > 56 - Miskito - http://openoffice.org/projects/miq/lists
>> > 57 - Mongolian - http://openoffice.org/projects/mn/lists
>> > 58 - Nepali - http://openoffice.org/projects/ne/lists
>> > 59 - Norwegian - http://openoffice.org/projects/no/lists
>> > 60 - Oromoo - http://openoffice.org/projects/om/lists
>> > 61 - Papmiento - http://openoffice.org/projects/pa/lists
>> > 62 - Pashto - http://openoffice.org/projects/ps/lists
>> > 63 - Persian - http://openoffice.org/projects/fa/lists
>> > 64 - Polish - http://openoffice.org/projects/pl/lists
>> > 65 - Portuguese - http://openoffice.org/projects/pt/lists
>> > 66 - Portuguese of Brasil - http://openoffice.org/projects/br-pt/lists
>> > 67 - Punjabi - http://openoffice.org/projects/pa/lists
>> > 68 - Romanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ro/lists
>> > 69 - Russian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ru/lists
>> > 70 - Sängö - http://openoffice.org/projects/sg/lists
>> > 71 - Serbian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sr/lists
>> > 72 - Shuswa - http://openoffice.org/projects/shs/lists
>> > 73 - Sidama - http://openoffice.org/projects/dm/lists
>> > 74 - Sinhala - http://openoffice.org/projects/si/lists
>> > 75 - Slovenian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sl/lists
>> > 76 - Slovakian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sk/lists
>> > 77 - Somali - http://openoffice.org/projects/so/lists
>> > 78 - Spanish - http://openoffice.org/projects/es/lists
>> > 79 - Swedish - http://openoffice.org/projects/sv/lists
>> > 80 - Tajik - http://openoffice.org/projects/tg/lists
>> > 81 - Tamil - http://openoffice.org/projects/ta/lists
>> > 82 - Tatar - http://openoffice.org/projects/tt-crh/lists
>> > 83 - Telugu - http://openoffice.org/projects/te/lists
>> > 84 - Tetum - http://openoffice.org/projects/tet/lists
>> > 85 - Thai - http://openoffice.org/projects/th/lists
>> > 86 - Tibetan - http://openoffice.org/projects/bo/lists
>> > 87 - Tigrinya - http://openoffice.org/projects//lists
>> > 88 - Turkish - http://openoffice.org/projects/tr/lists
>> > 89 - Ukrainian - http://openoffice.org/projects/uk/lists
>> > 90 - Urdu - http://openoffice.org/projects/urd/lists
>> > 91 - Uzbek - http://openoffice.org/projects/uz/lists
>> > 92 - Vietnamese - http://openoffice.org/projects/vi/lists
>> > 93 - Welsh - http://openoffice.org/projects/cy/lists
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > khirano
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Alexandro Colorado*
> *OpenOffice.org* Español
> http://es.openoffice.org
>
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the list. I looked around. Some lists are very active.
> Some have not seen activity for a year or more. Some seem to never
> have been active. And some are just full of spam :-(
>
> I can see three ways to decide what to do (but maybe someone has other
> ideas?):
>
> 1) Recreate the structure of the OOo lists, making lists for all
> language groups, whether or not they are active.
>
> 2) Define activity criteria for what we will create, such as number of
> posts in last 12 months. Create lists of whatever was active (by an
> agreed on definition).
>
> 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project
> members on the Apache list asking for new list.
>
> I think I like approach #3 better. There are downsides to having more
> lists than we need. It fragments the discussion. If we have 93
> language projects with each one having dev/marketing/user, etc.,
> lists, then we have 500 or so mailing lists, most of which see little
> or no traffic. Do we really want to recreate that at Apache?
>
> Right now we have just a single discussion pubic list, ooo-dev. I can
> easily imagine, that once we have some code checked in and start
> actively working on making our first release, that the traffic in that
> one list will be larger enough that we'll want to split into
> specialized functional lists, maybe:
>
> ooo-general == general project discussion that crosses over functional
> areas of project. Everything that doesn't fit elsewhere goes here.
>
> ooo-user == user discussion threads
>
> ooo-dev == programming, including QA, UI design, accessibility, etc.
>
> ooo-doc == help and documentation
>
> ooo-translate == translation
>
> I don't think we're there yet, but I can certainly see that happening
> in the next few weeks/months.
>
> It is also possible that when we get very active, that the
> conversation level on ooo-translate becomes so high that we need to
> split some language discussions into their own list:
>
> ooo-translate-jp, ooo-translate-es, ooo-translate-pt, etc.
>
> I think we might want that to be driven by actual observed demand. We
> can always create new lists when they are actually needed.
>
> But I think for now we want to keep the discussion together in larger
> groups. For example, before we think of having a detailed group on
> Japanese translation, we should probably have higher level discussions
> in common, like:
>
> 1) Do we want Apache to host a Pootle server? If so, we need to put
> together that request and make it happen.
>
> 2) Did the Oracle SGA include all of the language translation sources?
> If not, we need to identify what is missing.
>
> Another thing to consider is this. We've all heard the complaints
> about Sun/Oracle and how they managed the OOo project. Maybe the core
> development project was not as open as it could have been to outside
> contributions. Maybe the project leadership was centralized with
> their employees. Maybe the power was not shared broadly. These are
> all valid criticisms of *that* project. The natural tendency of this
> was to create satellite power centers in the language projects,
> because that was the primary place where you were permitted a sphere
> of influence and control.
>
> I don't think the new Apache project needs to be, or should be, the
> same way. There is no central corporate control. Volunteers from all
> former OOo language projects are welcome, and are even encouraged, to
> participate directly in all functions of the project. I'd like OOo to
> be a strong *global* open source project.
>
> I guess I'm saying this: Let's not automatically create the same
> project structures as OOo had. Those were partially created to work
> within a corporate-led open source project that distributed power in a
> very different way. Some of the hierarchical structures of that
> project were made to deal with that power arrangement and the friction
> is produced. Apache is different.
>
> Of course, language differences and the need to encourage
> participation by all is critical as well. We may all speak C++ very
> well, but not all speak English well. But I wonder if things like
> Google translate are now good enough that we could manage, with a
> little patience and understanding, to have multilingual conversations
> on a single list, at least until the traffic is so high that we need
> to split the lists?
>
Wow I am getting a very bleak view of all this, maybe I have just watched
too many world wide II movies recently. But this seems a lot like the
hanging of the Japanese military generals after the war. Or to quote one of
the classics:
"Do they speak English in What?" -- Pulp fiction
I don't think we should hold a gun to people's head to join a ML that they
might not be interested on the first place. Even if it's just to request a
new one.
So I am gonna partially play devils advocate and partially push some things
I have considered a good choice here.
play 1: "Another thing to consider is this. We've all heard the complaints
about Sun/Oracle and how they managed the OOo project. Maybe the core
development project was not as open as it could have been to outside
contributions. Maybe the project leadership was centralized with
their employees. Maybe the power was not shared broadly. These are
all valid criticisms of *that* project. The natural tendency of this
was to create satellite power centers in the language projects,
because that was the primary place where you were permitted a sphere
of influence and control."
The funny things about complains is that the minute you stop listening to
them, is the minute you start listening to the opposite ones. So I'm foward
on the idea that fragmentation of communication is bad. At the same time,
ignoring the size and the diverse of the project is also bad.
play 2: "I guess I'm saying this: Let's not automatically create the same
project structures as OOo had. Those were partially created to work
within a corporate-led open source project that distributed power in a
very different way." ---
Aren't you using your corporate power exactly to do this in an opposite way?
The structure of OOo had issues, but changing for changing sake also seems a
bit of an overkill. Like I said, we needed a change of the way we did
things, but flipping it completely oppoiste is not an answer. I acknowledge
thtat positons in OOo were too bureacratic. But at the same time, it gave me
a good framwork to se who to address if there was a need to do anything. And
believe me, throwing a question on a general ML was not a good way to
identify people responsible in certain part of the site, code, etc.
As a general reference, when Google got usenet, he got it all, along with
Viagra commercials, and questionable material. I think we should first focus
on the migration in its entirety.
The idea of let's start from scratch and grow organically does sound cute,
but I think it will do more damage than good in the close future.
>
> -Rob
>
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > Please take a look at the Native Language Confederation Projects of
> > OpenOffice.org page.
> > http://projects.openoffice.org/native-lang.html
> >
> > Every language project has mailing lists.
> > You can check which list is active or not.
> >
> > 1 - Afar - http://openoffice.org/projects/aa/lists
> > 2 - Albanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sq/lists
> > 3 - Afrikaans - http://openoffice.org/projects/af/lists
> > 4 - Amharic - http://openoffice.org/projects/am/lists
> > 5 - Arabic - http://openoffice.org/projects/ar/lists
> > 6 - Armenian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hy/lists
> > 7 - Asturian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ast/lists
> > 8 - Azeri - http://openoffice.org/projects/az/lists
> > 9 - Balochi - http://openoffice.org/projects/bal/lists
> > 10 - Basque - http://openoffice.org/projects/eu/lists
> > 11 - Bengali - http://openoffice.org/projects/bn/lists
> > 12 - Bosnian - http://openoffice.org/projects/bs/lists
> > 13 - Breton - http://openoffice.org/projects/bre/lists
> > 14 - Bulgarian - http://openoffice.org/projects/bg/lists
> > 15 - Burmese - http://openoffice.org/projects/my/lists
> > 16 - Catalan - http://openoffice.org/projects/ca/lists
> > 17 - ChiNyanja - http://openoffice.org/projects/ny/lists
> > 18 - Chinese - http://openoffice.org/projects/zh/lists
> > 19 - Czech - http://openoffice.org/projects/cs/lists
> > 20 - Croatian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hr/lists
> > 21 - Danish - http://openoffice.org/projects/da/lists
> > 22 - Dutch - http://openoffice.org/projects/nl/lists
> > 23 - Dzongkha - http://openoffice.org/projects/dz/lists
> > 24 - Esperanto - http://openoffice.org/projects/eo/lists
> > 25 - Estonian - http://openoffice.org/projects/et/lists
> > 26 - Finnish - http://openoffice.org/projects/fi/lists
> > 27 - French - http://openoffice.org/projects/fr/lists
> > 28 - Friulian - http://openoffice.org/projects/fur/lists
> > 29 - Galician - http://openoffice.org/projects/gl/lists
> > 30 - Gaelic Irish - http://openoffice.org/projects/ga/lists
> > 31 - Gaelic Scottish - http://openoffice.org/projects/gd/lists
> > 32 - Georgian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ka/lists
> > 33 - German - http://openoffice.org/projects/de/lists
> > 34 - Greek - http://openoffice.org/projects/el/lists
> > 35 - Gujarati - http://openoffice.org/projects/gu/lists
> > 36 - Haitian Creole - http://openoffice.org/projects/ht/lists
> > 37 - Hebrew - http://openoffice.org/projects/he/lists
> > 38 - Hindi - http://openoffice.org/projects/hi/lists
> > 39 - Hungarian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hu/lists
> > 40 - Icelandic - http://openoffice.org/projects/is/lists
> > 41 - Indonesian - http://openoffice.org/projects/id/lists
> > 42 - Irish Gaelic - http://openoffice.org/projects/ga/lists
> > 43 - Italiano - http://openoffice.org/projects/it/lists
> > 44 - Japanese - http://openoffice.org/projects/ja/lists
> > 45 - Khmer - http://openoffice.org/projects/km/lists
> > 46 - Korean - http://openoffice.org/projects/ko/lists
> > 47 - Kurdish - http://openoffice.org/projects/ku/lists
> > 48 - Lao - http://openoffice.org/projects/lo/lists
> > 49 - Latvian - http://openoffice.org/projects/lv/lists
> > 50 - Lithuanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/lt/lists
> > 51 - Macedonian - http://openoffice.org/projects/mk/lists
> > 52 - Malayalam - http://openoffice.org/projects/ml/lists
> > 53 - Marathi - http://openoffice.org/projects/mr/lists
> > 54 - Malagasy - http://openoffice.org/projects/mg/lists
> > 55 - Malaysian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ms/lists
> > 56 - Miskito - http://openoffice.org/projects/miq/lists
> > 57 - Mongolian - http://openoffice.org/projects/mn/lists
> > 58 - Nepali - http://openoffice.org/projects/ne/lists
> > 59 - Norwegian - http://openoffice.org/projects/no/lists
> > 60 - Oromoo - http://openoffice.org/projects/om/lists
> > 61 - Papmiento - http://openoffice.org/projects/pa/lists
> > 62 - Pashto - http://openoffice.org/projects/ps/lists
> > 63 - Persian - http://openoffice.org/projects/fa/lists
> > 64 - Polish - http://openoffice.org/projects/pl/lists
> > 65 - Portuguese - http://openoffice.org/projects/pt/lists
> > 66 - Portuguese of Brasil - http://openoffice.org/projects/br-pt/lists
> > 67 - Punjabi - http://openoffice.org/projects/pa/lists
> > 68 - Romanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ro/lists
> > 69 - Russian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ru/lists
> > 70 - Sängö - http://openoffice.org/projects/sg/lists
> > 71 - Serbian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sr/lists
> > 72 - Shuswa - http://openoffice.org/projects/shs/lists
> > 73 - Sidama - http://openoffice.org/projects/dm/lists
> > 74 - Sinhala - http://openoffice.org/projects/si/lists
> > 75 - Slovenian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sl/lists
> > 76 - Slovakian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sk/lists
> > 77 - Somali - http://openoffice.org/projects/so/lists
> > 78 - Spanish - http://openoffice.org/projects/es/lists
> > 79 - Swedish - http://openoffice.org/projects/sv/lists
> > 80 - Tajik - http://openoffice.org/projects/tg/lists
> > 81 - Tamil - http://openoffice.org/projects/ta/lists
> > 82 - Tatar - http://openoffice.org/projects/tt-crh/lists
> > 83 - Telugu - http://openoffice.org/projects/te/lists
> > 84 - Tetum - http://openoffice.org/projects/tet/lists
> > 85 - Thai - http://openoffice.org/projects/th/lists
> > 86 - Tibetan - http://openoffice.org/projects/bo/lists
> > 87 - Tigrinya - http://openoffice.org/projects//lists
> > 88 - Turkish - http://openoffice.org/projects/tr/lists
> > 89 - Ukrainian - http://openoffice.org/projects/uk/lists
> > 90 - Urdu - http://openoffice.org/projects/urd/lists
> > 91 - Uzbek - http://openoffice.org/projects/uz/lists
> > 92 - Vietnamese - http://openoffice.org/projects/vi/lists
> > 93 - Welsh - http://openoffice.org/projects/cy/lists
> >
> > Thanks,
> > khirano
> >
>
--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Dick Groskamp <th...@quicknet.nl>wrote:
> Op 25-6-2011 17:23, Rob Weir schreef:
>
>> Thanks for the list. I looked around. Some lists are very active.
>> Some have not seen activity for a year or more. Some seem to never
>> have been active. And some are just full of spam :-(
>>
>> I can see three ways to decide what to do (but maybe someone has other
>> ideas?):
>>
>> 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project
>> members on the Apache list asking for new list.
>>
> +1
>
>> Right now we have just a single discussion pubic list, ooo-dev. I can
>> easily imagine, that once we have some code checked in and start
>> actively working on making our first release, that the traffic in that
>> one list will be larger enough that we'll want to split into
>> specialized functional lists, maybe:
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>> I don't think we're there yet, but I can certainly see that happening
>> in the next few weeks/months.
>>
> I can surely agree with that
>
> 1) Do we want Apache to host a Pootle server? If so, we need to put
>> together that request and make it happen.
>>
> O yes please...... (but I was the main cinbtributor for that on the "old"
> project for the Dutch language.)
>
> But there was another reason. SUN/Oracle made the builds with about 8
> langiages EMBEDDED in them.
> Yes, indeed one of them was Dutch. :-)
>
> Furthermore the proces was more and more set to be automated. Source
> strings were fed to POOTLE.
> The translators for each language could then do their job in POOTLE and
> engineers from SUN/Oracle
> pulled, when they could use them in htier proces, the strings from POOTLE
> and proces them towards the build.
> Last minute translations could mostly be delivered on time for the final
> pull for releases
>
> Since localization seemed to be always at the end of the proces translators
> had to work under duress.
> This way the pressure was less at the end of the proces since strings were
> already for the biggest part already
> translated.
>
At the same time, there was efforts to do the continuos l10n which was meant
to have localization at any time of the process.
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ContinuousL10n
server for the continuos l10n will give out reports on false strings.
ftp://qa-upload.services.openoffice.org/l10n/download/
There was also special KeID builds to do QA on the locale which ease the
context of the locale:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/KeyID_Build
> If not using POOTLE you will have to think of a way to collect the
> tranlations to put them into the build.
> Will APACHE build the same EMBEDDED builds as SUN/Oracle did or willl there
> only be languagepacks.
> If the latter who will make them ?
>
>> 2) Did the Oracle SGA include all of the language translation sources?
>> If not, we need to identify what is missing
>> [snip]
>> Apache is different.
>>
> No problem with that at all. Most of us just want to produce a nice working
> officesuite
>
>
> --
> DiGro
>
> Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3
> Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
>
>
--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Dick Groskamp <th...@quicknet.nl>.
Op 25-6-2011 17:23, Rob Weir schreef:
> Thanks for the list. I looked around. Some lists are very active.
> Some have not seen activity for a year or more. Some seem to never
> have been active. And some are just full of spam :-(
>
> I can see three ways to decide what to do (but maybe someone has other ideas?):
>
> 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project
> members on the Apache list asking for new list.
+1
> Right now we have just a single discussion pubic list, ooo-dev. I can
> easily imagine, that once we have some code checked in and start
> actively working on making our first release, that the traffic in that
> one list will be larger enough that we'll want to split into
> specialized functional lists, maybe:
> [snip]
>
> I don't think we're there yet, but I can certainly see that happening
> in the next few weeks/months.
I can surely agree with that
> 1) Do we want Apache to host a Pootle server? If so, we need to put
> together that request and make it happen.
O yes please...... (but I was the main cinbtributor for that on the
"old" project for the Dutch language.)
But there was another reason. SUN/Oracle made the builds with about 8
langiages EMBEDDED in them.
Yes, indeed one of them was Dutch. :-)
Furthermore the proces was more and more set to be automated. Source
strings were fed to POOTLE.
The translators for each language could then do their job in POOTLE and
engineers from SUN/Oracle
pulled, when they could use them in htier proces, the strings from
POOTLE and proces them towards the build.
Last minute translations could mostly be delivered on time for the final
pull for releases
Since localization seemed to be always at the end of the proces
translators had to work under duress.
This way the pressure was less at the end of the proces since strings
were already for the biggest part already
translated.
If not using POOTLE you will have to think of a way to collect the
tranlations to put them into the build.
Will APACHE build the same EMBEDDED builds as SUN/Oracle did or willl
there only be languagepacks.
If the latter who will make them ?
> 2) Did the Oracle SGA include all of the language translation sources?
> If not, we need to identify what is missing
> [snip]
> Apache is different.
No problem with that at all. Most of us just want to produce a nice
working officesuite
--
DiGro
Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3
Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
Thanks for the list. I looked around. Some lists are very active.
Some have not seen activity for a year or more. Some seem to never
have been active. And some are just full of spam :-(
I can see three ways to decide what to do (but maybe someone has other ideas?):
1) Recreate the structure of the OOo lists, making lists for all
language groups, whether or not they are active.
2) Define activity criteria for what we will create, such as number of
posts in last 12 months. Create lists of whatever was active (by an
agreed on definition).
3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project
members on the Apache list asking for new list.
I think I like approach #3 better. There are downsides to having more
lists than we need. It fragments the discussion. If we have 93
language projects with each one having dev/marketing/user, etc.,
lists, then we have 500 or so mailing lists, most of which see little
or no traffic. Do we really want to recreate that at Apache?
Right now we have just a single discussion pubic list, ooo-dev. I can
easily imagine, that once we have some code checked in and start
actively working on making our first release, that the traffic in that
one list will be larger enough that we'll want to split into
specialized functional lists, maybe:
ooo-general == general project discussion that crosses over functional
areas of project. Everything that doesn't fit elsewhere goes here.
ooo-user == user discussion threads
ooo-dev == programming, including QA, UI design, accessibility, etc.
ooo-doc == help and documentation
ooo-translate == translation
I don't think we're there yet, but I can certainly see that happening
in the next few weeks/months.
It is also possible that when we get very active, that the
conversation level on ooo-translate becomes so high that we need to
split some language discussions into their own list:
ooo-translate-jp, ooo-translate-es, ooo-translate-pt, etc.
I think we might want that to be driven by actual observed demand. We
can always create new lists when they are actually needed.
But I think for now we want to keep the discussion together in larger
groups. For example, before we think of having a detailed group on
Japanese translation, we should probably have higher level discussions
in common, like:
1) Do we want Apache to host a Pootle server? If so, we need to put
together that request and make it happen.
2) Did the Oracle SGA include all of the language translation sources?
If not, we need to identify what is missing.
Another thing to consider is this. We've all heard the complaints
about Sun/Oracle and how they managed the OOo project. Maybe the core
development project was not as open as it could have been to outside
contributions. Maybe the project leadership was centralized with
their employees. Maybe the power was not shared broadly. These are
all valid criticisms of *that* project. The natural tendency of this
was to create satellite power centers in the language projects,
because that was the primary place where you were permitted a sphere
of influence and control.
I don't think the new Apache project needs to be, or should be, the
same way. There is no central corporate control. Volunteers from all
former OOo language projects are welcome, and are even encouraged, to
participate directly in all functions of the project. I'd like OOo to
be a strong *global* open source project.
I guess I'm saying this: Let's not automatically create the same
project structures as OOo had. Those were partially created to work
within a corporate-led open source project that distributed power in a
very different way. Some of the hierarchical structures of that
project were made to deal with that power arrangement and the friction
is produced. Apache is different.
Of course, language differences and the need to encourage
participation by all is critical as well. We may all speak C++ very
well, but not all speak English well. But I wonder if things like
Google translate are now good enough that we could manage, with a
little patience and understanding, to have multilingual conversations
on a single list, at least until the traffic is so high that we need
to split the lists?
-Rob
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Please take a look at the Native Language Confederation Projects of
> OpenOffice.org page.
> http://projects.openoffice.org/native-lang.html
>
> Every language project has mailing lists.
> You can check which list is active or not.
>
> 1 - Afar - http://openoffice.org/projects/aa/lists
> 2 - Albanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sq/lists
> 3 - Afrikaans - http://openoffice.org/projects/af/lists
> 4 - Amharic - http://openoffice.org/projects/am/lists
> 5 - Arabic - http://openoffice.org/projects/ar/lists
> 6 - Armenian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hy/lists
> 7 - Asturian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ast/lists
> 8 - Azeri - http://openoffice.org/projects/az/lists
> 9 - Balochi - http://openoffice.org/projects/bal/lists
> 10 - Basque - http://openoffice.org/projects/eu/lists
> 11 - Bengali - http://openoffice.org/projects/bn/lists
> 12 - Bosnian - http://openoffice.org/projects/bs/lists
> 13 - Breton - http://openoffice.org/projects/bre/lists
> 14 - Bulgarian - http://openoffice.org/projects/bg/lists
> 15 - Burmese - http://openoffice.org/projects/my/lists
> 16 - Catalan - http://openoffice.org/projects/ca/lists
> 17 - ChiNyanja - http://openoffice.org/projects/ny/lists
> 18 - Chinese - http://openoffice.org/projects/zh/lists
> 19 - Czech - http://openoffice.org/projects/cs/lists
> 20 - Croatian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hr/lists
> 21 - Danish - http://openoffice.org/projects/da/lists
> 22 - Dutch - http://openoffice.org/projects/nl/lists
> 23 - Dzongkha - http://openoffice.org/projects/dz/lists
> 24 - Esperanto - http://openoffice.org/projects/eo/lists
> 25 - Estonian - http://openoffice.org/projects/et/lists
> 26 - Finnish - http://openoffice.org/projects/fi/lists
> 27 - French - http://openoffice.org/projects/fr/lists
> 28 - Friulian - http://openoffice.org/projects/fur/lists
> 29 - Galician - http://openoffice.org/projects/gl/lists
> 30 - Gaelic Irish - http://openoffice.org/projects/ga/lists
> 31 - Gaelic Scottish - http://openoffice.org/projects/gd/lists
> 32 - Georgian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ka/lists
> 33 - German - http://openoffice.org/projects/de/lists
> 34 - Greek - http://openoffice.org/projects/el/lists
> 35 - Gujarati - http://openoffice.org/projects/gu/lists
> 36 - Haitian Creole - http://openoffice.org/projects/ht/lists
> 37 - Hebrew - http://openoffice.org/projects/he/lists
> 38 - Hindi - http://openoffice.org/projects/hi/lists
> 39 - Hungarian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hu/lists
> 40 - Icelandic - http://openoffice.org/projects/is/lists
> 41 - Indonesian - http://openoffice.org/projects/id/lists
> 42 - Irish Gaelic - http://openoffice.org/projects/ga/lists
> 43 - Italiano - http://openoffice.org/projects/it/lists
> 44 - Japanese - http://openoffice.org/projects/ja/lists
> 45 - Khmer - http://openoffice.org/projects/km/lists
> 46 - Korean - http://openoffice.org/projects/ko/lists
> 47 - Kurdish - http://openoffice.org/projects/ku/lists
> 48 - Lao - http://openoffice.org/projects/lo/lists
> 49 - Latvian - http://openoffice.org/projects/lv/lists
> 50 - Lithuanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/lt/lists
> 51 - Macedonian - http://openoffice.org/projects/mk/lists
> 52 - Malayalam - http://openoffice.org/projects/ml/lists
> 53 - Marathi - http://openoffice.org/projects/mr/lists
> 54 - Malagasy - http://openoffice.org/projects/mg/lists
> 55 - Malaysian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ms/lists
> 56 - Miskito - http://openoffice.org/projects/miq/lists
> 57 - Mongolian - http://openoffice.org/projects/mn/lists
> 58 - Nepali - http://openoffice.org/projects/ne/lists
> 59 - Norwegian - http://openoffice.org/projects/no/lists
> 60 - Oromoo - http://openoffice.org/projects/om/lists
> 61 - Papmiento - http://openoffice.org/projects/pa/lists
> 62 - Pashto - http://openoffice.org/projects/ps/lists
> 63 - Persian - http://openoffice.org/projects/fa/lists
> 64 - Polish - http://openoffice.org/projects/pl/lists
> 65 - Portuguese - http://openoffice.org/projects/pt/lists
> 66 - Portuguese of Brasil - http://openoffice.org/projects/br-pt/lists
> 67 - Punjabi - http://openoffice.org/projects/pa/lists
> 68 - Romanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ro/lists
> 69 - Russian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ru/lists
> 70 - Sängö - http://openoffice.org/projects/sg/lists
> 71 - Serbian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sr/lists
> 72 - Shuswa - http://openoffice.org/projects/shs/lists
> 73 - Sidama - http://openoffice.org/projects/dm/lists
> 74 - Sinhala - http://openoffice.org/projects/si/lists
> 75 - Slovenian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sl/lists
> 76 - Slovakian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sk/lists
> 77 - Somali - http://openoffice.org/projects/so/lists
> 78 - Spanish - http://openoffice.org/projects/es/lists
> 79 - Swedish - http://openoffice.org/projects/sv/lists
> 80 - Tajik - http://openoffice.org/projects/tg/lists
> 81 - Tamil - http://openoffice.org/projects/ta/lists
> 82 - Tatar - http://openoffice.org/projects/tt-crh/lists
> 83 - Telugu - http://openoffice.org/projects/te/lists
> 84 - Tetum - http://openoffice.org/projects/tet/lists
> 85 - Thai - http://openoffice.org/projects/th/lists
> 86 - Tibetan - http://openoffice.org/projects/bo/lists
> 87 - Tigrinya - http://openoffice.org/projects//lists
> 88 - Turkish - http://openoffice.org/projects/tr/lists
> 89 - Ukrainian - http://openoffice.org/projects/uk/lists
> 90 - Urdu - http://openoffice.org/projects/urd/lists
> 91 - Uzbek - http://openoffice.org/projects/uz/lists
> 92 - Vietnamese - http://openoffice.org/projects/vi/lists
> 93 - Welsh - http://openoffice.org/projects/cy/lists
>
> Thanks,
> khirano
>
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Rob,
Please take a look at the Native Language Confederation Projects of
OpenOffice.org page.
http://projects.openoffice.org/native-lang.html
Every language project has mailing lists.
You can check which list is active or not.
1 - Afar - http://openoffice.org/projects/aa/lists
2 - Albanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sq/lists
3 - Afrikaans - http://openoffice.org/projects/af/lists
4 - Amharic - http://openoffice.org/projects/am/lists
5 - Arabic - http://openoffice.org/projects/ar/lists
6 - Armenian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hy/lists
7 - Asturian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ast/lists
8 - Azeri - http://openoffice.org/projects/az/lists
9 - Balochi - http://openoffice.org/projects/bal/lists
10 - Basque - http://openoffice.org/projects/eu/lists
11 - Bengali - http://openoffice.org/projects/bn/lists
12 - Bosnian - http://openoffice.org/projects/bs/lists
13 - Breton - http://openoffice.org/projects/bre/lists
14 - Bulgarian - http://openoffice.org/projects/bg/lists
15 - Burmese - http://openoffice.org/projects/my/lists
16 - Catalan - http://openoffice.org/projects/ca/lists
17 - ChiNyanja - http://openoffice.org/projects/ny/lists
18 - Chinese - http://openoffice.org/projects/zh/lists
19 - Czech - http://openoffice.org/projects/cs/lists
20 - Croatian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hr/lists
21 - Danish - http://openoffice.org/projects/da/lists
22 - Dutch - http://openoffice.org/projects/nl/lists
23 - Dzongkha - http://openoffice.org/projects/dz/lists
24 - Esperanto - http://openoffice.org/projects/eo/lists
25 - Estonian - http://openoffice.org/projects/et/lists
26 - Finnish - http://openoffice.org/projects/fi/lists
27 - French - http://openoffice.org/projects/fr/lists
28 - Friulian - http://openoffice.org/projects/fur/lists
29 - Galician - http://openoffice.org/projects/gl/lists
30 - Gaelic Irish - http://openoffice.org/projects/ga/lists
31 - Gaelic Scottish - http://openoffice.org/projects/gd/lists
32 - Georgian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ka/lists
33 - German - http://openoffice.org/projects/de/lists
34 - Greek - http://openoffice.org/projects/el/lists
35 - Gujarati - http://openoffice.org/projects/gu/lists
36 - Haitian Creole - http://openoffice.org/projects/ht/lists
37 - Hebrew - http://openoffice.org/projects/he/lists
38 - Hindi - http://openoffice.org/projects/hi/lists
39 - Hungarian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hu/lists
40 - Icelandic - http://openoffice.org/projects/is/lists
41 - Indonesian - http://openoffice.org/projects/id/lists
42 - Irish Gaelic - http://openoffice.org/projects/ga/lists
43 - Italiano - http://openoffice.org/projects/it/lists
44 - Japanese - http://openoffice.org/projects/ja/lists
45 - Khmer - http://openoffice.org/projects/km/lists
46 - Korean - http://openoffice.org/projects/ko/lists
47 - Kurdish - http://openoffice.org/projects/ku/lists
48 - Lao - http://openoffice.org/projects/lo/lists
49 - Latvian - http://openoffice.org/projects/lv/lists
50 - Lithuanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/lt/lists
51 - Macedonian - http://openoffice.org/projects/mk/lists
52 - Malayalam - http://openoffice.org/projects/ml/lists
53 - Marathi - http://openoffice.org/projects/mr/lists
54 - Malagasy - http://openoffice.org/projects/mg/lists
55 - Malaysian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ms/lists
56 - Miskito - http://openoffice.org/projects/miq/lists
57 - Mongolian - http://openoffice.org/projects/mn/lists
58 - Nepali - http://openoffice.org/projects/ne/lists
59 - Norwegian - http://openoffice.org/projects/no/lists
60 - Oromoo - http://openoffice.org/projects/om/lists
61 - Papmiento - http://openoffice.org/projects/pa/lists
62 - Pashto - http://openoffice.org/projects/ps/lists
63 - Persian - http://openoffice.org/projects/fa/lists
64 - Polish - http://openoffice.org/projects/pl/lists
65 - Portuguese - http://openoffice.org/projects/pt/lists
66 - Portuguese of Brasil - http://openoffice.org/projects/br-pt/lists
67 - Punjabi - http://openoffice.org/projects/pa/lists
68 - Romanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ro/lists
69 - Russian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ru/lists
70 - Sängö - http://openoffice.org/projects/sg/lists
71 - Serbian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sr/lists
72 - Shuswa - http://openoffice.org/projects/shs/lists
73 - Sidama - http://openoffice.org/projects/dm/lists
74 - Sinhala - http://openoffice.org/projects/si/lists
75 - Slovenian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sl/lists
76 - Slovakian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sk/lists
77 - Somali - http://openoffice.org/projects/so/lists
78 - Spanish - http://openoffice.org/projects/es/lists
79 - Swedish - http://openoffice.org/projects/sv/lists
80 - Tajik - http://openoffice.org/projects/tg/lists
81 - Tamil - http://openoffice.org/projects/ta/lists
82 - Tatar - http://openoffice.org/projects/tt-crh/lists
83 - Telugu - http://openoffice.org/projects/te/lists
84 - Tetum - http://openoffice.org/projects/tet/lists
85 - Thai - http://openoffice.org/projects/th/lists
86 - Tibetan - http://openoffice.org/projects/bo/lists
87 - Tigrinya - http://openoffice.org/projects//lists
88 - Turkish - http://openoffice.org/projects/tr/lists
89 - Ukrainian - http://openoffice.org/projects/uk/lists
90 - Urdu - http://openoffice.org/projects/urd/lists
91 - Uzbek - http://openoffice.org/projects/uz/lists
92 - Vietnamese - http://openoffice.org/projects/vi/lists
93 - Welsh - http://openoffice.org/projects/cy/lists
Thanks,
khirano
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Dick Groskamp <th...@quicknet.nl>.
Op 25-6-2011 15:05, Andrea Pescetti schreef:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>> Do we know how many language-specific user lists we have at OOo today?
>> Not forums, but user mailing lists.
> I don't know the total figures, but the Italian N-L project has 10, 5 of
> which active:
Dutch NL-project just cleaned up the number of mailinglists
It is now four;
announce@nl.openoffice.org
gebruikers@nl.openoffice.org (=users)
discussie@nl.openoffice.org
dev@nl.openoffice.org
traffic is low lately
--
DiGro
Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3
Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> Do we know how many language-specific user lists we have at OOo today?
> Not forums, but user mailing lists.
I don't know the total figures, but the Italian N-L project has 10, 5 of
which active:
- utenti (generic users list, about 500 subscribers)
- discussioni (for discussions not related to user support)
- qa (to coordinate QA activities)
- localizzazione (to coordinate localization activities)
- dev (user support for macros/extensions; not core development)
Other major N-L projects (around 10-20) probably have a similar
structure. The remaining N-L projects probably only have one user list.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
Do we know how many language-specific user lists we have at OOo today?
Not forums, but user mailing lists.
-Rob
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Yes, IMHO we must have user mailing lists for their native languages.
> Otherwise we cannot bring them onboard.
>
> But only when it's requested. We can start with the normal one in English
> and see which other languages are requested again and again.
>
> If the user forums can be migrated then we have some language from the
> beginning.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> Am 06/25/2011 06:37 AM, schrieb Kazunari Hirano:
>>
>> Hi Dennis and all,
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree about both.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> And they should be multilingual.
>>
>> With regard to forums, they are OK so far, I think.
>> http://user.services.openoffice.org/
>> 1.EN OpenOffice.org Community Forum, 2.ES OpenOffice.org Foro de la
>> comunidad, 3.FR Forum francophone OpenOffice.org, HU OpenOffice.org
>> Közösségi fórum, 4.IT Forum della comunità OpenOffice.org, 5.JA
>> OpenOffice.org コミュニティーフォーラム, 6.NL Nederlandstalige Gemeenschap, 7.PL
>> Forum społeczności OpenOffice.org, 8.VI Diễn đàn viOOo, 9.ZH
>> OpenOffice.org 中文社区论坛.
>> Nine languages look good. I hope these forums be migrated on to
>> Apache infrastructure safe :)
>>
>> With regard to mailing lists, can we set up a user list if there is a
>> request from a certain language user?
>> If there are requests, can we set up, for example, nine user lists
>> such as 1.ooo-en-users@incubator.apache.org,
>> 2.ooo-es-users@incubator.apache.org,
>> 3.ooo-fr-users@incubator.apache.org,
>> 4.ooo-hu-users@incubator.apache.org,
>> 5,ooo-it-users@incubator.apache.org,
>> 6.ooo-ja-users@incubator.apache.org,
>> 7.ooo-pl-users@incubator.apache.org,
>> 8.ooo-vi-users@incubator.apache.org,
>> 9.ooo-zh-users@incubator.apache.org?
>> Make sure we set them up on request.
>
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Yes, IMHO we must have user mailing lists for their native languages.
Otherwise we cannot bring them onboard.
But only when it's requested. We can start with the normal one in
English and see which other languages are requested again and again.
If the user forums can be migrated then we have some language from the
beginning.
Marcus
Am 06/25/2011 06:37 AM, schrieb Kazunari Hirano:
> Hi Dennis and all,
>
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> I agree about both.
> +1
>
> And they should be multilingual.
>
> With regard to forums, they are OK so far, I think.
> http://user.services.openoffice.org/
> 1.EN OpenOffice.org Community Forum, 2.ES OpenOffice.org Foro de la
> comunidad, 3.FR Forum francophone OpenOffice.org, HU OpenOffice.org
> Közösségi fórum, 4.IT Forum della comunità OpenOffice.org, 5.JA
> OpenOffice.org コミュニティーフォーラム, 6.NL Nederlandstalige Gemeenschap, 7.PL
> Forum społeczności OpenOffice.org, 8.VI Diễn đàn viOOo, 9.ZH
> OpenOffice.org 中文社区论坛.
> Nine languages look good. I hope these forums be migrated on to
> Apache infrastructure safe :)
>
> With regard to mailing lists, can we set up a user list if there is a
> request from a certain language user?
> If there are requests, can we set up, for example, nine user lists
> such as 1.ooo-en-users@incubator.apache.org,
> 2.ooo-es-users@incubator.apache.org,
> 3.ooo-fr-users@incubator.apache.org,
> 4.ooo-hu-users@incubator.apache.org,
> 5,ooo-it-users@incubator.apache.org,
> 6.ooo-ja-users@incubator.apache.org,
> 7.ooo-pl-users@incubator.apache.org,
> 8.ooo-vi-users@incubator.apache.org,
> 9.ooo-zh-users@incubator.apache.org?
> Make sure we set them up on request.
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dennis and all,
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I agree about both.
+1
And they should be multilingual.
With regard to forums, they are OK so far, I think.
http://user.services.openoffice.org/
1.EN OpenOffice.org Community Forum, 2.ES OpenOffice.org Foro de la
comunidad, 3.FR Forum francophone OpenOffice.org, HU OpenOffice.org
Közösségi fórum, 4.IT Forum della comunità OpenOffice.org, 5.JA
OpenOffice.org コミュニティーフォーラム, 6.NL Nederlandstalige Gemeenschap, 7.PL
Forum społeczności OpenOffice.org, 8.VI Diễn đàn viOOo, 9.ZH
OpenOffice.org 中文社区论坛.
Nine languages look good. I hope these forums be migrated on to
Apache infrastructure safe :)
With regard to mailing lists, can we set up a user list if there is a
request from a certain language user?
If there are requests, can we set up, for example, nine user lists
such as 1.ooo-en-users@incubator.apache.org,
2.ooo-es-users@incubator.apache.org,
3.ooo-fr-users@incubator.apache.org,
4.ooo-hu-users@incubator.apache.org,
5,ooo-it-users@incubator.apache.org,
6.ooo-ja-users@incubator.apache.org,
7.ooo-pl-users@incubator.apache.org,
8.ooo-vi-users@incubator.apache.org,
9.ooo-zh-users@incubator.apache.org?
Make sure we set them up on request.
Thanks,
khirano
RE: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I agree about both.
With regard to mailing lists, I am very fond of mailing lists that provide a bottom notice that (1) instructs people in a near-trivial means to unsubscribe and (2) provides a link to the public archive. It removes a lot of mystery, especially because I prune mail folders and often need to go back.
- Dennis
PS: A bonus that I have not seen is a list server that also includes links to the archives for each post included in a digest or in the bottom-notice of individual list forwardings.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Brown [mailto:andy@the-martin-byrd.net]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 14:58
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Rob Weir wrote:
> Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of
> technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being
> used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways
> of doing the same things?
>
> -Rob
>
There is a big difference from the users stand point. If you want to
see how "hot" this topic can get go to [1] and search for forum . As
an individual I prefer mailing list but I understand why some prefer
forums. For those that do not have high speed connections forums are a
bandwidth hog. The disadvantage to a mailing list is most of the time
you have to be subscribed or you may miss replies to your question and
makes it hard to follow up as needed.
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/
For my part we need and can support both.
Andy
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
My experience is that the user has to a) subscribe to this mailing list
and b) he doesn't know how to search for other things like in a FAQ.
Of course, you think it's easy to subscribe and I can search in a mail
archive. But for the *average* user these are unfamiliar things and IMHO
they don't want to go this "complicated" way.
That's a reason why the forums are so successful.
So, +1 for keeping both.
Marcus
Am 06/24/2011 11:57 PM, schrieb Andy Brown:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of
>> technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being
>> used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways
>> of doing the same things?
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
> There is a big difference from the users stand point. If you want to
> see how "hot" this topic can get go to [1] and search for forum . As
> an individual I prefer mailing list but I understand why some prefer
> forums. For those that do not have high speed connections forums are a
> bandwidth hog. The disadvantage to a mailing list is most of the time
> you have to be subscribed or you may miss replies to your question and
> makes it hard to follow up as needed.
>
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/
>
> For my part we need and can support both.
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
>>
>> There is a big difference from the users stand point. If you want to
>> see how "hot" this topic can get go to [1] and search for forum . As
>> an individual I prefer mailing list but I understand why some prefer
>> forums. For those that do not have high speed connections forums are a
>> bandwidth hog. The disadvantage to a mailing list is most of the time
>> you have to be subscribed or you may miss replies to your question and
>> makes it hard to follow up as needed.
>>
>> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/
>>
>> For my part we need and can support both.
>>
>
> But do we need a separate thing for both of them? Or would a single
> 'place' that supported both forms of access be better? For example, a
> forum that allowed mail subscription globally, or per thread? Or a
> mailing list with an RSS feed? There are advantages to having a singe
> store of information.
I agree that having a single point to store questions and answers would
be ideal. I do not know enough about the technology to use or suggest
RSS or how they could be combined. From my point of view the technology
used is to different.
> So are they just used for the same things, but accessed differently?
> Or have they diverged to separate, perhaps partially overlapping but
> still sufficiently distinct different user communities who have
> different styles, different tones, different focuses, etc.?
Being on both the mailing list and forum, you see some of the same
questions and cross references one to the other. The do serve the same
purpose but accessed differently. But it is that access that is
important to the end user.
Andy
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of
>> technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being
>> used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways
>> of doing the same things?
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
> There is a big difference from the users stand point. If you want to
> see how "hot" this topic can get go to [1] and search for forum . As
> an individual I prefer mailing list but I understand why some prefer
> forums. For those that do not have high speed connections forums are a
> bandwidth hog. The disadvantage to a mailing list is most of the time
> you have to be subscribed or you may miss replies to your question and
> makes it hard to follow up as needed.
>
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/
>
> For my part we need and can support both.
>
But do we need a separate thing for both of them? Or would a single
'place' that supported both forms of access be better? For example, a
forum that allowed mail subscription globally, or per thread? Or a
mailing list with an RSS feed? There are advantages to having a singe
store of information.
So are they just used for the same things, but accessed differently?
Or have they diverged to separate, perhaps partially overlapping but
still sufficiently distinct different user communities who have
different styles, different tones, different focuses, etc.?
-Rob
RE: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
PPS: It is also useful to have a hyperlink to the archive if you want to forward the link to someone's attention rather than include the full text. I also figure if I include a link to the full post in a reply, I can avoid repeating parts of the post I am not responding to and also escape the wrath of bottom-posting-vigilantes and the in-line-posting-hideen.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 15:38
To: 'ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org'
Subject: RE: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
I agree about both.
With regard to mailing lists, I am very fond of mailing lists that provide a bottom notice that (1) instructs people in a near-trivial means to unsubscribe and (2) provides a link to the public archive. It removes a lot of mystery, especially because I prune mail folders and often need to go back.
- Dennis
PS: A bonus that I have not seen is a list server that also includes links to the archives for each post included in a digest or in the bottom-notice of individual list forwardings.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Brown [mailto:andy@the-martin-byrd.net]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 14:58
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Rob Weir wrote:
> Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of
> technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being
> used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways
> of doing the same things?
>
> -Rob
>
There is a big difference from the users stand point. If you want to
see how "hot" this topic can get go to [1] and search for forum . As
an individual I prefer mailing list but I understand why some prefer
forums. For those that do not have high speed connections forums are a
bandwidth hog. The disadvantage to a mailing list is most of the time
you have to be subscribed or you may miss replies to your question and
makes it hard to follow up as needed.
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/
For my part we need and can support both.
Andy
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of
> technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being
> used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways
> of doing the same things?
>
> -Rob
>
There is a big difference from the users stand point. If you want to
see how "hot" this topic can get go to [1] and search for forum . As
an individual I prefer mailing list but I understand why some prefer
forums. For those that do not have high speed connections forums are a
bandwidth hog. The disadvantage to a mailing list is most of the time
you have to be subscribed or you may miss replies to your question and
makes it hard to follow up as needed.
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/
For my part we need and can support both.
Andy
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Reizinger Zoltán <zr...@hdsnet.hu>wrote:
> 2011.06.24. 23:44 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta:
>
> Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of
>> technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being
>> used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways
>> of doing the same things?
>>
>
> The user downloaded OOo from OOo site can be aware of OOo mailing lists if
> met some problems - users with some knowledge.
> If user get OOo without his knowledge, some admin installed on computer,
> this happens in small companies or public administration,
> This user - average Joe, has knowledge in other software, when met specific
> problems, in most cases use some search engine to find answer, then the
> forum could came first.
> The second type of user prefer forums, and the first type possibly mailing
> lists.
>
> My practice on user forums and Base user and developer mailing list have
> differences, in the forums core developers never posts, questions answered
> by volunteers or other users.
> (It takes time to crawl through all posts, the developers time worth more
> than spend reading questions, easily answerable ones.)
> In users mailing lists, half answers came from core developers, if they
> think, the problem is real. "Easily answerable questions" answered by
> volunteers.
> In developer mailing list users mostly ISVs or power users use, when met
> specific problems, in specific database drivers, or with programming OOo,
> and answered usually by developers.
>
> Zoltan
>
>
+1 this explains better the situation. ML where never popular on the
mainstream and very rare to find a traditional user ackowledge or be
attracted to ML.
--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Dick Groskamp <th...@quicknet.nl>.
Op 25-6-2011 9:49, Reizinger Zoltán schreef:
> 2011.06.24. 23:44 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta:
>> Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of
>> technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being
>> used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways
>> of doing the same things?
>
> The user downloaded OOo from OOo site can be aware of OOo mailing
> lists if met some problems - users with some knowledge.
> If user get OOo without his knowledge, some admin installed on
> computer, this happens in small companies or public administration,
> This user - average Joe, has knowledge in other software, when met
> specific problems, in most cases use some search engine to find
> answer, then the forum could came first.
> The second type of user prefer forums, and the first type possibly
> mailing lists.
>
> My practice on user forums and Base user and developer mailing list
> have differences, in the forums core developers never posts, questions
> answered by volunteers or other users.
> (It takes time to crawl through all posts, the developers time worth
> more than spend reading questions, easily answerable ones.)
> In users mailing lists, half answers came from core developers, if
> they think, the problem is real. "Easily answerable questions"
> answered by volunteers.
> In developer mailing list users mostly ISVs or power users use, when
> met specific problems, in specific database drivers, or with
> programming OOo, and answered usually by developers.
>
> Zoltan
>
>
I agree with Zoltan. This is my experience too
I think a forum is better for the end-users.
Particpants (like me who are merely contributing solely translations)
might find use for a mailinglist
to discuss about how to spell / wording / upcoming work to translate
(for instance the online Help) in the native language
--
DiGro
Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3
Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Reizinger Zoltán <zr...@hdsnet.hu>.
2011.06.24. 23:44 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta:
> Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of
> technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being
> used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways
> of doing the same things?
The user downloaded OOo from OOo site can be aware of OOo mailing lists
if met some problems - users with some knowledge.
If user get OOo without his knowledge, some admin installed on computer,
this happens in small companies or public administration,
This user - average Joe, has knowledge in other software, when met
specific problems, in most cases use some search engine to find answer,
then the forum could came first.
The second type of user prefer forums, and the first type possibly
mailing lists.
My practice on user forums and Base user and developer mailing list have
differences, in the forums core developers never posts, questions
answered by volunteers or other users.
(It takes time to crawl through all posts, the developers time worth
more than spend reading questions, easily answerable ones.)
In users mailing lists, half answers came from core developers, if they
think, the problem is real. "Easily answerable questions" answered by
volunteers.
In developer mailing list users mostly ISVs or power users use, when met
specific problems, in specific database drivers, or with programming
OOo, and answered usually by developers.
Zoltan
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> > I think this is extremely important and I'm embarrassed that I missed it.
> >
> > I'm also thinking that we need an ooo-user list pretty soon.
> >
>
> In the incubation proposal we said that we would not be requesting a
> ooo-user list, but would instead be going for phpBB user forums. But
> that was then, now is now.
>
> OOo has a user list and a user forum, which you can find here:
>
> http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/ (That is just the
> English language one. There are others )
>
> and here:
>
> http://openoffice.org/projects/www/lists/users/archive
>
> It looks like the forums get the far greater level of activity. But
> it would be good to quantify that. In any case, I think the activity
> level is high enough (forums claim 97 users online at the forums at
> this instant, and 42 active threads today alone) that I think it
> would be inappropriate for users who want to post a questions and
> check back the next day for an answer.
>
> But lists might be good for other kinds of things.
>
> Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of
> technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being
> used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways
> of doing the same things?
>
> -Rob
>
People use the forum and lists sometimes for different things. New users
don't really know any difference so they might submit a bug report on the
list or forum even if neither of them is for that.
However in my experience users have different prefferences of communication
and alternative communities form regarding each channel. ie. ML users don't
participate much in the forum and viceversa.
I see more a cultural difference than a real difference. Certainly both
present technological advantages, I can use my email search which is faster
to find things than the forum search. But I get swamp by conversations in
which I am not interested. Which many new users specially are turned off.
--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I think this is extremely important and I'm embarrassed that I missed it.
>
> I'm also thinking that we need an ooo-user list pretty soon.
>
In the incubation proposal we said that we would not be requesting a
ooo-user list, but would instead be going for phpBB user forums. But
that was then, now is now.
OOo has a user list and a user forum, which you can find here:
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/ (That is just the
English language one. There are others )
and here:
http://openoffice.org/projects/www/lists/users/archive
It looks like the forums get the far greater level of activity. But
it would be good to quantify that. In any case, I think the activity
level is high enough (forums claim 97 users online at the forums at
this instant, and 42 active threads today alone) that I think it
would be inappropriate for users who want to post a questions and
check back the next day for an answer.
But lists might be good for other kinds of things.
Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of
technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being
used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways
of doing the same things?
-Rob