You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> on 2011/11/17 02:23:12 UTC
Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
This topic sounds important, so I'm moving it to its own thread.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Martin Hollmichel
<ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> removal of the Oracle branding is the easy part. As said before, having a
> joint messaging with ASF about this release and the future releases is some
> work to do. Adopting references from old OpenOffice.org instances (forums,
> mailing lists, issue tracking) to the new ones in the ReadMe File is another
> issue we are still working on.
>
It is hard to think about a joint message when we know almost nothing
about what you are doing. What we're doing here at Apache is clear --
you see our mailing lists, wiki, SVN repository, etc. It is all very
open and transparent.
Do you have a mailing list or something that we can subscribe to?
Could you say a little about what your short term and longer term
goals are?
-Rob
> The coding work we've done in the 3.3.1 is about some security and bugfixing
> issues,
>
> Martin
>
RE: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Posted by Allen Pulsifer <ap...@apache.org>.
I personally can see the value of OOo 3.3.1 as a bug fix release. Maybe it
has some other value, too.
Let's assume it could get the permission of the ASF to be distributed as a
legacy OOo release. What is the specific value proposition for the release?
Bug fixes only or the addition of features that are not in v3.3? Would the
release include everything in v3.4 beta or only parts? What additional work
is needed? Who would do that work and who would do the testing? Is there a
proposed release plan and schedule? Can a detailed OOo 3.3 --> 3.3.1 change
list be generated along with proposed release notes?
Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Gianluca Turconi
<pu...@letturefantastiche.com> wrote:
> In data 17 novembre 2011 alle ore 16:41:42, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> ha
> scritto:
>
>> I think we'll have an Apache 3.4 release early in 2012, maybe January
>> or February.
>
> Is this a broad roadmap or just a thought?
>
The sentence started with "I think", so it is my opinion, based on
what I've seen and heard and discussions on and off list.
-Rob
> Regards,
>
> Gianluca
> --
> Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy,
> horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:
> http://www.letturefantastiche.com/
>
Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Posted by Gianluca Turconi <pu...@letturefantastiche.com>.
In data 17 novembre 2011 alle ore 16:41:42, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
ha scritto:
> I think we'll have an Apache 3.4 release early in 2012, maybe January
> or February.
Is this a broad roadmap or just a thought?
Regards,
Gianluca
--
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy,
horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/
Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Stefan Taxhet <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 17.11.2011 02:23, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>> This topic sounds important, so I'm moving it to its own thread.
>
> OK, let's talk about a maintenance release first; but at some point we could
> broaden the scope to releases of Apache OpenOffice too.
>
We have an entire list to discuss AOO ;-) So the broader discussion
is occurring here every day,
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Martin Hollmichel
>> <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> removal of the Oracle branding is the easy part. As said before, having a
>>> joint messaging with ASF about this release and the future releases is
>>> some
>>> work to do. Adopting references from old OpenOffice.org instances
>>> (forums,
>>> mailing lists, issue tracking) to the new ones in the ReadMe File is
>>> another
>>> issue we are still working on.
>>>
>>
>> It is hard to think about a joint message when we know almost nothing
>> about what you are doing. What we're doing here at Apache is clear --
>> you see our mailing lists, wiki, SVN repository, etc. It is all very
>> open and transparent.
>>
>> Do you have a mailing list or something that we can subscribe to?
>> Could you say a little about what your short term and longer term
>> goals are?
>
> Martin and others mentioned that there is a need to show a sign of life to
> OpenOffice.org users.
Do you see this as a communications problem or a technical problem?
What is a "sign of life"? Microsoft Office has a new release only
every 3 years, with a service pack every year. But no one seems to
have a problem with that,
> For us short term goals are to (re)gain confidence in OpenOffice.org
> and support for the existing user base. We think this requires a release
> rather soon; and we don't see a conflict but a complement with work going on
> in the project here.
>
I think we'll have an Apache 3.4 release early in 2012, maybe January
or February. That would be approximately a year since 3.3, right?
That is the same pace the industry is familiar with from MS Office
release schedule.
I understand that some individual users like to see shiny new features
on a more regular basis. But maybe the best way to do that is to show
them more new extensions, additional templates, etc. Show them new
stuff that does not require frequent updates to the core.
I know that enterprises do not like frequent updates. Updates are
expensive to deploy. They would rather have carefully tested, high
quality releases.
But it is fair to say that there are some users who would agree with
you, that they want to see more frequent updates. Making those users
happy, while also making enterprise users happy, is the challenge.
> Long term we want to further sustainable development work. This will result
> in a reliable product that is improved and delivered at regular intervals.
> We see such a product as the basis for ongoing business.
>
I don't think anyone would disagree with those sentiments.
If you are able to form a business model around supporting, enhancing
or customizing AOO, then that is great. I want you to succeed with
that. That is good for you and your colleagues, and also helps drive
further interest and investment into the ecosystem. If IBM can
customize the software and distribute Symphony, then so can you, or
anyone else.
However, we're taking the OpenOffice.org trademark issue very
seriously. Using the trademark without permission is a problem, and
we need to resolve that before we can have much more constructive
conversations.
I can think of two easy ways to resolve this:
1) Don't use the name OpenOffice.org, OpenOffice, or any other name
that will be confused for OpenOffice.org, for your release, or in
fundraising materials.
or
2) Ask Apache for permission to use the trademark in conjunction with
your release. Personally, I'd support a limited request, with some
reasonable conditions. But it needs to start with a request. If you
prefer the request to be private, you could send the request to
ooo-private@incubator.apache.org.
That is the short term issue. I think it will be easier to discuss
the long term ideas after that is resolved.
> We are comfortable about continuing the talk here on this list. I
> would appreciate if we come to a picture that satisfies users, the project
> and the participants.
>
Thanks,
-Rob
> Greetings
> Stefan
>
>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>> The coding work we've done in the 3.3.1 is about some security and
>>> bugfixing
>>> issues,
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>
>
Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Posted by Stefan Taxhet <st...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Am 17.11.2011 15:34, schrieb Donald Harbison:
> We encourage you to present a more complete proposal for discussion. This
> is a start.
Just a quick note that a proposal has been submitted using
the form at
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
to ooo-private...
Greetings
Stefan
Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I think something important is being overlooked in the position about release
> using the OpenOffice.org name.
>
> There is clear interest in having a maintenance release. It might not even be
> technically difficult. Wanting to also fold it into the OpenOffice.org
> release lineage is the problem.
>
> An OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 maintenance release is *not* going to be an Apache
> release, and not using any Apache code or licenses, I surmise. It will be on
> the OpenOffice.org 3.3 code base that is available under LGPL. So it is a
> derivative work, but not of Apache-licensed code.
>
> In some sense, that is even more reason, under normal conditions, to deny
> identification of that maintenance result with the OpenOffice.org name.
>
We currently allow downloads of the legacy LGPL code under the name
OpenOffice.org. These are not Apache releases, but their use of that
name, and the links to these downloads from the OpenOffice.org website
are done by our permission. If we did not want any non-Apache, LGPL
code downloaded from our domain, under the name OpenOffice.org, then
we could disable that immediately.
Of course, no one is proposing that we do disable the downloads of the
legacy versions of OOo.
>From allowing that, to allowing a maintenance release of 3.3 to be put
under the same name and same mirrors with the same license as the
others, this does not seem like a huge stretch.
-Rob
> The tension is that it is closer to an OpenOffice.org 3.3 maintenance release
> than anything that will ever appear as Apache OpenOffice version-whatever.
> And more timely. The question is under what conditions can this be allowed to
> be identified as part of an OpenOffice.org 3.3.x progression?
>
> - Dennis
>
> MUSINGS
>
> It seems to me that it is more straightforward to consider that the
> OpenOffice.org line has ended. The only thing possible, now, are derivatives
> of the LGPL OpenOffice.org code base (such as LibreOffice is already), other
> existing peers of OpenOffice.org, and the reset that Apache OpenOffice
> represents (and its eventual derivatives too).
>
> In that regard, it would be more appropriate for the proposed 3.3.1
> maintenance release to be identified as a derivative (e.g., Team OpenOffice
> 3.3.1). It can make nominative use of OpenOffice.org in regard to it being a
> maintenance derivative of OpenOffice.org 3.3 and that aspect is settled.
> Other trademark issues can be resolved with Team OpenOffice and, meanwhile,
> the derivative can be a clean release with splash screens, About dialogs, and
> other insignia that do not employ Apache trademarks and symbols in any way
> beyond non-confusing nominative usage. There is now no confusion about the
> roots of the release and its independence from Apache.
>
> On the OpenOffice.org site, it should be possible to identify the existence of
> this derivative and link to a Team OpenOffice page that indicates its
> availability, solicits funds, or whatever, as a recognized peer. It is
> possible to link to LibreOffice in the same manner, and also other members of
> OpenOffice.org lineage and, other support for the ODF document format as well.
> The emergence of Apache OpenOffice and the steps toward incubator releases can
> also be featured, obviously.
>
> That, apart from complications concerning localizations and other downstream
> support of the 3.3.1 including user support and bug reporting against the
> release, would seem to be that. There is also the LGPL requirement that the
> source code of the release be available.
>
> I suspect that there is a desire for closer coupling than that. The problem,
> of course, is that the Podling can do nothing with the OpenOffice.org 3.3 LGPL
> code base. And my understanding is that binaries of such code shall not be
> distributed via Apache sites either. The Apache OpenOffice code base is not
> usable instead; it is not even being positioned for maintenance release of an
> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 equivalent. Probably the only case would be the unlikely
> possibility of Oracle undertaking such a release (meaning that updates would
> all be under Oracle SCA though).
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane Curcuru [mailto:asf@shanecurcuru.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 09:06
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
>
> On 2011-11-18 11:16 AM, Stefan Taxhet wrote:
>> Hi Don, all,
>>
>> Am 17.11.2011 15:34, schrieb Donald Harbison:
>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Stefan Taxhet<st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Am 17.11.2011 02:23, schrieb Rob Weir:
> ...snip...
>>>> What is your proposal for the name of your release? Please make a
>>>> proposal
>>> for what you wish to name your release.
>>
>> Rob described the two options very concise. The preference would be to
>> release "OpenOffice.org 3.3.1" with consent of the home of development
>> work for future releases.
> ...
> The Apache Open Office PPMC is the only organization that should be
> releasing a software product using just the name "OpenOffice.org".
> Apache trademark policy is clear that third parties are *not* allowed to
> use Apache brands in confusing or infringing manners on software products.
>
> We offer broad guidelines for using a "Powered By" style of naming for
> third party software products that are either built on top of, extend,
> or otherwise use Apache code but add your own code to your product:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products
>
> Note that we'd certainly consider permitting other phrases besides the
> "Powered By" phrase, like "Built Using", etc. (but not "Distribution" or
> "Release" or other similarly non-specific phrases). This allows third
> parties to create their own, independently branded products while still
> allowing third parties to show the obvious relationship to the
> underlying Apache product.
>
> -Shane
>
RE: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I think something important is being overlooked in the position about release
using the OpenOffice.org name.
There is clear interest in having a maintenance release. It might not even be
technically difficult. Wanting to also fold it into the OpenOffice.org
release lineage is the problem.
An OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 maintenance release is *not* going to be an Apache
release, and not using any Apache code or licenses, I surmise. It will be on
the OpenOffice.org 3.3 code base that is available under LGPL. So it is a
derivative work, but not of Apache-licensed code.
In some sense, that is even more reason, under normal conditions, to deny
identification of that maintenance result with the OpenOffice.org name.
The tension is that it is closer to an OpenOffice.org 3.3 maintenance release
than anything that will ever appear as Apache OpenOffice version-whatever.
And more timely. The question is under what conditions can this be allowed to
be identified as part of an OpenOffice.org 3.3.x progression?
- Dennis
MUSINGS
It seems to me that it is more straightforward to consider that the
OpenOffice.org line has ended. The only thing possible, now, are derivatives
of the LGPL OpenOffice.org code base (such as LibreOffice is already), other
existing peers of OpenOffice.org, and the reset that Apache OpenOffice
represents (and its eventual derivatives too).
In that regard, it would be more appropriate for the proposed 3.3.1
maintenance release to be identified as a derivative (e.g., Team OpenOffice
3.3.1). It can make nominative use of OpenOffice.org in regard to it being a
maintenance derivative of OpenOffice.org 3.3 and that aspect is settled.
Other trademark issues can be resolved with Team OpenOffice and, meanwhile,
the derivative can be a clean release with splash screens, About dialogs, and
other insignia that do not employ Apache trademarks and symbols in any way
beyond non-confusing nominative usage. There is now no confusion about the
roots of the release and its independence from Apache.
On the OpenOffice.org site, it should be possible to identify the existence of
this derivative and link to a Team OpenOffice page that indicates its
availability, solicits funds, or whatever, as a recognized peer. It is
possible to link to LibreOffice in the same manner, and also other members of
OpenOffice.org lineage and, other support for the ODF document format as well.
The emergence of Apache OpenOffice and the steps toward incubator releases can
also be featured, obviously.
That, apart from complications concerning localizations and other downstream
support of the 3.3.1 including user support and bug reporting against the
release, would seem to be that. There is also the LGPL requirement that the
source code of the release be available.
I suspect that there is a desire for closer coupling than that. The problem,
of course, is that the Podling can do nothing with the OpenOffice.org 3.3 LGPL
code base. And my understanding is that binaries of such code shall not be
distributed via Apache sites either. The Apache OpenOffice code base is not
usable instead; it is not even being positioned for maintenance release of an
OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 equivalent. Probably the only case would be the unlikely
possibility of Oracle undertaking such a release (meaning that updates would
all be under Oracle SCA though).
-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Curcuru [mailto:asf@shanecurcuru.org]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 09:06
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
On 2011-11-18 11:16 AM, Stefan Taxhet wrote:
> Hi Don, all,
>
> Am 17.11.2011 15:34, schrieb Donald Harbison:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Stefan Taxhet<st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Am 17.11.2011 02:23, schrieb Rob Weir:
...snip...
>>> What is your proposal for the name of your release? Please make a
>>> proposal
>> for what you wish to name your release.
>
> Rob described the two options very concise. The preference would be to
> release "OpenOffice.org 3.3.1" with consent of the home of development
> work for future releases.
...
The Apache Open Office PPMC is the only organization that should be
releasing a software product using just the name "OpenOffice.org".
Apache trademark policy is clear that third parties are *not* allowed to
use Apache brands in confusing or infringing manners on software products.
We offer broad guidelines for using a "Powered By" style of naming for
third party software products that are either built on top of, extend,
or otherwise use Apache code but add your own code to your product:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products
Note that we'd certainly consider permitting other phrases besides the
"Powered By" phrase, like "Built Using", etc. (but not "Distribution" or
"Release" or other similarly non-specific phrases). This allows third
parties to create their own, independently branded products while still
allowing third parties to show the obvious relationship to the
underlying Apache product.
-Shane
Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 2011-11-18 11:16 AM, Stefan Taxhet wrote:
> Hi Don, all,
>
> Am 17.11.2011 15:34, schrieb Donald Harbison:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Stefan Taxhet<st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Am 17.11.2011 02:23, schrieb Rob Weir:
...snip...
>>> What is your proposal for the name of your release? Please make a
>>> proposal
>> for what you wish to name your release.
>
> Rob described the two options very concise. The preference would be to
> release "OpenOffice.org 3.3.1" with consent of the home of development
> work for future releases.
...
The Apache Open Office PPMC is the only organization that should be
releasing a software product using just the name "OpenOffice.org".
Apache trademark policy is clear that third parties are *not* allowed to
use Apache brands in confusing or infringing manners on software products.
We offer broad guidelines for using a "Powered By" style of naming for
third party software products that are either built on top of, extend,
or otherwise use Apache code but add your own code to your product:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products
Note that we'd certainly consider permitting other phrases besides the
"Powered By" phrase, like "Built Using", etc. (but not "Distribution" or
"Release" or other similarly non-specific phrases). This allows third
parties to create their own, independently branded products while still
allowing third parties to show the obvious relationship to the
underlying Apache product.
-Shane
Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Posted by FR web forum <oo...@free.fr>.
Hello all,
----- Mail original -----
De: "Stefan Taxhet" <st...@gmail.com>
À: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Novembre 2011 17:16:21
Objet: Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
>Rob described the two options very concise. The preference would be to
>release "OpenOffice.org 3.3.1" with consent of the home of development
>work for future releases.
Is it possible to have a fixed buglist by this release?
Thanks
Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Posted by Stefan Taxhet <st...@gmail.com>.
Hi Don, all,
Am 17.11.2011 15:34, schrieb Donald Harbison:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Stefan Taxhet<st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 17.11.2011 02:23, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>> This topic sounds important, so I'm moving it to its own thread.
>>>
>> OK, let's talk about a maintenance release first; but at some point we
>> could broaden the scope to releases of Apache OpenOffice too.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Martin Hollmichel
>>> <ma...@googlemail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> removal of the Oracle branding is the easy part. As said before, having a
>>>> joint messaging with ASF about this release and the future releases is
>>>> some
>>>> work to do. Adopting references from old OpenOffice.org instances
>>>> (forums,
>>>> mailing lists, issue tracking) to the new ones in the ReadMe File is
>>>> another
>>>> issue we are still working on.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It is hard to think about a joint message when we know almost nothing
>>> about what you are doing. What we're doing here at Apache is clear --
>>> you see our mailing lists, wiki, SVN repository, etc. It is all very
>>> open and transparent.
>>>
>>> Do you have a mailing list or something that we can subscribe to?
>>> Could you say a little about what your short term and longer term
>>> goals are?
>>>
>>
>> Martin and others mentioned that there is a need to show a sign of life to
>> OpenOffice.org users.
>>
>
> Do you agree that Apache OpenOffice, the project and the future product is
> sufficient to 'show sign of life' to users? If not, why not?
I think the project Apache OpenOffice and a release filling the gap
between OOo 3.3.0 and future product releases are required.
The schedule people are used to listed 3.x releases (minor) every 6
month with micro/bugfix releases (3.x.y) after 3 month in between.
This means that we are more than overdue since the 3.3.0 release in
January 2011. So an interim release of improved bits and bytes together
with a description of the work towards "the future product" could
convince people much more than an optimistic perspective of future
achievements.
>> For us short term goals are to (re)gain confidence in OpenOffice.org
>> and support for the existing user base. We think this requires a release
>> rather soon; and we don't see a conflict but a complement with work going
>> on in the project here.
>>
>> What is your proposal for the name of your release? Please make a proposal
> for what you wish to name your release.
Rob described the two options very concise. The preference would be to
release "OpenOffice.org 3.3.1" with consent of the home of development
work for future releases.
>> Long term we want to further sustainable development work. This will
>> result in a reliable product that is improved and delivered at regular
>> intervals. We see such a product as the basis for ongoing business.
>>
>
> Does Team OpenOffice.org e.V. plan to do their 'sustainable work' within
> the Apache OpenOffice project? If so, Team OpenOffice.org will have the
> ability to build binary distributions for release under the AL2 license for
> ongoing business.
Yes, that's what one could envision. This discussion has been postponed
after the resolution of the current topic. And my understanding is that
this is not going to be happen this year.
> We encourage you to present a more complete proposal for discussion. This
> is a start.
I got this message from Rob's post (which I hope to address here too).
Please give some hints which questions should be covered by the proposal
and we'll prepare a request.
Greetings
Stefan
> Thanks.
>
>>
>> We are comfortable about continuing the talk here on this list. I
>> would appreciate if we come to a picture that satisfies users, the project
>> and the participants.
>>
>> Likewise, I personally welcome you and your TO e.V. colleagues to more
> actively join and participate in a positive and productive discussion on
> this list.
>
> Greetings
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>>
>> -Rob
>>>
>>>
>>> The coding work we've done in the 3.3.1 is about some security and
>>>> bugfixing
>>>> issues,
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Posted by Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Stefan Taxhet <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 17.11.2011 02:23, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
> This topic sounds important, so I'm moving it to its own thread.
>>
> OK, let's talk about a maintenance release first; but at some point we
> could broaden the scope to releases of Apache OpenOffice too.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Martin Hollmichel
>> <martin.hollmichel@googlemail.**com <ma...@googlemail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> removal of the Oracle branding is the easy part. As said before, having a
>>> joint messaging with ASF about this release and the future releases is
>>> some
>>> work to do. Adopting references from old OpenOffice.org instances
>>> (forums,
>>> mailing lists, issue tracking) to the new ones in the ReadMe File is
>>> another
>>> issue we are still working on.
>>>
>>>
>> It is hard to think about a joint message when we know almost nothing
>> about what you are doing. What we're doing here at Apache is clear --
>> you see our mailing lists, wiki, SVN repository, etc. It is all very
>> open and transparent.
>>
>> Do you have a mailing list or something that we can subscribe to?
>> Could you say a little about what your short term and longer term
>> goals are?
>>
>
> Martin and others mentioned that there is a need to show a sign of life to
> OpenOffice.org users.
>
Do you agree that Apache OpenOffice, the project and the future product is
sufficient to 'show sign of life' to users? If not, why not?
> For us short term goals are to (re)gain confidence in OpenOffice.org
> and support for the existing user base. We think this requires a release
> rather soon; and we don't see a conflict but a complement with work going
> on in the project here.
>
> What is your proposal for the name of your release? Please make a proposal
for what you wish to name your release.
> Long term we want to further sustainable development work. This will
> result in a reliable product that is improved and delivered at regular
> intervals. We see such a product as the basis for ongoing business.
>
Does Team OpenOffice.org e.V. plan to do their 'sustainable work' within
the Apache OpenOffice project? If so, Team OpenOffice.org will have the
ability to build binary distributions for release under the AL2 license for
ongoing business.
We encourage you to present a more complete proposal for discussion. This
is a start.
Thanks.
>
> We are comfortable about continuing the talk here on this list. I
> would appreciate if we come to a picture that satisfies users, the project
> and the participants.
>
> Likewise, I personally welcome you and your TO e.V. colleagues to more
actively join and participate in a positive and productive discussion on
this list.
Greetings
> Stefan
>
>
>
> -Rob
>>
>>
>> The coding work we've done in the 3.3.1 is about some security and
>>> bugfixing
>>> issues,
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Posted by Stefan Taxhet <st...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Am 17.11.2011 02:23, schrieb Rob Weir:
> This topic sounds important, so I'm moving it to its own thread.
OK, let's talk about a maintenance release first; but at some point we
could broaden the scope to releases of Apache OpenOffice too.
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Martin Hollmichel
> <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> removal of the Oracle branding is the easy part. As said before, having a
>> joint messaging with ASF about this release and the future releases is some
>> work to do. Adopting references from old OpenOffice.org instances (forums,
>> mailing lists, issue tracking) to the new ones in the ReadMe File is another
>> issue we are still working on.
>>
>
> It is hard to think about a joint message when we know almost nothing
> about what you are doing. What we're doing here at Apache is clear --
> you see our mailing lists, wiki, SVN repository, etc. It is all very
> open and transparent.
>
> Do you have a mailing list or something that we can subscribe to?
> Could you say a little about what your short term and longer term
> goals are?
Martin and others mentioned that there is a need to show a sign of life
to OpenOffice.org users.
For us short term goals are to (re)gain confidence in OpenOffice.org
and support for the existing user base. We think this requires a release
rather soon; and we don't see a conflict but a complement with work
going on in the project here.
Long term we want to further sustainable development work. This will
result in a reliable product that is improved and delivered at regular
intervals. We see such a product as the basis for ongoing business.
We are comfortable about continuing the talk here on this list. I
would appreciate if we come to a picture that satisfies users, the
project and the participants.
Greetings
Stefan
> -Rob
>
>
>> The coding work we've done in the 3.3.1 is about some security and bugfixing
>> issues,
>>
>> Martin
>>
Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 22, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> On 2011-11-22 4:06 PM, Louis R Suárez-Potts wrote:
> ...
>> Can I suggest an agenda for a meeting—teleconference, I suppose, or its newfangled equivalent—where we place those items that Martin (hi Martin) mentions as well as the concerns Rob expresses?
>
> We have a mailing list that is made for just this purpose, right here. Heck, we even have a mailing list that's privately archived, if people really feel the need to express private thoughts about possibly unannounced business plans over at ooo-private@.
>
> We don't need a group call. We need people to actually engage here on (one of) the Apache lists, to work on the actual Apache OpenOffice project.
+1.
Please engage on the lists.
Regards,
Dave
PS. Wondering where TOOo and Louis were Four Months ago!
>
> - Shane
Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 2011-11-22 4:06 PM, Louis R Suárez-Potts wrote:
...
> Can I suggest an agenda for a meeting—teleconference, I suppose, or its newfangled equivalent—where we place those items that Martin (hi Martin) mentions as well as the concerns Rob expresses?
We have a mailing list that is made for just this purpose, right here.
Heck, we even have a mailing list that's privately archived, if people
really feel the need to express private thoughts about possibly
unannounced business plans over at ooo-private@.
We don't need a group call. We need people to actually engage here on
(one of) the Apache lists, to work on the actual Apache OpenOffice project.
- Shane
Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Posted by Louis R Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On 2011-11-16, at 20:23 , Rob Weir wrote:
> This topic sounds important, so I'm moving it to its own thread.
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Martin Hollmichel
> <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> removal of the Oracle branding is the easy part. As said before, having a
>> joint messaging with ASF about this release and the future releases is some
>> work to do. Adopting references from old OpenOffice.org instances (forums,
>> mailing lists, issue tracking) to the new ones in the ReadMe File is another
>> issue we are still working on.
>>
>
> It is hard to think about a joint message when we know almost nothing
> about what you are doing. What we're doing here at Apache is clear --
> you see our mailing lists, wiki, SVN repository, etc. It is all very
> open and transparent.
>
> Do you have a mailing list or something that we can subscribe to?
> Could you say a little about what your short term and longer term
> goals are?
>
> -Rob
Can I suggest an agenda for a meeting—teleconference, I suppose, or its newfangled equivalent—where we place those items that Martin (hi Martin) mentions as well as the concerns Rob expresses?
That is:
* Role of Team OOo going forward and its relation to Apache OO
* Obligations in fulfilling this role
* Work to do to finalize the migration
And so on.
But a general caveat, worthy of a new subject line when it comes due:
Please, let's not repeat the mistakes of OOo's governance architecture. :-) As we used to say last century, been there, done that.
Please, let's focus on development here, and provide the space (or frontier, finally) for user-focused sites affiliated (federated) with the effort here. For what we found difficult, and not just because of Sun's or Oracle's interests, was in reconciling the developer focus of OOo with the large enduser communities. I would much rather have separate foci, but not sacrifice communication between the two. (Developers need to attend to endusers, and vice versa.) One thing that is really important here is the manifold of ecosystems constituting the wider OOo community.
>
>
>> The coding work we've done in the 3.3.1 is about some security and bugfixing
>> issues,
>>
>> Martin
>>
Louis