Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
independent websites.

We have the legacy www.openoffice.org website, which served as an
end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
participants.

And we have the http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, which on
graduation probably becomes something shorter,  like
http://openoffice.apache.org.  For most Apache projects their website
also serves both purposes:  a site for users as well as project
participants.

So, we have both of these websites, and a lot of redundancy caused by
it.  This obviously has a downside.  It makes it hard to update, since
a lot of information is in both places.  And it confuses users since
the websites are out of sync on some important topics.  It also
prevents us from really optimizing the experience for each audience.
I suspect that long-term this dual-website with overlapping content is
not a maintainable model.

What can we do?

I hope I am not committing heresy if I say that most users of
OpenOffice care as little about Apache as drinker of a Pepsi cares
about the Board of Directors of PepsiCo Corporation.  The average user
(and we're talking about millions of them) cares about downloading,
installing, using, learning about and generally being productive with
OpenOffice.  It is a tool they use to do their work. Their work is
what matters to them, not our work.

But of course we also have a growing number of users, contributors and
committers who want to get more involved with the project. OpenOffice
is interesting to them.  They identify with it.  They want to learn
more than just the basics.  They are intrigued by open source.  They
want to help.  They want to get more involved.

The trick I think, is to have websites that speak to each of these
audiences, as well as an easy/obvious way to navigate between them,
while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cross talk and redundancy.

For example, could we have something like this:

1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.


2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
project. Not the product, but the project.

This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:

http://www.pepsi.com

But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another URL:

http://www.pepsico.com/

Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Malte Timmermann <ma...@gmx.com>]

+1, makes sense to me :)

On 22.11.2011 00:46, Rob Weir wrote:
> We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
> don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
> independent websites.
>
> We have the legacy www.openoffice.org website, which served as an
> end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
> participants.
>
> And we have the http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, which on
> graduation probably becomes something shorter,  like
> http://openoffice.apache.org.  For most Apache projects their website
> also serves both purposes:  a site for users as well as project
> participants.
>
> So, we have both of these websites, and a lot of redundancy caused by
> it.  This obviously has a downside.  It makes it hard to update, since
> a lot of information is in both places.  And it confuses users since
> the websites are out of sync on some important topics.  It also
> prevents us from really optimizing the experience for each audience.
> I suspect that long-term this dual-website with overlapping content is
> not a maintainable model.
>
> What can we do?
>
> I hope I am not committing heresy if I say that most users of
> OpenOffice care as little about Apache as drinker of a Pepsi cares
> about the Board of Directors of PepsiCo Corporation.  The average user
> (and we're talking about millions of them) cares about downloading,
> installing, using, learning about and generally being productive with
> OpenOffice.  It is a tool they use to do their work. Their work is
> what matters to them, not our work.
>
> But of course we also have a growing number of users, contributors and
> committers who want to get more involved with the project. OpenOffice
> is interesting to them.  They identify with it.  They want to learn
> more than just the basics.  They are intrigued by open source.  They
> want to help.  They want to get more involved.
>
> The trick I think, is to have websites that speak to each of these
> audiences, as well as an easy/obvious way to navigate between them,
> while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cross talk and redundancy.
>
> For example, could we have something like this:
>
> 1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
> is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
> So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
> with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.
>
>
> 2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
> openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
> work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
> project. Not the product, but the project.
>
> This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
> important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
> the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:
>
> http://www.pepsi.com
>
> But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another URL:
>
> http://www.pepsico.com/
>
> Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
> But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1...all good, and something we had discussed early on.
>
> However, as I work on porting legacy info over, I am wondering what to do
> about the more "developer" centered areas of the site: api, sc, sw,
> framework, external (? -- I need to look at this one), tools,porting, and
> many others that are not really "user centered". I will load these into the
> ooo-site tree, but at some point, someone on the "developer" side should
> really cull this out and move them to the "developer" side so we don't
> continually deal with these areas on the "user portal".
>

I'd recommend not moving content around too much at first.  There is a
lot we can do to craft the user experience based on what links we
include (or remove).  For example, the developer centered pages on
openoffice.org can stay there for now.  But we can then have links to
them from the dev section of the podling's "development" page.

Of course, over time content may move around.

-Rob

> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
>> don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
>> independent websites.
>>
>> We have the legacy www.openoffice.org website, which served as an
>> end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
>> participants.
>>
>> And we have the http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, which on
>> graduation probably becomes something shorter,  like
>> http://openoffice.apache.org.  For most Apache projects their website
>> also serves both purposes:  a site for users as well as project
>> participants.
>>
>> So, we have both of these websites, and a lot of redundancy caused by
>> it.  This obviously has a downside.  It makes it hard to update, since
>> a lot of information is in both places.  And it confuses users since
>> the websites are out of sync on some important topics.  It also
>> prevents us from really optimizing the experience for each audience.
>> I suspect that long-term this dual-website with overlapping content is
>> not a maintainable model.
>>
>> What can we do?
>>
>> I hope I am not committing heresy if I say that most users of
>> OpenOffice care as little about Apache as drinker of a Pepsi cares
>> about the Board of Directors of PepsiCo Corporation.  The average user
>> (and we're talking about millions of them) cares about downloading,
>> installing, using, learning about and generally being productive with
>> OpenOffice.  It is a tool they use to do their work. Their work is
>> what matters to them, not our work.
>>
>> But of course we also have a growing number of users, contributors and
>> committers who want to get more involved with the project. OpenOffice
>> is interesting to them.  They identify with it.  They want to learn
>> more than just the basics.  They are intrigued by open source.  They
>> want to help.  They want to get more involved.
>>
>> The trick I think, is to have websites that speak to each of these
>> audiences, as well as an easy/obvious way to navigate between them,
>> while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cross talk and redundancy.
>>
>> For example, could we have something like this:
>>
>> 1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
>> is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
>> So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
>> with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.
>>
>>
>> 2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
>> openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
>> work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
>> project. Not the product, but the project.
>>
>> This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
>> important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
>> the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:
>>
>> http://www.pepsi.com
>>
>> But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another
>> URL:
>>
>> http://www.pepsico.com/
>>
>> Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
>> But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>  by the way its animals are treated."
>                              -- Mohandas Gandhi
>

Re: Buildbot and API Reference Docs [Was: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites]

[Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>]

On 11/27/11 10:52 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Nov 25, 2011, at 2:30 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On 11/24/11 6:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>> 2011/11/24 Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@googlemail.com>
>>>
>>>> On 11/23/11 5:55 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1...all good, and something we had discussed early on.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, as I work on porting legacy info over, I am wondering what to do
>>>>> about the more "developer" centered areas of the site: api, sc, sw,
>>>>> framework, external (? -- I need to look at this one), tools,porting, and
>>>>> many others that are not really "user centered". I will load these into
>>>>> the
>>>>> ooo-site tree, but at some point, someone on the "developer" side should
>>>>> really cull this out and move them to the "developer" side so we don't
>>>>> continually deal with these areas on the "user portal".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i also have thought about the api page and i would  like to support it in
>>>> the future as well. Because it provides some useful stuff for macro,
>>>> extension developers. But maybe in a simplified and reduced form.
>>>>
>>>> things i would i would like to keep
>>>>
>>>> - API reference
>>>> - C++/Java UNO Runtime reference
>>>> - search features into the different reference documentation as well as
>>>> the Developer's Guide
>>>> - links to the SDK
>>>> - link to the API wiki pages
>>>>
>>>> Most of the content will i move into the wiki as soon as possible.
>>>>
>>>> I would really like to work with you or somebody else who knows the Apache
>>>> framework better then i to rework the API page.
>>>> It would be really helpful if we can find an easy way to update the
>>>> generated reference docu without checking in thousands of files.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jurgen--
>>>
>>> Everything form the old "api" site is available via --
>>>
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/api/
>>>
>>> just plain ole html...I don't think you should have any problems
>>
>> ok thanks. One concern i had in the past and will have it now is that the generated reference docu have to be checked in. I would prefer a place where i simply could secure copy the generated files. But important for the near future is of course that we have everything in place, have it under our control and can work on future improvements.
>
> I agree and I would like to discuss the api generation process now so that we can get it right. I've always expected this to be special.
>
> Please describe how the API reference documents come out the process.

The API reference is build as part of the SDK (in the odk module). Means 
a developer build of the SDK contains always the latest reference. For 
every release i have update the reference document on api.openoffice.org 
with the released version. No backup (online) for older versions.

>
> If it can easily be part of the Ubuntu buildbot that is being worked on then I propose the following:
>
> (1) The buildbot is enhanced to always update the podling site with the bleeding edge of the api documentation. The Apache CMS also uses buildbot and this should not be hard to automate at all. It could be at i.a.o/openofficeorg/api/ and updated daily.
>
> (Andrew and Gavin am I correct?)

sounds good, but we should definitely identify this version a developer 
preview version

>
> (2) The pages at www.openoffice.org/api/* are always the api from the latest release - currently 3.3.0, but perhaps TOOo 3.3.1 followed by AOO copied from podling at release. This starts with what Kay has imported.
>
agree, we should have always one official version in place where i would 
like to provide the search features.

> This allows users to have the API for the release and the project developers to always see a current build which any committer can fix and any contributor can submit a patch.
>
> Having two sites works to our advantage. In the Apache POI project's mailing lists we often have to explain that the API documents at poi.apache.org are from the current trunk and that those for a release are part of the release package. We won't have the problem.
>
> Our general rule should be that openoffice.org is for the current (and legacy) releases and the podling site is the dynamic place that shows our activity.
>
sounds good to me

Juergen

>>
>> Will come back to this later.
>
> Now is good!
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> extensions.openoffice.org points today already in the wiki and i would
>>>> like to redirect this page today to the api side. And in the future we can
>>>> hopefully reactivate this page for an extension repository.
>>>>
>>>> And hopefully templates.openoffice.org for templates ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>

Buildbot and API Reference Docs [Was: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites]

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

On Nov 25, 2011, at 2:30 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

> On 11/24/11 6:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> 2011/11/24 Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@googlemail.com>
>> 
>>> On 11/23/11 5:55 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>> 
>>>> +1...all good, and something we had discussed early on.
>>>> 
>>>> However, as I work on porting legacy info over, I am wondering what to do
>>>> about the more "developer" centered areas of the site: api, sc, sw,
>>>> framework, external (? -- I need to look at this one), tools,porting, and
>>>> many others that are not really "user centered". I will load these into
>>>> the
>>>> ooo-site tree, but at some point, someone on the "developer" side should
>>>> really cull this out and move them to the "developer" side so we don't
>>>> continually deal with these areas on the "user portal".
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> i also have thought about the api page and i would  like to support it in
>>> the future as well. Because it provides some useful stuff for macro,
>>> extension developers. But maybe in a simplified and reduced form.
>>> 
>>> things i would i would like to keep
>>> 
>>> - API reference
>>> - C++/Java UNO Runtime reference
>>> - search features into the different reference documentation as well as
>>> the Developer's Guide
>>> - links to the SDK
>>> - link to the API wiki pages
>>> 
>>> Most of the content will i move into the wiki as soon as possible.
>>> 
>>> I would really like to work with you or somebody else who knows the Apache
>>> framework better then i to rework the API page.
>>> It would be really helpful if we can find an easy way to update the
>>> generated reference docu without checking in thousands of files.
>>> 
>> 
>> Jurgen--
>> 
>> Everything form the old "api" site is available via --
>> 
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/api/
>> 
>> just plain ole html...I don't think you should have any problems
> 
> ok thanks. One concern i had in the past and will have it now is that the generated reference docu have to be checked in. I would prefer a place where i simply could secure copy the generated files. But important for the near future is of course that we have everything in place, have it under our control and can work on future improvements.

I agree and I would like to discuss the api generation process now so that we can get it right. I've always expected this to be special.

Please describe how the API reference documents come out the process.

If it can easily be part of the Ubuntu buildbot that is being worked on then I propose the following:

(1) The buildbot is enhanced to always update the podling site with the bleeding edge of the api documentation. The Apache CMS also uses buildbot and this should not be hard to automate at all. It could be at i.a.o/openofficeorg/api/ and updated daily.

(Andrew and Gavin am I correct?)

(2) The pages at www.openoffice.org/api/* are always the api from the latest release - currently 3.3.0, but perhaps TOOo 3.3.1 followed by AOO copied from podling at release. This starts with what Kay has imported.

This allows users to have the API for the release and the project developers to always see a current build which any committer can fix and any contributor can submit a patch.

Having two sites works to our advantage. In the Apache POI project's mailing lists we often have to explain that the API documents at poi.apache.org are from the current trunk and that those for a release are part of the release package. We won't have the problem.

Our general rule should be that openoffice.org is for the current (and legacy) releases and the podling site is the dynamic place that shows our activity.

> 
> Will come back to this later.

Now is good!

Regards,
Dave

> 
> Juergen
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> extensions.openoffice.org points today already in the wiki and i would
>>> like to redirect this page today to the api side. And in the future we can
>>> hopefully reactivate this page for an extension repository.
>>> 
>>> And hopefully templates.openoffice.org for templates ;-)
>>> 
>>> Juergen
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>]

On 11/24/11 6:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> 2011/11/24 Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@googlemail.com>
>
>> On 11/23/11 5:55 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>> +1...all good, and something we had discussed early on.
>>>
>>> However, as I work on porting legacy info over, I am wondering what to do
>>> about the more "developer" centered areas of the site: api, sc, sw,
>>> framework, external (? -- I need to look at this one), tools,porting, and
>>> many others that are not really "user centered". I will load these into
>>> the
>>> ooo-site tree, but at some point, someone on the "developer" side should
>>> really cull this out and move them to the "developer" side so we don't
>>> continually deal with these areas on the "user portal".
>>>
>>
>> i also have thought about the api page and i would  like to support it in
>> the future as well. Because it provides some useful stuff for macro,
>> extension developers. But maybe in a simplified and reduced form.
>>
>> things i would i would like to keep
>>
>> - API reference
>> - C++/Java UNO Runtime reference
>> - search features into the different reference documentation as well as
>> the Developer's Guide
>> - links to the SDK
>> - link to the API wiki pages
>>
>> Most of the content will i move into the wiki as soon as possible.
>>
>> I would really like to work with you or somebody else who knows the Apache
>> framework better then i to rework the API page.
>> It would be really helpful if we can find an easy way to update the
>> generated reference docu without checking in thousands of files.
>>
>
> Jurgen--
>
> Everything form the old "api" site is available via --
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/api/
>
> just plain ole html...I don't think you should have any problems

ok thanks. One concern i had in the past and will have it now is that 
the generated reference docu have to be checked in. I would prefer a 
place where i simply could secure copy the generated files. But 
important for the near future is of course that we have everything in 
place, have it under our control and can work on future improvements.

Will come back to this later.

Juergen

>
>
>> extensions.openoffice.org points today already in the wiki and i would
>> like to redirect this page today to the api side. And in the future we can
>> hopefully reactivate this page for an extension repository.
>>
>> And hopefully templates.openoffice.org for templates ;-)
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>]

2011/11/24 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>

> On 11/23/11 5:55 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> +1...all good, and something we had discussed early on.
>>
>> However, as I work on porting legacy info over, I am wondering what to do
>> about the more "developer" centered areas of the site: api, sc, sw,
>> framework, external (? -- I need to look at this one), tools,porting, and
>> many others that are not really "user centered". I will load these into
>> the
>> ooo-site tree, but at some point, someone on the "developer" side should
>> really cull this out and move them to the "developer" side so we don't
>> continually deal with these areas on the "user portal".
>>
>
> i also have thought about the api page and i would  like to support it in
> the future as well. Because it provides some useful stuff for macro,
> extension developers. But maybe in a simplified and reduced form.
>
> things i would i would like to keep
>
> - API reference
> - C++/Java UNO Runtime reference
> - search features into the different reference documentation as well as
> the Developer's Guide
> - links to the SDK
> - link to the API wiki pages
>
> Most of the content will i move into the wiki as soon as possible.
>
> I would really like to work with you or somebody else who knows the Apache
> framework better then i to rework the API page.
> It would be really helpful if we can find an easy way to update the
> generated reference docu without checking in thousands of files.
>

Jurgen--

Everything form the old "api" site is available via --

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/api/

just plain ole html...I don't think you should have any problems


> extensions.openoffice.org points today already in the wiki and i would
> like to redirect this page today to the api side. And in the future we can
> hopefully reactivate this page for an extension repository.
>
> And hopefully templates.openoffice.org for templates ;-)
>
> Juergen
>
>
>
>
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org>  wrote:
>>
>>  We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
>>> don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
>>> independent websites.
>>>
>>> We have the legacy www.openoffice.org website, which served as an
>>> end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
>>> participants.
>>>
>>> And we have the http://incubator.apache.org/**openofficeorg/<http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/>,
>>> which on
>>> graduation probably becomes something shorter,  like
>>> http://openoffice.apache.org.  For most Apache projects their website
>>> also serves both purposes:  a site for users as well as project
>>> participants.
>>>
>>> So, we have both of these websites, and a lot of redundancy caused by
>>> it.  This obviously has a downside.  It makes it hard to update, since
>>> a lot of information is in both places.  And it confuses users since
>>> the websites are out of sync on some important topics.  It also
>>> prevents us from really optimizing the experience for each audience.
>>> I suspect that long-term this dual-website with overlapping content is
>>> not a maintainable model.
>>>
>>> What can we do?
>>>
>>> I hope I am not committing heresy if I say that most users of
>>> OpenOffice care as little about Apache as drinker of a Pepsi cares
>>> about the Board of Directors of PepsiCo Corporation.  The average user
>>> (and we're talking about millions of them) cares about downloading,
>>> installing, using, learning about and generally being productive with
>>> OpenOffice.  It is a tool they use to do their work. Their work is
>>> what matters to them, not our work.
>>>
>>> But of course we also have a growing number of users, contributors and
>>> committers who want to get more involved with the project. OpenOffice
>>> is interesting to them.  They identify with it.  They want to learn
>>> more than just the basics.  They are intrigued by open source.  They
>>> want to help.  They want to get more involved.
>>>
>>> The trick I think, is to have websites that speak to each of these
>>> audiences, as well as an easy/obvious way to navigate between them,
>>> while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cross talk and redundancy.
>>>
>>> For example, could we have something like this:
>>>
>>> 1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
>>> is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
>>> So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
>>> with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) incubator.apache.org/**openofficeorg<http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg>(eventually
>>> openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
>>> work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
>>> project. Not the product, but the project.
>>>
>>> This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
>>> important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
>>> the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:
>>>
>>> http://www.pepsi.com
>>>
>>> But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another
>>> URL:
>>>
>>> http://www.pepsico.com/
>>>
>>> Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
>>> But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
 by the way its animals are treated."
                              -- Mohandas Gandhi

RE: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>]

I think these kinds of developer/power-user/extension user/developer changes need to be made carefully, since OO.o 3.x releases are still out there and are the only official releases under the lineage.  

I would wait until after cutover for anything that is not urgent to get right as soon as possible, such as broken URLs, email addresses, disappeared lists, and finding the new BZ smoothly.  Also, fixing download pages and the contribution information, elimination of PayPal buttons, etc., seems more pressing as a priority.  

Changes for source download and build information for Apache OpenOffice might want to be introduced on the developer site or perhaps OOOUSER wiki, with the obsolete material on OpenOffice.org changed to portal to those areas.  So perhaps rerouting could be introduced on the staging site for when cut-over happens.  Of course, no downloads and build instructions should be encouraged this way until the IP Clearance has been completed.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 01:10
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

On 11/23/11 5:55 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> +1...all good, and something we had discussed early on.
>
> However, as I work on porting legacy info over, I am wondering what to do
> about the more "developer" centered areas of the site: api, sc, sw,
> framework, external (? -- I need to look at this one), tools,porting, and
> many others that are not really "user centered". I will load these into the
> ooo-site tree, but at some point, someone on the "developer" side should
> really cull this out and move them to the "developer" side so we don't
> continually deal with these areas on the "user portal".

i also have thought about the api page and i would  like to support it 
in the future as well. Because it provides some useful stuff for macro, 
extension developers. But maybe in a simplified and reduced form.

things i would i would like to keep

- API reference
- C++/Java UNO Runtime reference
- search features into the different reference documentation as well as 
the Developer's Guide
- links to the SDK
- link to the API wiki pages

Most of the content will i move into the wiki as soon as possible.

I would really like to work with you or somebody else who knows the 
Apache framework better then i to rework the API page.
It would be really helpful if we can find an easy way to update the 
generated reference docu without checking in thousands of files.

extensions.openoffice.org points today already in the wiki and i would 
like to redirect this page today to the api side. And in the future we 
can hopefully reactivate this page for an extension repository.

And hopefully templates.openoffice.org for templates ;-)

Juergen


>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org>  wrote:
>
>> We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
>> don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
>> independent websites.
>>
>> We have the legacy www.openoffice.org website, which served as an
>> end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
>> participants.
>>
>> And we have the http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, which on
>> graduation probably becomes something shorter,  like
>> http://openoffice.apache.org.  For most Apache projects their website
>> also serves both purposes:  a site for users as well as project
>> participants.
>>
>> So, we have both of these websites, and a lot of redundancy caused by
>> it.  This obviously has a downside.  It makes it hard to update, since
>> a lot of information is in both places.  And it confuses users since
>> the websites are out of sync on some important topics.  It also
>> prevents us from really optimizing the experience for each audience.
>> I suspect that long-term this dual-website with overlapping content is
>> not a maintainable model.
>>
>> What can we do?
>>
>> I hope I am not committing heresy if I say that most users of
>> OpenOffice care as little about Apache as drinker of a Pepsi cares
>> about the Board of Directors of PepsiCo Corporation.  The average user
>> (and we're talking about millions of them) cares about downloading,
>> installing, using, learning about and generally being productive with
>> OpenOffice.  It is a tool they use to do their work. Their work is
>> what matters to them, not our work.
>>
>> But of course we also have a growing number of users, contributors and
>> committers who want to get more involved with the project. OpenOffice
>> is interesting to them.  They identify with it.  They want to learn
>> more than just the basics.  They are intrigued by open source.  They
>> want to help.  They want to get more involved.
>>
>> The trick I think, is to have websites that speak to each of these
>> audiences, as well as an easy/obvious way to navigate between them,
>> while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cross talk and redundancy.
>>
>> For example, could we have something like this:
>>
>> 1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
>> is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
>> So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
>> with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.
>>
>>
>> 2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
>> openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
>> work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
>> project. Not the product, but the project.
>>
>> This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
>> important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
>> the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:
>>
>> http://www.pepsi.com
>>
>> But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another
>> URL:
>>
>> http://www.pepsico.com/
>>
>> Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
>> But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.
>>
>
>
>

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>]

On 11/23/11 5:55 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> +1...all good, and something we had discussed early on.
>
> However, as I work on porting legacy info over, I am wondering what to do
> about the more "developer" centered areas of the site: api, sc, sw,
> framework, external (? -- I need to look at this one), tools,porting, and
> many others that are not really "user centered". I will load these into the
> ooo-site tree, but at some point, someone on the "developer" side should
> really cull this out and move them to the "developer" side so we don't
> continually deal with these areas on the "user portal".

i also have thought about the api page and i would  like to support it 
in the future as well. Because it provides some useful stuff for macro, 
extension developers. But maybe in a simplified and reduced form.

things i would i would like to keep

- API reference
- C++/Java UNO Runtime reference
- search features into the different reference documentation as well as 
the Developer's Guide
- links to the SDK
- link to the API wiki pages

Most of the content will i move into the wiki as soon as possible.

I would really like to work with you or somebody else who knows the 
Apache framework better then i to rework the API page.
It would be really helpful if we can find an easy way to update the 
generated reference docu without checking in thousands of files.

extensions.openoffice.org points today already in the wiki and i would 
like to redirect this page today to the api side. And in the future we 
can hopefully reactivate this page for an extension repository.

And hopefully templates.openoffice.org for templates ;-)

Juergen


>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org>  wrote:
>
>> We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
>> don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
>> independent websites.
>>
>> We have the legacy www.openoffice.org website, which served as an
>> end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
>> participants.
>>
>> And we have the http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, which on
>> graduation probably becomes something shorter,  like
>> http://openoffice.apache.org.  For most Apache projects their website
>> also serves both purposes:  a site for users as well as project
>> participants.
>>
>> So, we have both of these websites, and a lot of redundancy caused by
>> it.  This obviously has a downside.  It makes it hard to update, since
>> a lot of information is in both places.  And it confuses users since
>> the websites are out of sync on some important topics.  It also
>> prevents us from really optimizing the experience for each audience.
>> I suspect that long-term this dual-website with overlapping content is
>> not a maintainable model.
>>
>> What can we do?
>>
>> I hope I am not committing heresy if I say that most users of
>> OpenOffice care as little about Apache as drinker of a Pepsi cares
>> about the Board of Directors of PepsiCo Corporation.  The average user
>> (and we're talking about millions of them) cares about downloading,
>> installing, using, learning about and generally being productive with
>> OpenOffice.  It is a tool they use to do their work. Their work is
>> what matters to them, not our work.
>>
>> But of course we also have a growing number of users, contributors and
>> committers who want to get more involved with the project. OpenOffice
>> is interesting to them.  They identify with it.  They want to learn
>> more than just the basics.  They are intrigued by open source.  They
>> want to help.  They want to get more involved.
>>
>> The trick I think, is to have websites that speak to each of these
>> audiences, as well as an easy/obvious way to navigate between them,
>> while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cross talk and redundancy.
>>
>> For example, could we have something like this:
>>
>> 1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
>> is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
>> So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
>> with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.
>>
>>
>> 2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
>> openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
>> work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
>> project. Not the product, but the project.
>>
>> This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
>> important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
>> the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:
>>
>> http://www.pepsi.com
>>
>> But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another
>> URL:
>>
>> http://www.pepsico.com/
>>
>> Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
>> But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.
>>
>
>
>

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Arthur Buijs <ar...@artietee.nl> wrote:

> On 11/24/2011 01:05 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>> Hi Kay,
>>
>> I have some concerns that the buildbot broke recently. Also, somehow
>> my checkout of ooo-site was busted with a lock. I am currently doing
>> a re-checkout.
>>
>> On Nov 23, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>  OK, I understand. As a point of clarification. I have a complete
>>> set vis a vis openoffice.svn sites of all "accepted" and
>>> "incubator" projects which I am now cleaning up and importing into
>>> the ooo-site svn tree.
>>>
>>> So, no matter what we decided ultimately about the ooo-site tree,
>>> we we will ahve copies.
>>>
>>
>> Excellent, having all the projects there is excellent. Let's take
>> advantage of this.
>>
>>
>>> Given the large size of some of these areas, I was just concerned
>>> about the import of some of them *at all* into the ooo-site svn
>>> tree.  however, I know they really do need to be someplace where
>>> all the project committers (and contributors) can access them in
>>> order to be of any use right now.
>>>
>>
>> If you set the group ownership correctly all other committers should
>> be able to access your account in people.apache.org. Let's assume I
>> am correct for now without double checking.
>>
>> I was planning to check in every N-L site, tag each and then delete
>> the N-L from ooo-site. If your archive is available to all committers
>> then this is a better archive location than svn. Fewer steps and less
>> impact to the ASF infrastructure.
>>
>>
>>> So, I will get back to the import process on Friday, and hopefully,
>>> can get the legacy "accepted" projects in the ooo-site tree for
>>> further evaluation by SUnday.
>>>
>>
>> Yes and I would avoid doing anymore N-L projects.
>>
>> Since Khirano is willing to do a translation of the new main site. If
>> Pedro and the other Italians and MArcus and the other Germans. Plus
>> Alexandro and the Spanish are in Consensus to do translations of the
>> new main (Am I missing any other "active" N-L projects?) then I am
>> for removing all N-L now.
>>
>> I am back over the weekend and we can start focusing on the final
>> push.
>>
>
> I am willing to do a translation of the new main site to Dutch. Our
> current N-L site is outdated.
>

WONDERFUL! Please let us know when you get this done and we'll get it
posted!


>
> --
> Arthur Buijs
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
 by the way its animals are treated."
                              -- Mohandas Gandhi

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:

> Am 11/28/2011 09:33 AM, schrieb Arthur Buijs:
>
>  On 11/24/2011 01:05 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kay,
>>>
>>> I have some concerns that the buildbot broke recently. Also, somehow
>>> my checkout of ooo-site was busted with a lock. I am currently doing
>>> a re-checkout.
>>>
>>> On Nov 23, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>>  OK, I understand. As a point of clarification. I have a complete
>>>> set vis a vis openoffice.svn sites of all "accepted" and
>>>> "incubator" projects which I am now cleaning up and importing into
>>>> the ooo-site svn tree.
>>>>
>>>> So, no matter what we decided ultimately about the ooo-site tree,
>>>> we we will ahve copies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Excellent, having all the projects there is excellent. Let's take
>>> advantage of this.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Given the large size of some of these areas, I was just concerned
>>>> about the import of some of them *at all* into the ooo-site svn
>>>> tree. however, I know they really do need to be someplace where
>>>> all the project committers (and contributors) can access them in
>>>> order to be of any use right now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you set the group ownership correctly all other committers should
>>> be able to access your account in people.apache.org. Let's assume I
>>> am correct for now without double checking.
>>>
>>> I was planning to check in every N-L site, tag each and then delete
>>> the N-L from ooo-site. If your archive is available to all committers
>>> then this is a better archive location than svn. Fewer steps and less
>>> impact to the ASF infrastructure.
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, I will get back to the import process on Friday, and hopefully,
>>>> can get the legacy "accepted" projects in the ooo-site tree for
>>>> further evaluation by SUnday.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes and I would avoid doing anymore N-L projects.
>>>
>>> Since Khirano is willing to do a translation of the new main site. If
>>> Pedro and the other Italians and MArcus and the other Germans. Plus
>>> Alexandro and the Spanish are in Consensus to do translations of the
>>> new main (Am I missing any other "active" N-L projects?) then I am
>>> for removing all N-L now.
>>>
>>> I am back over the weekend and we can start focusing on the final
>>> push.
>>>
>>
>> I am willing to do a translation of the new main site to Dutch. Our
>> current N-L site is outdated.
>>
>
> As there was no other offer, I'll volunteer for the German website parts.
>
> Marcus
>

SUPER!

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
 by the way its animals are treated."
                              -- Mohandas Gandhi

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

["Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>]

Am 11/28/2011 09:33 AM, schrieb Arthur Buijs:
> On 11/24/2011 01:05 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> Hi Kay,
>>
>> I have some concerns that the buildbot broke recently. Also, somehow
>> my checkout of ooo-site was busted with a lock. I am currently doing
>> a re-checkout.
>>
>> On Nov 23, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>> OK, I understand. As a point of clarification. I have a complete
>>> set vis a vis openoffice.svn sites of all "accepted" and
>>> "incubator" projects which I am now cleaning up and importing into
>>> the ooo-site svn tree.
>>>
>>> So, no matter what we decided ultimately about the ooo-site tree,
>>> we we will ahve copies.
>>
>> Excellent, having all the projects there is excellent. Let's take
>> advantage of this.
>>
>>>
>>> Given the large size of some of these areas, I was just concerned
>>> about the import of some of them *at all* into the ooo-site svn
>>> tree. however, I know they really do need to be someplace where
>>> all the project committers (and contributors) can access them in
>>> order to be of any use right now.
>>
>> If you set the group ownership correctly all other committers should
>> be able to access your account in people.apache.org. Let's assume I
>> am correct for now without double checking.
>>
>> I was planning to check in every N-L site, tag each and then delete
>> the N-L from ooo-site. If your archive is available to all committers
>> then this is a better archive location than svn. Fewer steps and less
>> impact to the ASF infrastructure.
>>
>>>
>>> So, I will get back to the import process on Friday, and hopefully,
>>> can get the legacy "accepted" projects in the ooo-site tree for
>>> further evaluation by SUnday.
>>
>> Yes and I would avoid doing anymore N-L projects.
>>
>> Since Khirano is willing to do a translation of the new main site. If
>> Pedro and the other Italians and MArcus and the other Germans. Plus
>> Alexandro and the Spanish are in Consensus to do translations of the
>> new main (Am I missing any other "active" N-L projects?) then I am
>> for removing all N-L now.
>>
>> I am back over the weekend and we can start focusing on the final
>> push.
>
> I am willing to do a translation of the new main site to Dutch. Our
> current N-L site is outdated.

As there was no other offer, I'll volunteer for the German website parts.

Marcus

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Arthur Buijs <ar...@artietee.nl>]

On 11/24/2011 01:05 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> Hi Kay,
>
> I have some concerns that the buildbot broke recently. Also, somehow
> my checkout of ooo-site was busted with a lock. I am currently doing
> a re-checkout.
>
> On Nov 23, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> OK, I understand. As a point of clarification. I have a complete
>> set vis a vis openoffice.svn sites of all "accepted" and
>> "incubator" projects which I am now cleaning up and importing into
>> the ooo-site svn tree.
>>
>> So, no matter what we decided ultimately about the ooo-site tree,
>> we we will ahve copies.
>
> Excellent, having all the projects there is excellent. Let's take
> advantage of this.
>
>>
>> Given the large size of some of these areas, I was just concerned
>> about the import of some of them *at all* into the ooo-site svn
>> tree.  however, I know they really do need to be someplace where
>> all the project committers (and contributors) can access them in
>> order to be of any use right now.
>
> If you set the group ownership correctly all other committers should
> be able to access your account in people.apache.org. Let's assume I
> am correct for now without double checking.
>
> I was planning to check in every N-L site, tag each and then delete
> the N-L from ooo-site. If your archive is available to all committers
> then this is a better archive location than svn. Fewer steps and less
> impact to the ASF infrastructure.
>
>>
>> So, I will get back to the import process on Friday, and hopefully,
>> can get the legacy "accepted" projects in the ooo-site tree for
>> further evaluation by SUnday.
>
> Yes and I would avoid doing anymore N-L projects.
>
> Since Khirano is willing to do a translation of the new main site. If
> Pedro and the other Italians and MArcus and the other Germans. Plus
> Alexandro and the Spanish are in Consensus to do translations of the
> new main (Am I missing any other "active" N-L projects?) then I am
> for removing all N-L now.
>
> I am back over the weekend and we can start focusing on the final
> push.

I am willing to do a translation of the new main site to Dutch. Our 
current N-L site is outdated.

-- 
Arthur Buijs

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>]

Dave Fisher wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> but I don't see the change (Protezione dei Dati su Apache OpenOffice) at
>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/contribuire/legale.html
>> Should I use a different URL?
>
> Try http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/
> The publish step has not been applied.

Thanks, that one works and I see my changes correctly under that URL. 
Publication is not urgent for me, I just needed a way to check that the 
changes were applied correctly.

Regards,
   Andrea.

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> Rob, are you saying that you would not edit ooo-site simply because it is not being served as OpenOffice.org ?
>

No.

> There are many ways that assistance is welcome, especially if folks notice the breakages and report them in a way where they can be swept up in the preparation of the staging site either before or after cut-over.
>

Yes.

> I believe that is a false contrast.  Perhaps it is simply that folks aren't aware that help proofing and coming up with fixes to the site are welcome.
>

?

> Folks can see the results on ooo-site, come up with further ideas, etc.  Think of it as the running draft version of the soon-to-migrate OpenOffice.org site.
>

My question was what was needed before we can go live.  I'm hoping
we're not waiting for a greater degree of perfection than existed in
the legacy website.

>  - Dennis
>
> PS 1. This podling has not been in existence for 6 months (yet); site migration and terms of use was not early on the agenda by any means.

We entered incubation on 6/13/11.   Our six month anniversary will
officially be in 2 more days.  My humble apologies for the gross
exaggeration.

>   2. Leave me out of the hyperbole please.
>   3. I also believe that I said I had no objection to the current wording on the wiki notice.  If not, I'm saying it now.  I have no objection to this: < http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights&oldid=198563>.  It addresses my fundamental concern.
>   4. And I have had nothing whatsoever to do with any extended duration of this particular thread.  Although thanks for the inviting mention.
>

A few posts earlier in this thread Dave said that one of the steps
remaining before we go live was:

"Make sure that Trademarks and Dennis don't have any issues with
license notices and copyright."

I'm glad to hear now that this is not an issue.

-Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 12:06
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Again, the ability to edit absent the ability to publish, is not going
> to encourage effective collaboration.
>
> Let's get to "release early and often" on the website.  Waiting months
> for the ability to publish is not healthy for the community.
>
> So what is the least that is required technically to make this live?
> We can deal with your and Dennis's 6 month long debate about terms of
> use later.
>
> [ ... ]
>

RE: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>]

Rob, are you saying that you would not edit ooo-site simply because it is not being served as OpenOffice.org ?

There are many ways that assistance is welcome, especially if folks notice the breakages and report them in a way where they can be swept up in the preparation of the staging site either before or after cut-over.  

I believe that is a false contrast.  Perhaps it is simply that folks aren't aware that help proofing and coming up with fixes to the site are welcome.  

Folks can see the results on ooo-site, come up with further ideas, etc.  Think of it as the running draft version of the soon-to-migrate OpenOffice.org site.

 - Dennis

PS 1. This podling has not been in existence for 6 months (yet); site migration and terms of use was not early on the agenda by any means.  
   2. Leave me out of the hyperbole please.  
   3. I also believe that I said I had no objection to the current wording on the wiki notice.  If not, I'm saying it now.  I have no objection to this: < http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights&oldid=198563>.  It addresses my fundamental concern.  
   4. And I have had nothing whatsoever to do with any extended duration of this particular thread.  Although thanks for the inviting mention.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 12:06
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[ ... ]

Again, the ability to edit absent the ability to publish, is not going
to encourage effective collaboration.

Let's get to "release early and often" on the website.  Waiting months
for the ability to publish is not healthy for the community.

So what is the least that is required technically to make this live?
We can deal with your and Dennis's 6 month long debate about terms of
use later.

[ ... ]

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Dec 12, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

> OK, one last thought--will the redirect of www.openoffice.org to
> ooo-site.apache.org affect the svn.openoffice.org areas?
> 
> I recently pulled the "accepted" projects while doing the massvie updates a
> week or so ago,  but have NOT updated my copy of  the "incubator" projects
> in some time. So...do we need to do this one last snapshot before
> proceeding? I would think svn.openoffice.org should NOT be affected, but I
> just wanted to check.

As long as *.openoffice.org catch all rules is left and the 137 specific domains are added then all the catch-alls will still go to Kenai.

> 
> From my perspective, the sooner we can put ooo-site.apache.org into
> production, the better! Yes, it needs some tooling, but let's go for ti!

Sure.

> 
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Dec 12, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Great. I've created a URL redirect list which I'll attach to INFRA-3933
>>>> as we discussed.
>>>> 
>>>> I also updated -
>>>> 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/DNS,+Virtual+Hosts+and+Redirects
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dave--
>>> 
>>> GREAT WORK! Thanks for going to all this trouble--really! :)
>> 
>> Your great work made this easy!
>> 
>> WIth all of the subdomains in place in the svn it was all about making
>> directory names into domain names and grinding through.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I made the list in the following format - the first three are special
>>>> and following is the pattern for the rest of the well over 100
>> subdomains.
>>>>> 
>>>>> FR Forum will be happy about the first. Rob should note both
>>>> contributing and security will begin to go to the podling site.
>>>>> 
>>>>> qa.openoffice.org
>>>>> redirectMatch permanent /issues/(.*)  https://issues.apache.org/ooo/$1
>>>>> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/qa/$1
>>>>> 
>>>>> contributing.openoffice.org
>>>>> redirectMatch permanent (.*)
>>>> incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> security.openoffice.org
>>>>> redirectMatch permanent (.*)
>>>> incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/security/
>>>>> 
>>>>> aa.openoffice.org
>>>>> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/aa/$1
>>>>> 
>>>>> about.openoffice.org
>>>>> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/about/$1
>>>>> 
>>>>> af.openoffice.org
>>>>> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/af/$1
>>>>> 
>>>>> am.openoffice.org
>>>>> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/am/$1
>>>>> 
>>>>> ....
>>>>> 
>>>>> Other redirects anyone?
>>>>> 
>>>>> With this information you should have everything ready to do the
>>>> switchover when the word is given.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It would make people happy to have the first qa.oo.o redirect and those
>>>> for contributing.oo.o and security.oo.o immediately.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dave
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> All set. Just did a full site build and it went thru no trouble.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:45 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'm working with Gav to get the timeout upped as that's what's
>>>>>>> causing the builds to fail (long delays when the built site gets
>>>>>>> checked back in).  I will let you know once I have things ready
>>>>>>> for you to make mass changes to the ooo-site.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>> From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
>>>>>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:32 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Why don't you just decide to make the current ooo-site live,
>>>>>>>>> and tell infra to change dns for www.openoffice.org to point
>>>>>>>>> at it?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> There is an outstanding question about exactly how the extensions
>> and
>>>>>>> templates
>>>>>>>> authenticate users. It is being investigated.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Also the subdomain map needs to be built.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I've made some performance enhancements to the CMS today so
>>>>>>>>> web checkouts will only take a few seconds as opposed to 30min.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That's wonderful!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Also I will be working on your site's build because it is in a
>>>>>>>>> terrible state, but that will take more time.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Too much was committed at once.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So, we don't collide let me know if you are working with templates
>> or
>>>>>>> lib, I
>>>>>>>> am (or was) about to play with that part. I am really effin, tired
>> of
>>>> being
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> yelled at at repeatedly by Rob.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> When I'm done with my plan nearly every html file in ooo-site will
>> be
>>>>>>>> updated, how do you want to co-ordinate that?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>>> From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:55 PM
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Dave Fisher
>>>>>>>> <da...@comcast.net>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Dave Fisher
>>>>>>>>>> <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already answered. I've been very clear.
>>>>>>>> Nothing has
>>>>>>>>>> stopped others from working on ooo-site.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I apologize if I was not clear.  I'm not interested in
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> editing
>>>>>>>>>>>> ooo-site.apache.org.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> And I happen to think that this is absolute nonsense. ooo-site
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> www.openoffice.org when the time comes. Waiting is a bogus
>> excuse.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> To the extent that you continue to not understand what I am saying
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> will continue to repeat myself, attempting various ways of
>>>>>>>>>> reformulating my point.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I want to update www.openoffice.org.  I do not want to update
>> only
>>>>>>>>>> your test server.  I want the changes I make now to be reflected
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> the public, user facing openoffice.org website after a simple
>>>>>>> staging
>>>>>>>>>> and publication stage, i.e., near real time, no more than a few
>>>>>>>>>> minutes delay.  That is what the project needs.  This is what we
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>> need. The fact that we can can easily update ooo-site, a staging
>>>>>>>>>> website that no user actually ever sees is a partial success only.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> What I hear you saying is that we're free to update the data
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> /ooo-site and that will then appear on the test staging server.
>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>> is nice.  But the changes that you, me and others have made on
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> content is not being seen by real users.  It is stuck in limbo.
>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>> can invite committers to stick more content into limbo, of course,
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> queue it up for publication at some indeterminate point in the
>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>>>>> But I'm more interested in what we need to do to get the
>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>> of limbo and live on www.openoffice.org.  How do we complete
>> this?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> So this is not about ooo-site.  This is about the complete
>>>>>>> publication
>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.  That is  what matters for the PPMC's ability to
>>>>>>> properly
>>>>>>>>>> manage the www.openoffice.org website.  Nothing is live until the
>>>>>>> PPMC
>>>>>>>>>> can effectively update the real site.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Remember, what our users have on www.openoffice.org is very wrong
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> many places.  We're continuing every day to harm the project
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> content remains as-is and is not replaced by accurate project
>>>>>>>>>> information.   The fact that some of the content is corrected in
>>>>>>> SVN
>>>>>>>>>> or on ooo-site is not enough.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> If at all possible, I'd urge us to take a "release early,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>> often" approach to the website migration rather than a
>>>>>>> "big
>>>>>>>> bang
>>>>>>>>>> integration" approach.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> What is the minimum that really needs to be done to make this site
>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>> live?   And how can I, and anyone else who is interested in
>>>>>>>>>> accelerating this work, help?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>> 
>>> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>>> by the way its animals are treated."
>>>                             -- Mohandas Gandhi
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
> 
> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> by the way its animals are treated."
>                              -- Mohandas Gandhi

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>]

OK, one last thought--will the redirect of www.openoffice.org to
ooo-site.apache.org affect the svn.openoffice.org areas?

I recently pulled the "accepted" projects while doing the massvie updates a
week or so ago,  but have NOT updated my copy of  the "incubator" projects
in some time. So...do we need to do this one last snapshot before
proceeding? I would think svn.openoffice.org should NOT be affected, but I
just wanted to check.

>From my perspective, the sooner we can put ooo-site.apache.org into
production, the better! Yes, it needs some tooling, but let's go for ti!

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> On Dec 12, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Dec 11, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Joe,
> >>>
> >>> Great. I've created a URL redirect list which I'll attach to INFRA-3933
> >> as we discussed.
> >>
> >> I also updated -
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/DNS,+Virtual+Hosts+and+Redirects
> >>
> >
> > Dave--
> >
> > GREAT WORK! Thanks for going to all this trouble--really! :)
>
> Your great work made this easy!
>
> WIth all of the subdomains in place in the svn it was all about making
> directory names into domain names and grinding through.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I made the list in the following format - the first three are special
> >> and following is the pattern for the rest of the well over 100
> subdomains.
> >>>
> >>> FR Forum will be happy about the first. Rob should note both
> >> contributing and security will begin to go to the podling site.
> >>>
> >>> qa.openoffice.org
> >>> redirectMatch permanent /issues/(.*)  https://issues.apache.org/ooo/$1
> >>> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/qa/$1
> >>>
> >>> contributing.openoffice.org
> >>> redirectMatch permanent (.*)
> >> incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html
> >>>
> >>> security.openoffice.org
> >>> redirectMatch permanent (.*)
> >> incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/security/
> >>>
> >>> aa.openoffice.org
> >>> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/aa/$1
> >>>
> >>> about.openoffice.org
> >>> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/about/$1
> >>>
> >>> af.openoffice.org
> >>> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/af/$1
> >>>
> >>> am.openoffice.org
> >>> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/am/$1
> >>>
> >>> ....
> >>>
> >>> Other redirects anyone?
> >>>
> >>> With this information you should have everything ready to do the
> >> switchover when the word is given.
> >>>
> >>> It would make people happy to have the first qa.oo.o redirect and those
> >> for contributing.oo.o and security.oo.o immediately.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> All set. Just did a full site build and it went thru no trouble.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> >>>>> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
> >>>>> Cc:
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:45 PM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm working with Gav to get the timeout upped as that's what's
> >>>>> causing the builds to fail (long delays when the built site gets
> >>>>> checked back in).  I will let you know once I have things ready
> >>>>> for you to make mass changes to the ooo-site.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>> From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> >>>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>> Cc:
> >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:32 PM
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why don't you just decide to make the current ooo-site live,
> >>>>>>> and tell infra to change dns for www.openoffice.org to point
> >>>>>>> at it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is an outstanding question about exactly how the extensions
> and
> >>>>> templates
> >>>>>> authenticate users. It is being investigated.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Also the subdomain map needs to be built.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've made some performance enhancements to the CMS today so
> >>>>>>> web checkouts will only take a few seconds as opposed to 30min.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's wonderful!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Also I will be working on your site's build because it is in a
> >>>>>>> terrible state, but that will take more time.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Too much was committed at once.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, we don't collide let me know if you are working with templates
> or
> >>>>> lib, I
> >>>>>> am (or was) about to play with that part. I am really effin, tired
> of
> >> being
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> yelled at at repeatedly by Rob.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When I'm done with my plan nearly every html file in ooo-site will
> be
> >>>>>> updated, how do you want to co-ordinate that?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> Dave
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>>> From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>> Cc:
> >>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:55 PM
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Dave Fisher
> >>>>>> <da...@comcast.net>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Dave Fisher
> >>>>>>>> <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I've already answered. I've been very clear.
> >>>>>> Nothing has
> >>>>>>>> stopped others from working on ooo-site.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I apologize if I was not clear.  I'm not interested in
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> editing
> >>>>>>>>>> ooo-site.apache.org.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And I happen to think that this is absolute nonsense. ooo-site
> >>>>> will
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>> www.openoffice.org when the time comes. Waiting is a bogus
> excuse.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> To the extent that you continue to not understand what I am saying
> >>>>> I
> >>>>>>>> will continue to repeat myself, attempting various ways of
> >>>>>>>> reformulating my point.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I want to update www.openoffice.org.  I do not want to update
> only
> >>>>>>>> your test server.  I want the changes I make now to be reflected
> >>>>> on
> >>>>>>>> the public, user facing openoffice.org website after a simple
> >>>>> staging
> >>>>>>>> and publication stage, i.e., near real time, no more than a few
> >>>>>>>> minutes delay.  That is what the project needs.  This is what we
> >>>>> all
> >>>>>>>> need. The fact that we can can easily update ooo-site, a staging
> >>>>>>>> website that no user actually ever sees is a partial success only.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What I hear you saying is that we're free to update the data
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> /ooo-site and that will then appear on the test staging server.
> >>>>> That
> >>>>>>>> is nice.  But the changes that you, me and others have made on
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> content is not being seen by real users.  It is stuck in limbo.
> >>>>> We
> >>>>>>>> can invite committers to stick more content into limbo, of course,
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> queue it up for publication at some indeterminate point in the
> >>>>> future.
> >>>>>>>>  But I'm more interested in what we need to do to get the
> >>>>> content
> >>>>>> out
> >>>>>>>> of limbo and live on www.openoffice.org.  How do we complete
> this?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So this is not about ooo-site.  This is about the complete
> >>>>> publication
> >>>>>>>> pipeline.  That is  what matters for the PPMC's ability to
> >>>>> properly
> >>>>>>>> manage the www.openoffice.org website.  Nothing is live until the
> >>>>> PPMC
> >>>>>>>> can effectively update the real site.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Remember, what our users have on www.openoffice.org is very wrong
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> many places.  We're continuing every day to harm the project
> >>>>> if
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> content remains as-is and is not replaced by accurate project
> >>>>>>>> information.   The fact that some of the content is corrected in
> >>>>> SVN
> >>>>>>>> or on ooo-site is not enough.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If at all possible, I'd urge us to take a "release early,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>> often" approach to the website migration rather than a
> >>>>> "big
> >>>>>> bang
> >>>>>>>> integration" approach.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What is the minimum that really needs to be done to make this site
> >>>>> go
> >>>>>>>> live?   And how can I, and anyone else who is interested in
> >>>>>>>> accelerating this work, help?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -Rob
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> > by the way its animals are treated."
> >                              -- Mohandas Gandhi
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
 by the way its animals are treated."
                              -- Mohandas Gandhi

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Dec 12, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Joe,
>>> 
>>> Great. I've created a URL redirect list which I'll attach to INFRA-3933
>> as we discussed.
>> 
>> I also updated -
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/DNS,+Virtual+Hosts+and+Redirects
>> 
> 
> Dave--
> 
> GREAT WORK! Thanks for going to all this trouble--really! :)

Your great work made this easy!

WIth all of the subdomains in place in the svn it was all about making directory names into domain names and grinding through.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I made the list in the following format - the first three are special
>> and following is the pattern for the rest of the well over 100 subdomains.
>>> 
>>> FR Forum will be happy about the first. Rob should note both
>> contributing and security will begin to go to the podling site.
>>> 
>>> qa.openoffice.org
>>> redirectMatch permanent /issues/(.*)  https://issues.apache.org/ooo/$1
>>> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/qa/$1
>>> 
>>> contributing.openoffice.org
>>> redirectMatch permanent (.*)
>> incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html
>>> 
>>> security.openoffice.org
>>> redirectMatch permanent (.*)
>> incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/security/
>>> 
>>> aa.openoffice.org
>>> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/aa/$1
>>> 
>>> about.openoffice.org
>>> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/about/$1
>>> 
>>> af.openoffice.org
>>> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/af/$1
>>> 
>>> am.openoffice.org
>>> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/am/$1
>>> 
>>> ....
>>> 
>>> Other redirects anyone?
>>> 
>>> With this information you should have everything ready to do the
>> switchover when the word is given.
>>> 
>>> It would make people happy to have the first qa.oo.o redirect and those
>> for contributing.oo.o and security.oo.o immediately.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> 
>>>> All set. Just did a full site build and it went thru no trouble.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>> Cc:
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:45 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm working with Gav to get the timeout upped as that's what's
>>>>> causing the builds to fail (long delays when the built site gets
>>>>> checked back in).  I will let you know once I have things ready
>>>>> for you to make mass changes to the ooo-site.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
>>>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:32 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Why don't you just decide to make the current ooo-site live,
>>>>>>> and tell infra to change dns for www.openoffice.org to point
>>>>>>> at it?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There is an outstanding question about exactly how the extensions and
>>>>> templates
>>>>>> authenticate users. It is being investigated.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also the subdomain map needs to be built.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I've made some performance enhancements to the CMS today so
>>>>>>> web checkouts will only take a few seconds as opposed to 30min.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That's wonderful!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Also I will be working on your site's build because it is in a
>>>>>>> terrible state, but that will take more time.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Too much was committed at once.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, we don't collide let me know if you are working with templates or
>>>>> lib, I
>>>>>> am (or was) about to play with that part. I am really effin, tired of
>> being
>>>>> 
>>>>>> yelled at at repeatedly by Rob.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> When I'm done with my plan nearly every html file in ooo-site will be
>>>>>> updated, how do you want to co-ordinate that?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>> From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:55 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Dave Fisher
>>>>>> <da...@comcast.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Dave Fisher
>>>>>>>> <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I've already answered. I've been very clear.
>>>>>> Nothing has
>>>>>>>> stopped others from working on ooo-site.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I apologize if I was not clear.  I'm not interested in
>>>>> 
>>>>>> editing
>>>>>>>>>> ooo-site.apache.org.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> And I happen to think that this is absolute nonsense. ooo-site
>>>>> will
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> www.openoffice.org when the time comes. Waiting is a bogus excuse.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> To the extent that you continue to not understand what I am saying
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> will continue to repeat myself, attempting various ways of
>>>>>>>> reformulating my point.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I want to update www.openoffice.org.  I do not want to update only
>>>>>>>> your test server.  I want the changes I make now to be reflected
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> the public, user facing openoffice.org website after a simple
>>>>> staging
>>>>>>>> and publication stage, i.e., near real time, no more than a few
>>>>>>>> minutes delay.  That is what the project needs.  This is what we
>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> need. The fact that we can can easily update ooo-site, a staging
>>>>>>>> website that no user actually ever sees is a partial success only.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What I hear you saying is that we're free to update the data
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> /ooo-site and that will then appear on the test staging server.
>>>>> That
>>>>>>>> is nice.  But the changes that you, me and others have made on
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> content is not being seen by real users.  It is stuck in limbo.
>>>>> We
>>>>>>>> can invite committers to stick more content into limbo, of course,
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> queue it up for publication at some indeterminate point in the
>>>>> future.
>>>>>>>>  But I'm more interested in what we need to do to get the
>>>>> content
>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> of limbo and live on www.openoffice.org.  How do we complete this?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So this is not about ooo-site.  This is about the complete
>>>>> publication
>>>>>>>> pipeline.  That is  what matters for the PPMC's ability to
>>>>> properly
>>>>>>>> manage the www.openoffice.org website.  Nothing is live until the
>>>>> PPMC
>>>>>>>> can effectively update the real site.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Remember, what our users have on www.openoffice.org is very wrong
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> many places.  We're continuing every day to harm the project
>>>>> if
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> content remains as-is and is not replaced by accurate project
>>>>>>>> information.   The fact that some of the content is corrected in
>>>>> SVN
>>>>>>>> or on ooo-site is not enough.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If at all possible, I'd urge us to take a "release early,
>>>>> 
>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>> often" approach to the website migration rather than a
>>>>> "big
>>>>>> bang
>>>>>>>> integration" approach.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What is the minimum that really needs to be done to make this site
>>>>> go
>>>>>>>> live?   And how can I, and anyone else who is interested in
>>>>>>>> accelerating this work, help?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
> 
> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> by the way its animals are treated."
>                              -- Mohandas Gandhi

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> On Dec 11, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > Great. I've created a URL redirect list which I'll attach to INFRA-3933
> as we discussed.
>
> I also updated -
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/DNS,+Virtual+Hosts+and+Redirects
>

Dave--

GREAT WORK! Thanks for going to all this trouble--really! :)



>
> >
> > I made the list in the following format - the first three are special
> and following is the pattern for the rest of the well over 100 subdomains.
> >
> > FR Forum will be happy about the first. Rob should note both
> contributing and security will begin to go to the podling site.
> >
> > qa.openoffice.org
> > redirectMatch permanent /issues/(.*)  https://issues.apache.org/ooo/$1
> > redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/qa/$1
> >
> > contributing.openoffice.org
> > redirectMatch permanent (.*)
> incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html
> >
> > security.openoffice.org
> > redirectMatch permanent (.*)
> incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/security/
> >
> > aa.openoffice.org
> > redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/aa/$1
> >
> > about.openoffice.org
> > redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/about/$1
> >
> > af.openoffice.org
> > redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/af/$1
> >
> > am.openoffice.org
> > redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/am/$1
> >
> > ....
> >
> > Other redirects anyone?
> >
> > With this information you should have everything ready to do the
> switchover when the word is given.
> >
> > It would make people happy to have the first qa.oo.o redirect and those
> for contributing.oo.o and security.oo.o immediately.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >
> >> All set. Just did a full site build and it went thru no trouble.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> >>> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
> >>> Cc:
> >>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:45 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
> >>>
> >>> I'm working with Gav to get the timeout upped as that's what's
> >>> causing the builds to fail (long delays when the built site gets
> >>> checked back in).  I will let you know once I have things ready
> >>> for you to make mass changes to the ooo-site.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> >>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>> Cc:
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:32 PM
> >>>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>  Why don't you just decide to make the current ooo-site live,
> >>>>>  and tell infra to change dns for www.openoffice.org to point
> >>>>>  at it?
> >>>>
> >>>> There is an outstanding question about exactly how the extensions and
> >>> templates
> >>>> authenticate users. It is being investigated.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also the subdomain map needs to be built.
> >>>>
> >>>>>  I've made some performance enhancements to the CMS today so
> >>>>>  web checkouts will only take a few seconds as opposed to 30min.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's wonderful!
> >>>>
> >>>>>  Also I will be working on your site's build because it is in a
> >>>>>  terrible state, but that will take more time.
> >>>>
> >>>> Too much was committed at once.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, we don't collide let me know if you are working with templates or
> >>> lib, I
> >>>> am (or was) about to play with that part. I am really effin, tired of
> being
> >>>
> >>>> yelled at at repeatedly by Rob.
> >>>>
> >>>> When I'm done with my plan nearly every html file in ooo-site will be
> >>>> updated, how do you want to co-ordinate that?
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Dave
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>  From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> >>>>>>  To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>  Cc:
> >>>>>>  Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:55 PM
> >>>>>>  Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Dave Fisher
> >>>> <da...@comcast.net>
> >>>>>>  wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>  On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Dave Fisher
> >>>>>>  <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>  <snip>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  I've already answered. I've been very clear.
> >>>> Nothing has
> >>>>>>  stopped others from working on ooo-site.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>  I apologize if I was not clear.  I'm not interested in
> >>>
> >>>> editing
> >>>>>>>>  ooo-site.apache.org.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  And I happen to think that this is absolute nonsense. ooo-site
> >>> will
> >>>> be
> >>>>>>  www.openoffice.org when the time comes. Waiting is a bogus excuse.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  To the extent that you continue to not understand what I am saying
> >>> I
> >>>>>>  will continue to repeat myself, attempting various ways of
> >>>>>>  reformulating my point.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  I want to update www.openoffice.org.  I do not want to update only
> >>>>>>  your test server.  I want the changes I make now to be reflected
> >>> on
> >>>>>>  the public, user facing openoffice.org website after a simple
> >>> staging
> >>>>>>  and publication stage, i.e., near real time, no more than a few
> >>>>>>  minutes delay.  That is what the project needs.  This is what we
> >>> all
> >>>>>>  need. The fact that we can can easily update ooo-site, a staging
> >>>>>>  website that no user actually ever sees is a partial success only.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  What I hear you saying is that we're free to update the data
> >>> in
> >>>>>>  /ooo-site and that will then appear on the test staging server.
> >>> That
> >>>>>>  is nice.  But the changes that you, me and others have made on
> >>> that
> >>>>>>  content is not being seen by real users.  It is stuck in limbo.
> >>> We
> >>>>>>  can invite committers to stick more content into limbo, of course,
> >>> to
> >>>>>>  queue it up for publication at some indeterminate point in the
> >>> future.
> >>>>>>   But I'm more interested in what we need to do to get the
> >>> content
> >>>> out
> >>>>>>  of limbo and live on www.openoffice.org.  How do we complete this?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  So this is not about ooo-site.  This is about the complete
> >>> publication
> >>>>>>  pipeline.  That is  what matters for the PPMC's ability to
> >>> properly
> >>>>>>  manage the www.openoffice.org website.  Nothing is live until the
> >>> PPMC
> >>>>>>  can effectively update the real site.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  Remember, what our users have on www.openoffice.org is very wrong
> >>> in
> >>>>>>  many places.  We're continuing every day to harm the project
> >>> if
> >>>> that
> >>>>>>  content remains as-is and is not replaced by accurate project
> >>>>>>  information.   The fact that some of the content is corrected in
> >>> SVN
> >>>>>>  or on ooo-site is not enough.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  If at all possible, I'd urge us to take a "release early,
> >>>
> >>>> release
> >>>>>>  often" approach to the website migration rather than a
> >>> "big
> >>>> bang
> >>>>>>  integration" approach.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  What is the minimum that really needs to be done to make this site
> >>> go
> >>>>>>  live?   And how can I, and anyone else who is interested in
> >>>>>>  accelerating this work, help?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  -Rob
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
 by the way its animals are treated."
                              -- Mohandas Gandhi

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Dec 11, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:

> Hi Joe,
> 
> Great. I've created a URL redirect list which I'll attach to INFRA-3933 as we discussed.

I also updated - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/DNS,+Virtual+Hosts+and+Redirects

> 
> I made the list in the following format - the first three are special and following is the pattern for the rest of the well over 100 subdomains.
> 
> FR Forum will be happy about the first. Rob should note both contributing and security will begin to go to the podling site.
> 
> qa.openoffice.org
> redirectMatch permanent /issues/(.*)  https://issues.apache.org/ooo/$1
> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/qa/$1
> 
> contributing.openoffice.org
> redirectMatch permanent (.*) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html
> 
> security.openoffice.org
> redirectMatch permanent (.*) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/security/
> 
> aa.openoffice.org
> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/aa/$1
> 
> about.openoffice.org
> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/about/$1
> 
> af.openoffice.org
> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/af/$1
> 
> am.openoffice.org
> redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/am/$1
> 
> ....
> 
> Other redirects anyone?
> 
> With this information you should have everything ready to do the switchover when the word is given.
> 
> It would make people happy to have the first qa.oo.o redirect and those for contributing.oo.o and security.oo.o immediately.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> 
> On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> 
>> All set. Just did a full site build and it went thru no trouble.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
>>> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Cc: 
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:45 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>>> 
>>> I'm working with Gav to get the timeout upped as that's what's
>>> causing the builds to fail (long delays when the built site gets
>>> checked back in).  I will let you know once I have things ready
>>> for you to make mass changes to the ooo-site.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Cc: 
>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:32 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>  Why don't you just decide to make the current ooo-site live,
>>>>>  and tell infra to change dns for www.openoffice.org to point
>>>>>  at it?
>>>> 
>>>> There is an outstanding question about exactly how the extensions and 
>>> templates 
>>>> authenticate users. It is being investigated.
>>>> 
>>>> Also the subdomain map needs to be built.
>>>> 
>>>>>  I've made some performance enhancements to the CMS today so
>>>>>  web checkouts will only take a few seconds as opposed to 30min.
>>>> 
>>>> That's wonderful!
>>>> 
>>>>>  Also I will be working on your site's build because it is in a
>>>>>  terrible state, but that will take more time.
>>>> 
>>>> Too much was committed at once.
>>>> 
>>>> So, we don't collide let me know if you are working with templates or 
>>> lib, I 
>>>> am (or was) about to play with that part. I am really effin, tired of being 
>>> 
>>>> yelled at at repeatedly by Rob.
>>>> 
>>>> When I'm done with my plan nearly every html file in ooo-site will be 
>>>> updated, how do you want to co-ordinate that?
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dave
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>  From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>>>>>  To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>  Cc: 
>>>>>>  Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:55 PM
>>>>>>  Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Dave Fisher 
>>>> <da...@comcast.net> 
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Dave Fisher 
>>>>>>  <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  <snip>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  I've already answered. I've been very clear. 
>>>> Nothing has 
>>>>>>  stopped others from working on ooo-site.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  I apologize if I was not clear.  I'm not interested in 
>>> 
>>>> editing
>>>>>>>>  ooo-site.apache.org.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  And I happen to think that this is absolute nonsense. ooo-site 
>>> will 
>>>> be 
>>>>>>  www.openoffice.org when the time comes. Waiting is a bogus excuse.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  To the extent that you continue to not understand what I am saying 
>>> I
>>>>>>  will continue to repeat myself, attempting various ways of
>>>>>>  reformulating my point.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  I want to update www.openoffice.org.  I do not want to update only
>>>>>>  your test server.  I want the changes I make now to be reflected 
>>> on
>>>>>>  the public, user facing openoffice.org website after a simple 
>>> staging
>>>>>>  and publication stage, i.e., near real time, no more than a few
>>>>>>  minutes delay.  That is what the project needs.  This is what we 
>>> all
>>>>>>  need. The fact that we can can easily update ooo-site, a staging
>>>>>>  website that no user actually ever sees is a partial success only.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  What I hear you saying is that we're free to update the data 
>>> in
>>>>>>  /ooo-site and that will then appear on the test staging server.  
>>> That
>>>>>>  is nice.  But the changes that you, me and others have made on 
>>> that
>>>>>>  content is not being seen by real users.  It is stuck in limbo.  
>>> We
>>>>>>  can invite committers to stick more content into limbo, of course, 
>>> to
>>>>>>  queue it up for publication at some indeterminate point in the 
>>> future.
>>>>>>   But I'm more interested in what we need to do to get the 
>>> content 
>>>> out
>>>>>>  of limbo and live on www.openoffice.org.  How do we complete this?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  So this is not about ooo-site.  This is about the complete 
>>> publication
>>>>>>  pipeline.  That is  what matters for the PPMC's ability to 
>>> properly
>>>>>>  manage the www.openoffice.org website.  Nothing is live until the 
>>> PPMC
>>>>>>  can effectively update the real site.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  Remember, what our users have on www.openoffice.org is very wrong 
>>> in
>>>>>>  many places.  We're continuing every day to harm the project 
>>> if 
>>>> that
>>>>>>  content remains as-is and is not replaced by accurate project
>>>>>>  information.   The fact that some of the content is corrected in 
>>> SVN
>>>>>>  or on ooo-site is not enough.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  If at all possible, I'd urge us to take a "release early, 
>>> 
>>>> release
>>>>>>  often" approach to the website migration rather than a 
>>> "big 
>>>> bang
>>>>>>  integration" approach.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  What is the minimum that really needs to be done to make this site 
>>> go
>>>>>>  live?   And how can I, and anyone else who is interested in
>>>>>>  accelerating this work, help?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  -Rob
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
> 

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

Hi Joe,

Great. I've created a URL redirect list which I'll attach to INFRA-3933 as we discussed.

I made the list in the following format - the first three are special and following is the pattern for the rest of the well over 100 subdomains.

FR Forum will be happy about the first. Rob should note both contributing and security will begin to go to the podling site.

qa.openoffice.org
redirectMatch permanent /issues/(.*)  https://issues.apache.org/ooo/$1
redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/qa/$1

contributing.openoffice.org
redirectMatch permanent (.*) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html

security.openoffice.org
redirectMatch permanent (.*) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/security/

aa.openoffice.org
redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/aa/$1

about.openoffice.org
redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/about/$1

af.openoffice.org
redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/af/$1

am.openoffice.org
redirectMatch permanent (.*) www.openoffice.org/am/$1

....

Other redirects anyone?

With this information you should have everything ready to do the switchover when the word is given.

It would make people happy to have the first qa.oo.o redirect and those for contributing.oo.o and security.oo.o immediately.

Regards,
Dave


On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:

> All set. Just did a full site build and it went thru no trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
>> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Cc: 
>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:45 PM
>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>> 
>> I'm working with Gav to get the timeout upped as that's what's
>> causing the builds to fail (long delays when the built site gets
>> checked back in).  I will let you know once I have things ready
>> for you to make mass changes to the ooo-site.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: 
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:32 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> 
>>>>   Why don't you just decide to make the current ooo-site live,
>>>>   and tell infra to change dns for www.openoffice.org to point
>>>>   at it?
>>> 
>>> There is an outstanding question about exactly how the extensions and 
>> templates 
>>> authenticate users. It is being investigated.
>>> 
>>> Also the subdomain map needs to be built.
>>> 
>>>>   I've made some performance enhancements to the CMS today so
>>>>   web checkouts will only take a few seconds as opposed to 30min.
>>> 
>>> That's wonderful!
>>> 
>>>>   Also I will be working on your site's build because it is in a
>>>>   terrible state, but that will take more time.
>>> 
>>> Too much was committed at once.
>>> 
>>> So, we don't collide let me know if you are working with templates or 
>> lib, I 
>>> am (or was) about to play with that part. I am really effin, tired of being 
>> 
>>> yelled at at repeatedly by Rob.
>>> 
>>> When I'm done with my plan nearly every html file in ooo-site will be 
>>> updated, how do you want to co-ordinate that?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>   From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>>>>   To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>   Cc: 
>>>>>   Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:55 PM
>>>>>   Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>>>>> 
>>>>>   On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Dave Fisher 
>>> <da...@comcast.net> 
>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Dave Fisher 
>>>>>   <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   <snip>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>   I've already answered. I've been very clear. 
>>> Nothing has 
>>>>>   stopped others from working on ooo-site.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   I apologize if I was not clear.  I'm not interested in 
>> 
>>> editing
>>>>>>>   ooo-site.apache.org.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   And I happen to think that this is absolute nonsense. ooo-site 
>> will 
>>> be 
>>>>>   www.openoffice.org when the time comes. Waiting is a bogus excuse.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>   To the extent that you continue to not understand what I am saying 
>> I
>>>>>   will continue to repeat myself, attempting various ways of
>>>>>   reformulating my point.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   I want to update www.openoffice.org.  I do not want to update only
>>>>>   your test server.  I want the changes I make now to be reflected 
>> on
>>>>>   the public, user facing openoffice.org website after a simple 
>> staging
>>>>>   and publication stage, i.e., near real time, no more than a few
>>>>>   minutes delay.  That is what the project needs.  This is what we 
>> all
>>>>>   need. The fact that we can can easily update ooo-site, a staging
>>>>>   website that no user actually ever sees is a partial success only.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   What I hear you saying is that we're free to update the data 
>> in
>>>>>   /ooo-site and that will then appear on the test staging server.  
>> That
>>>>>   is nice.  But the changes that you, me and others have made on 
>> that
>>>>>   content is not being seen by real users.  It is stuck in limbo.  
>> We
>>>>>   can invite committers to stick more content into limbo, of course, 
>> to
>>>>>   queue it up for publication at some indeterminate point in the 
>> future.
>>>>>    But I'm more interested in what we need to do to get the 
>> content 
>>> out
>>>>>   of limbo and live on www.openoffice.org.  How do we complete this?
>>>>> 
>>>>>   So this is not about ooo-site.  This is about the complete 
>> publication
>>>>>   pipeline.  That is  what matters for the PPMC's ability to 
>> properly
>>>>>   manage the www.openoffice.org website.  Nothing is live until the 
>> PPMC
>>>>>   can effectively update the real site.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Remember, what our users have on www.openoffice.org is very wrong 
>> in
>>>>>   many places.  We're continuing every day to harm the project 
>> if 
>>> that
>>>>>   content remains as-is and is not replaced by accurate project
>>>>>   information.   The fact that some of the content is corrected in 
>> SVN
>>>>>   or on ooo-site is not enough.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   If at all possible, I'd urge us to take a "release early, 
>> 
>>> release
>>>>>   often" approach to the website migration rather than a 
>> "big 
>>> bang
>>>>>   integration" approach.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   What is the minimum that really needs to be done to make this site 
>> go
>>>>>   live?   And how can I, and anyone else who is interested in
>>>>>   accelerating this work, help?
>>>>> 
>>>>>   -Rob
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Dec 12, 2011, at 4:58 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> It is worth repeating the three special redirection cases. Two are desired and one I think makes sense to me, it probably deserves its own thread.
>> 
>> (1) redirect requests to security.openoffice.org to incubator.apache.org/openoffiorg/security/.
>> 
>>        This means that we intend the setup as expressed on openoffice.org to be replaced.
>> 
> 
> Our current page is:  http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/security.html
> 
> So we don't have a security subdirectory on the incubator site.  We
> have a security.html file in the root.  Of course this can be changed,
> if needed to an index.mdtext in a subdir.  Let me know.

I think security/index.mdtext is best.

I do have some experience in folder level sidenav.mdtext that we can apply to podling site organization.

> 
> 
>> (2) redirect requests to contributing.openoffice,org to a specific page. This is certainly the consensus.
>> 
> 
> Was there consensus on what the destination would be?
> 
> Was it:  http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html ???

Yes. There was. My personal preference is participate/

The consensus is in the redirect.txt file attached to the JIRA issue and on the CWiki page.

> 
>> (3) redirect requests to qa.openoffice.org/issues/ to issues.apache.org/ooo/. This has been requested to preserve BZ links.
>> 
> 
> +1
> 
>> I see no reason not to proceed with (2) and (3) immediately, and (1) is probably the same.
>> 

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Zhe Liu <al...@gmail.com>]

Great!
Now "I want to participate in Openoffice.org" is linked to project
site "http://incubator.apache.org/openoffice". I want to know which
site should non-programming contributors like QA/Marketing/NL/Art
Design visit. "http://incubator.apache.org/openoffice" or
"http://ooo-site.apache.org/"? There is no entry for them on both
site.


2011/12/13 Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>:
> BTW -
>
> A footer change is now appearing on ooo-site.staging.apache.org/ !
>
> The link to license.html is present. Someone please review and commit changes to ooo-site/trunk/content/license.html. It needs work.
>
> I'll get to the topnav and breadcrumbs later. No delays to migration from me.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Dec 12, 2011, at 4:58 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> It is worth repeating the three special redirection cases. Two are desired and one I think makes sense to me, it probably deserves its own thread.
>>>
>>> (1) redirect requests to security.openoffice.org to incubator.apache.org/openoffiorg/security/.
>>>
>>>        This means that we intend the setup as expressed on openoffice.org to be replaced.
>>>
>>
>> Our current page is:  http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/security.html
>>
>> So we don't have a security subdirectory on the incubator site.  We
>> have a security.html file in the root.  Of course this can be changed,
>> if needed to an index.mdtext in a subdir.  Let me know.
>>
>>
>>> (2) redirect requests to contributing.openoffice,org to a specific page. This is certainly the consensus.
>>>
>>
>> Was there consensus on what the destination would be?
>>
>> Was it:  http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html ???
>>
>>> (3) redirect requests to qa.openoffice.org/issues/ to issues.apache.org/ooo/. This has been requested to preserve BZ links.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>>> I see no reason not to proceed with (2) and (3) immediately, and (1) is probably the same.
>>>
>



-- 
Best Regards
>From aliuzhe@gmail.com

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

BTW -

A footer change is now appearing on ooo-site.staging.apache.org/ !

The link to license.html is present. Someone please review and commit changes to ooo-site/trunk/content/license.html. It needs work.

I'll get to the topnav and breadcrumbs later. No delays to migration from me.

Regards,
Dave

On Dec 12, 2011, at 4:58 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> It is worth repeating the three special redirection cases. Two are desired and one I think makes sense to me, it probably deserves its own thread.
>> 
>> (1) redirect requests to security.openoffice.org to incubator.apache.org/openoffiorg/security/.
>> 
>>        This means that we intend the setup as expressed on openoffice.org to be replaced.
>> 
> 
> Our current page is:  http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/security.html
> 
> So we don't have a security subdirectory on the incubator site.  We
> have a security.html file in the root.  Of course this can be changed,
> if needed to an index.mdtext in a subdir.  Let me know.
> 
> 
>> (2) redirect requests to contributing.openoffice,org to a specific page. This is certainly the consensus.
>> 
> 
> Was there consensus on what the destination would be?
> 
> Was it:  http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html ???
> 
>> (3) redirect requests to qa.openoffice.org/issues/ to issues.apache.org/ooo/. This has been requested to preserve BZ links.
>> 
> 
> +1
> 
>> I see no reason not to proceed with (2) and (3) immediately, and (1) is probably the same.
>> 

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:

<snip>

> It is worth repeating the three special redirection cases. Two are desired and one I think makes sense to me, it probably deserves its own thread.
>
> (1) redirect requests to security.openoffice.org to incubator.apache.org/openoffiorg/security/.
>
>        This means that we intend the setup as expressed on openoffice.org to be replaced.
>

Our current page is:  http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/security.html

So we don't have a security subdirectory on the incubator site.  We
have a security.html file in the root.  Of course this can be changed,
if needed to an index.mdtext in a subdir.  Let me know.


> (2) redirect requests to contributing.openoffice,org to a specific page. This is certainly the consensus.
>

Was there consensus on what the destination would be?

Was it:  http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html ???

> (3) redirect requests to qa.openoffice.org/issues/ to issues.apache.org/ooo/. This has been requested to preserve BZ links.
>

+1

> I see no reason not to proceed with (2) and (3) immediately, and (1) is probably the same.
>

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

Does anyone see any technical blockers to making ooo-site.apache.org into www.openoffice.org?

I think I see daylight to the E&T registration problem - see comments in-line.

On Dec 12, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> 
>> All set. Just did a full site build and it went thru no trouble.
>> 
> 
> YAY! I did see this am that all seemed to be in good order...I'm not sure
> WHAT happened yesterday. Right after I did a commit, I couldn't even get
> this page to load:
> 
> https://cms.apache.org/
> 
> so I was sure the CMS was having problems.

It was - here is the earlier comment from Joe with my reply:

>>>>>  I've made some performance enhancements to the CMS today so
>>>>>  web checkouts will only take a few seconds as opposed to 30min.
>>>> 
>>>> That's wonderful!
>>>> 


> 
> I'm happy to hear things are good now, and will hopefully remain so.

The redirect list is now attached to INFRA-3933.

While it would be good to have the headers and footers correct, I didn't get to it yesterday. The redirection list was the key technical bottleneck.

It is worth repeating the three special redirection cases. Two are desired and one I think makes sense to me, it probably deserves its own thread.

(1) redirect requests to security.openoffice.org to incubator.apache.org/openoffiorg/security/.

	This means that we intend the setup as expressed on openoffice.org to be replaced.

(2) redirect requests to contributing.openoffice,org to a specific page. This is certainly the consensus.

(3) redirect requests to qa.openoffice.org/issues/ to issues.apache.org/ooo/. This has been requested to preserve BZ links.

I see no reason not to proceed with (2) and (3) immediately, and (1) is probably the same.

About E & T user authentication. I doubt that user authentication is to www.openoffice.org, it is likely to be to openoffice.org or another subdomain. If it is to openoffice.org then we would leave that IP at Oracle and only change www.openoffice.org plus the 136 subdomains in the redirect list to point to ooo-site.

Users who do http://openoffice.org are redirected to www.openoffice.org. That action would continue.

$ curl -v http://openoffice.org/
* About to connect() to openoffice.org port 80 (#0)
*   Trying 192.9.164.104... connected
* Connected to openoffice.org (192.9.164.104) port 80 (#0)
> GET / HTTP/1.1
> User-Agent: curl/7.19.7 (universal-apple-darwin10.0) libcurl/7.19.7 OpenSSL/0.9.8r zlib/1.2.3
> Host: openoffice.org
> Accept: */*
> 
< HTTP/1.1 302 Found
< Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:29:03 GMT
< Server: Apache/2.2.21 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.21 OpenSSL/0.9.8a mod_perl/2.0.6-dev Perl/v5.14.2
< Location: http://www.openoffice.org
< Cache-Control: max-age=0
< Expires: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:29:03 GMT
< Vary: Accept-Encoding
< Content-Length: 209
< Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
< 
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
<html><head>
<title>302 Found</title>
</head><body>
<h1>Found</h1>
<p>The document has moved <a href="http://www.openoffice.org">here</a>.</p>
</body></html>
* Connection #0 to host openoffice.org left intact
* Closing connection #0

Regards,
Dave


> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
>>> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:45 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>>> 
>>> I'm working with Gav to get the timeout upped as that's what's
>>> causing the builds to fail (long delays when the built site gets
>>> checked back in).  I will let you know once I have things ready
>>> for you to make mass changes to the ooo-site.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:32 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>  Why don't you just decide to make the current ooo-site live,
>>>>>  and tell infra to change dns for www.openoffice.org to point
>>>>>  at it?
>>>> 
>>>> There is an outstanding question about exactly how the extensions and
>>> templates
>>>> authenticate users. It is being investigated.
>>>> 
>>>> Also the subdomain map needs to be built.
>>>> 
>>>>>  I've made some performance enhancements to the CMS today so
>>>>>  web checkouts will only take a few seconds as opposed to 30min.
>>>> 
>>>> That's wonderful!
>>>> 
>>>>>  Also I will be working on your site's build because it is in a
>>>>>  terrible state, but that will take more time.
>>>> 
>>>> Too much was committed at once.
>>>> 
>>>> So, we don't collide let me know if you are working with templates or
>>> lib, I
>>>> am (or was) about to play with that part. I am really effin, tired of
>> being
>>> 
>>>> yelled at at repeatedly by Rob.
>>>> 
>>>> When I'm done with my plan nearly every html file in ooo-site will be
>>>> updated, how do you want to co-ordinate that?
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dave
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>  From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>>>>>  To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>  Cc:
>>>>>>  Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:55 PM
>>>>>>  Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Dave Fisher
>>>> <da...@comcast.net>
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Dave Fisher
>>>>>>  <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  <snip>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  I've already answered. I've been very clear.
>>>> Nothing has
>>>>>>  stopped others from working on ooo-site.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  I apologize if I was not clear.  I'm not interested in
>>> 
>>>> editing
>>>>>>>>  ooo-site.apache.org.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  And I happen to think that this is absolute nonsense. ooo-site
>>> will
>>>> be
>>>>>>  www.openoffice.org when the time comes. Waiting is a bogus excuse.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  To the extent that you continue to not understand what I am saying
>>> I
>>>>>>  will continue to repeat myself, attempting various ways of
>>>>>>  reformulating my point.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  I want to update www.openoffice.org.  I do not want to update only
>>>>>>  your test server.  I want the changes I make now to be reflected
>>> on
>>>>>>  the public, user facing openoffice.org website after a simple
>>> staging
>>>>>>  and publication stage, i.e., near real time, no more than a few
>>>>>>  minutes delay.  That is what the project needs.  This is what we
>>> all
>>>>>>  need. The fact that we can can easily update ooo-site, a staging
>>>>>>  website that no user actually ever sees is a partial success only.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  What I hear you saying is that we're free to update the data
>>> in
>>>>>>  /ooo-site and that will then appear on the test staging server.
>>> That
>>>>>>  is nice.  But the changes that you, me and others have made on
>>> that
>>>>>>  content is not being seen by real users.  It is stuck in limbo.
>>> We
>>>>>>  can invite committers to stick more content into limbo, of course,
>>> to
>>>>>>  queue it up for publication at some indeterminate point in the
>>> future.
>>>>>>    But I'm more interested in what we need to do to get the
>>> content
>>>> out
>>>>>>  of limbo and live on www.openoffice.org.  How do we complete this?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  So this is not about ooo-site.  This is about the complete
>>> publication
>>>>>>  pipeline.  That is  what matters for the PPMC's ability to
>>> properly
>>>>>>  manage the www.openoffice.org website.  Nothing is live until the
>>> PPMC
>>>>>>  can effectively update the real site.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  Remember, what our users have on www.openoffice.org is very wrong
>>> in
>>>>>>  many places.  We're continuing every day to harm the project
>>> if
>>>> that
>>>>>>  content remains as-is and is not replaced by accurate project
>>>>>>  information.   The fact that some of the content is corrected in
>>> SVN
>>>>>>  or on ooo-site is not enough.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  If at all possible, I'd urge us to take a "release early,
>>> 
>>>> release
>>>>>>  often" approach to the website migration rather than a
>>> "big
>>>> bang
>>>>>>  integration" approach.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  What is the minimum that really needs to be done to make this site
>>> go
>>>>>>  live?   And how can I, and anyone else who is interested in
>>>>>>  accelerating this work, help?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  -Rob
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
> 
> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> by the way its animals are treated."
>                              -- Mohandas Gandhi

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>wrote:

> All set. Just did a full site build and it went thru no trouble.
>

YAY! I did see this am that all seemed to be in good order...I'm not sure
WHAT happened yesterday. Right after I did a commit, I couldn't even get
this page to load:

https://cms.apache.org/

so I was sure the CMS was having problems.

I'm happy to hear things are good now, and will hopefully remain so.


>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> > To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
> >
> > I'm working with Gav to get the timeout upped as that's what's
> > causing the builds to fail (long delays when the built site gets
> > checked back in).  I will let you know once I have things ready
> > for you to make mass changes to the ooo-site.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >>  From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> >>  To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>  Cc:
> >>  Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:32 PM
> >>  Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
> >>
> >>
> >>  On Dec 11, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>
> >>>   Why don't you just decide to make the current ooo-site live,
> >>>   and tell infra to change dns for www.openoffice.org to point
> >>>   at it?
> >>
> >>  There is an outstanding question about exactly how the extensions and
> > templates
> >>  authenticate users. It is being investigated.
> >>
> >>  Also the subdomain map needs to be built.
> >>
> >>>   I've made some performance enhancements to the CMS today so
> >>>   web checkouts will only take a few seconds as opposed to 30min.
> >>
> >>  That's wonderful!
> >>
> >>>   Also I will be working on your site's build because it is in a
> >>>   terrible state, but that will take more time.
> >>
> >>  Too much was committed at once.
> >>
> >>  So, we don't collide let me know if you are working with templates or
> > lib, I
> >>  am (or was) about to play with that part. I am really effin, tired of
> being
> >
> >>  yelled at at repeatedly by Rob.
> >>
> >>  When I'm done with my plan nearly every html file in ooo-site will be
> >>  updated, how do you want to co-ordinate that?
> >>
> >>  Regards,
> >>  Dave
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>   From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> >>>>   To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>   Cc:
> >>>>   Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:55 PM
> >>>>   Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
> >>>>
> >>>>   On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Dave Fisher
> >>  <da...@comcast.net>
> >>>>   wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>   On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Dave Fisher
> >>>>   <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>   <snip>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>   I've already answered. I've been very clear.
> >>  Nothing has
> >>>>   stopped others from working on ooo-site.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>   I apologize if I was not clear.  I'm not interested in
> >
> >>  editing
> >>>>>>   ooo-site.apache.org.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   And I happen to think that this is absolute nonsense. ooo-site
> > will
> >>  be
> >>>>   www.openoffice.org when the time comes. Waiting is a bogus excuse.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>   To the extent that you continue to not understand what I am saying
> > I
> >>>>   will continue to repeat myself, attempting various ways of
> >>>>   reformulating my point.
> >>>>
> >>>>   I want to update www.openoffice.org.  I do not want to update only
> >>>>   your test server.  I want the changes I make now to be reflected
> > on
> >>>>   the public, user facing openoffice.org website after a simple
> > staging
> >>>>   and publication stage, i.e., near real time, no more than a few
> >>>>   minutes delay.  That is what the project needs.  This is what we
> > all
> >>>>   need. The fact that we can can easily update ooo-site, a staging
> >>>>   website that no user actually ever sees is a partial success only.
> >>>>
> >>>>   What I hear you saying is that we're free to update the data
> > in
> >>>>   /ooo-site and that will then appear on the test staging server.
> > That
> >>>>   is nice.  But the changes that you, me and others have made on
> > that
> >>>>   content is not being seen by real users.  It is stuck in limbo.
> > We
> >>>>   can invite committers to stick more content into limbo, of course,
> > to
> >>>>   queue it up for publication at some indeterminate point in the
> > future.
> >>>>     But I'm more interested in what we need to do to get the
> > content
> >>  out
> >>>>   of limbo and live on www.openoffice.org.  How do we complete this?
> >>>>
> >>>>   So this is not about ooo-site.  This is about the complete
> > publication
> >>>>   pipeline.  That is  what matters for the PPMC's ability to
> > properly
> >>>>   manage the www.openoffice.org website.  Nothing is live until the
> > PPMC
> >>>>   can effectively update the real site.
> >>>>
> >>>>   Remember, what our users have on www.openoffice.org is very wrong
> > in
> >>>>   many places.  We're continuing every day to harm the project
> > if
> >>  that
> >>>>   content remains as-is and is not replaced by accurate project
> >>>>   information.   The fact that some of the content is corrected in
> > SVN
> >>>>   or on ooo-site is not enough.
> >>>>
> >>>>   If at all possible, I'd urge us to take a "release early,
> >
> >>  release
> >>>>   often" approach to the website migration rather than a
> > "big
> >>  bang
> >>>>   integration" approach.
> >>>>
> >>>>   What is the minimum that really needs to be done to make this site
> > go
> >>>>   live?   And how can I, and anyone else who is interested in
> >>>>   accelerating this work, help?
> >>>>
> >>>>   -Rob
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
 by the way its animals are treated."
                              -- Mohandas Gandhi

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>]

All set. Just did a full site build and it went thru no trouble.



----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
> 
> I'm working with Gav to get the timeout upped as that's what's
> causing the builds to fail (long delays when the built site gets
> checked back in).  I will let you know once I have things ready
> for you to make mass changes to the ooo-site.
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>>  From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
>>  To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>  Cc: 
>>  Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:32 PM
>>  Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>> 
>> 
>>  On Dec 11, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> 
>>>   Why don't you just decide to make the current ooo-site live,
>>>   and tell infra to change dns for www.openoffice.org to point
>>>   at it?
>> 
>>  There is an outstanding question about exactly how the extensions and 
> templates 
>>  authenticate users. It is being investigated.
>> 
>>  Also the subdomain map needs to be built.
>> 
>>>   I've made some performance enhancements to the CMS today so
>>>   web checkouts will only take a few seconds as opposed to 30min.
>> 
>>  That's wonderful!
>> 
>>>   Also I will be working on your site's build because it is in a
>>>   terrible state, but that will take more time.
>> 
>>  Too much was committed at once.
>> 
>>  So, we don't collide let me know if you are working with templates or 
> lib, I 
>>  am (or was) about to play with that part. I am really effin, tired of being 
> 
>>  yelled at at repeatedly by Rob.
>> 
>>  When I'm done with my plan nearly every html file in ooo-site will be 
>>  updated, how do you want to co-ordinate that?
>> 
>>  Regards,
>>  Dave
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>>>   From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>>>   To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>   Cc: 
>>>>   Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:55 PM
>>>>   Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>>>> 
>>>>   On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Dave Fisher 
>>  <da...@comcast.net> 
>>>>   wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>   On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Dave Fisher 
>>>>   <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   <snip>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   I've already answered. I've been very clear. 
>>  Nothing has 
>>>>   stopped others from working on ooo-site.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   I apologize if I was not clear.  I'm not interested in 
> 
>>  editing
>>>>>>   ooo-site.apache.org.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   And I happen to think that this is absolute nonsense. ooo-site 
> will 
>>  be 
>>>>   www.openoffice.org when the time comes. Waiting is a bogus excuse.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   To the extent that you continue to not understand what I am saying 
> I
>>>>   will continue to repeat myself, attempting various ways of
>>>>   reformulating my point.
>>>> 
>>>>   I want to update www.openoffice.org.  I do not want to update only
>>>>   your test server.  I want the changes I make now to be reflected 
> on
>>>>   the public, user facing openoffice.org website after a simple 
> staging
>>>>   and publication stage, i.e., near real time, no more than a few
>>>>   minutes delay.  That is what the project needs.  This is what we 
> all
>>>>   need. The fact that we can can easily update ooo-site, a staging
>>>>   website that no user actually ever sees is a partial success only.
>>>> 
>>>>   What I hear you saying is that we're free to update the data 
> in
>>>>   /ooo-site and that will then appear on the test staging server.  
> That
>>>>   is nice.  But the changes that you, me and others have made on 
> that
>>>>   content is not being seen by real users.  It is stuck in limbo.  
> We
>>>>   can invite committers to stick more content into limbo, of course, 
> to
>>>>   queue it up for publication at some indeterminate point in the 
> future.
>>>>     But I'm more interested in what we need to do to get the 
> content 
>>  out
>>>>   of limbo and live on www.openoffice.org.  How do we complete this?
>>>> 
>>>>   So this is not about ooo-site.  This is about the complete 
> publication
>>>>   pipeline.  That is  what matters for the PPMC's ability to 
> properly
>>>>   manage the www.openoffice.org website.  Nothing is live until the 
> PPMC
>>>>   can effectively update the real site.
>>>> 
>>>>   Remember, what our users have on www.openoffice.org is very wrong 
> in
>>>>   many places.  We're continuing every day to harm the project 
> if 
>>  that
>>>>   content remains as-is and is not replaced by accurate project
>>>>   information.   The fact that some of the content is corrected in 
> SVN
>>>>   or on ooo-site is not enough.
>>>> 
>>>>   If at all possible, I'd urge us to take a "release early, 
> 
>>  release
>>>>   often" approach to the website migration rather than a 
> "big 
>>  bang
>>>>   integration" approach.
>>>> 
>>>>   What is the minimum that really needs to be done to make this site 
> go
>>>>   live?   And how can I, and anyone else who is interested in
>>>>   accelerating this work, help?
>>>> 
>>>>   -Rob
>>>> 
>> 
> 

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>]

I'm working with Gav to get the timeout upped as that's what's
causing the builds to fail (long delays when the built site gets
checked back in).  I will let you know once I have things ready
for you to make mass changes to the ooo-site.



----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
> 
> 
> On Dec 11, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> 
>>  Why don't you just decide to make the current ooo-site live,
>>  and tell infra to change dns for www.openoffice.org to point
>>  at it?
> 
> There is an outstanding question about exactly how the extensions and templates 
> authenticate users. It is being investigated.
> 
> Also the subdomain map needs to be built.
> 
>>  I've made some performance enhancements to the CMS today so
>>  web checkouts will only take a few seconds as opposed to 30min.
> 
> That's wonderful!
> 
>>  Also I will be working on your site's build because it is in a
>>  terrible state, but that will take more time.
> 
> Too much was committed at once.
> 
> So, we don't collide let me know if you are working with templates or lib, I 
> am (or was) about to play with that part. I am really effin, tired of being 
> yelled at at repeatedly by Rob.
> 
> When I'm done with my plan nearly every html file in ooo-site will be 
> updated, how do you want to co-ordinate that?
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>>  From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>>  To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>  Cc: 
>>>  Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:55 PM
>>>  Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>>> 
>>>  On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Dave Fisher 
> <da...@comcast.net> 
>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>  On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>  On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Dave Fisher 
>>>  <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>  <snip>
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  I've already answered. I've been very clear. 
> Nothing has 
>>>  stopped others from working on ooo-site.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  I apologize if I was not clear.  I'm not interested in 
> editing
>>>>>  ooo-site.apache.org.
>>>> 
>>>>  And I happen to think that this is absolute nonsense. ooo-site will 
> be 
>>>  www.openoffice.org when the time comes. Waiting is a bogus excuse.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>  To the extent that you continue to not understand what I am saying I
>>>  will continue to repeat myself, attempting various ways of
>>>  reformulating my point.
>>> 
>>>  I want to update www.openoffice.org.  I do not want to update only
>>>  your test server.  I want the changes I make now to be reflected on
>>>  the public, user facing openoffice.org website after a simple staging
>>>  and publication stage, i.e., near real time, no more than a few
>>>  minutes delay.  That is what the project needs.  This is what we all
>>>  need. The fact that we can can easily update ooo-site, a staging
>>>  website that no user actually ever sees is a partial success only.
>>> 
>>>  What I hear you saying is that we're free to update the data in
>>>  /ooo-site and that will then appear on the test staging server.  That
>>>  is nice.  But the changes that you, me and others have made on that
>>>  content is not being seen by real users.  It is stuck in limbo.  We
>>>  can invite committers to stick more content into limbo, of course, to
>>>  queue it up for publication at some indeterminate point in the future.
>>>    But I'm more interested in what we need to do to get the content 
> out
>>>  of limbo and live on www.openoffice.org.  How do we complete this?
>>> 
>>>  So this is not about ooo-site.  This is about the complete publication
>>>  pipeline.  That is  what matters for the PPMC's ability to properly
>>>  manage the www.openoffice.org website.  Nothing is live until the PPMC
>>>  can effectively update the real site.
>>> 
>>>  Remember, what our users have on www.openoffice.org is very wrong in
>>>  many places.  We're continuing every day to harm the project if 
> that
>>>  content remains as-is and is not replaced by accurate project
>>>  information.   The fact that some of the content is corrected in SVN
>>>  or on ooo-site is not enough.
>>> 
>>>  If at all possible, I'd urge us to take a "release early, 
> release
>>>  often" approach to the website migration rather than a "big 
> bang
>>>  integration" approach.
>>> 
>>>  What is the minimum that really needs to be done to make this site go
>>>  live?   And how can I, and anyone else who is interested in
>>>  accelerating this work, help?
>>> 
>>>  -Rob
>>> 
> 

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Dec 11, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:

> Why don't you just decide to make the current ooo-site live,
> and tell infra to change dns for www.openoffice.org to point
> at it?

There is an outstanding question about exactly how the extensions and templates authenticate users. It is being investigated.

Also the subdomain map needs to be built.

> I've made some performance enhancements to the CMS today so
> web checkouts will only take a few seconds as opposed to 30min.

That's wonderful!

> Also I will be working on your site's build because it is in a
> terrible state, but that will take more time.

Too much was committed at once.

So, we don't collide let me know if you are working with templates or lib, I am (or was) about to play with that part. I am really effin, tired of being yelled at at repeatedly by Rob.

When I'm done with my plan nearly every html file in ooo-site will be updated, how do you want to co-ordinate that?

Regards,
Dave

> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: 
>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>> 
>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Dave Fisher 
>> <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> <snip>
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've already answered. I've been very clear. Nothing has 
>> stopped others from working on ooo-site.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I apologize if I was not clear.  I'm not interested in editing
>>>> ooo-site.apache.org.
>>> 
>>> And I happen to think that this is absolute nonsense. ooo-site will be 
>> www.openoffice.org when the time comes. Waiting is a bogus excuse.
>>> 
>> 
>> To the extent that you continue to not understand what I am saying I
>> will continue to repeat myself, attempting various ways of
>> reformulating my point.
>> 
>> I want to update www.openoffice.org.  I do not want to update only
>> your test server.  I want the changes I make now to be reflected on
>> the public, user facing openoffice.org website after a simple staging
>> and publication stage, i.e., near real time, no more than a few
>> minutes delay.  That is what the project needs.  This is what we all
>> need. The fact that we can can easily update ooo-site, a staging
>> website that no user actually ever sees is a partial success only.
>> 
>> What I hear you saying is that we're free to update the data in
>> /ooo-site and that will then appear on the test staging server.  That
>> is nice.  But the changes that you, me and others have made on that
>> content is not being seen by real users.  It is stuck in limbo.  We
>> can invite committers to stick more content into limbo, of course, to
>> queue it up for publication at some indeterminate point in the future.
>>   But I'm more interested in what we need to do to get the content out
>> of limbo and live on www.openoffice.org.  How do we complete this?
>> 
>> So this is not about ooo-site.  This is about the complete publication
>> pipeline.  That is  what matters for the PPMC's ability to properly
>> manage the www.openoffice.org website.  Nothing is live until the PPMC
>> can effectively update the real site.
>> 
>> Remember, what our users have on www.openoffice.org is very wrong in
>> many places.  We're continuing every day to harm the project if that
>> content remains as-is and is not replaced by accurate project
>> information.   The fact that some of the content is corrected in SVN
>> or on ooo-site is not enough.
>> 
>> If at all possible, I'd urge us to take a "release early, release
>> often" approach to the website migration rather than a "big bang
>> integration" approach.
>> 
>> What is the minimum that really needs to be done to make this site go
>> live?   And how can I, and anyone else who is interested in
>> accelerating this work, help?
>> 
>> -Rob
>> 

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>]

Why don't you just decide to make the current ooo-site live,
and tell infra to change dns for www.openoffice.org to point
at it?

I've made some performance enhancements to the CMS today so
web checkouts will only take a few seconds as opposed to 30min.

Also I will be working on your site's build because it is in a
terrible state, but that will take more time.



----- Original Message -----
> From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
> 
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> 
> wrote:
>> 
>>  On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> 
>>>  On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Dave Fisher 
> <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  <snip>
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  I've already answered. I've been very clear. Nothing has 
> stopped others from working on ooo-site.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>  I apologize if I was not clear.  I'm not interested in editing
>>>  ooo-site.apache.org.
>> 
>>  And I happen to think that this is absolute nonsense. ooo-site will be 
> www.openoffice.org when the time comes. Waiting is a bogus excuse.
>> 
> 
> To the extent that you continue to not understand what I am saying I
> will continue to repeat myself, attempting various ways of
> reformulating my point.
> 
> I want to update www.openoffice.org.  I do not want to update only
> your test server.  I want the changes I make now to be reflected on
> the public, user facing openoffice.org website after a simple staging
> and publication stage, i.e., near real time, no more than a few
> minutes delay.  That is what the project needs.  This is what we all
> need. The fact that we can can easily update ooo-site, a staging
> website that no user actually ever sees is a partial success only.
> 
> What I hear you saying is that we're free to update the data in
> /ooo-site and that will then appear on the test staging server.  That
> is nice.  But the changes that you, me and others have made on that
> content is not being seen by real users.  It is stuck in limbo.  We
> can invite committers to stick more content into limbo, of course, to
> queue it up for publication at some indeterminate point in the future.
>   But I'm more interested in what we need to do to get the content out
> of limbo and live on www.openoffice.org.  How do we complete this?
> 
> So this is not about ooo-site.  This is about the complete publication
> pipeline.  That is  what matters for the PPMC's ability to properly
> manage the www.openoffice.org website.  Nothing is live until the PPMC
> can effectively update the real site.
> 
> Remember, what our users have on www.openoffice.org is very wrong in
> many places.  We're continuing every day to harm the project if that
> content remains as-is and is not replaced by accurate project
> information.   The fact that some of the content is corrected in SVN
> or on ooo-site is not enough.
> 
> If at all possible, I'd urge us to take a "release early, release
> often" approach to the website migration rather than a "big bang
> integration" approach.
> 
> What is the minimum that really needs to be done to make this site go
> live?   And how can I, and anyone else who is interested in
> accelerating this work, help?
> 
> -Rob
> 

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> I've already answered. I've been very clear. Nothing has stopped others from working on ooo-site.
>>>
>>
>> I apologize if I was not clear.  I'm not interested in editing
>> ooo-site.apache.org.
>
> And I happen to think that this is absolute nonsense. ooo-site will be www.openoffice.org when the time comes. Waiting is a bogus excuse.
>

To the extent that you continue to not understand what I am saying I
will continue to repeat myself, attempting various ways of
reformulating my point.

I want to update www.openoffice.org.  I do not want to update only
your test server.  I want the changes I make now to be reflected on
the public, user facing openoffice.org website after a simple staging
and publication stage, i.e., near real time, no more than a few
minutes delay.  That is what the project needs.  This is what we all
need. The fact that we can can easily update ooo-site, a staging
website that no user actually ever sees is a partial success only.

What I hear you saying is that we're free to update the data in
/ooo-site and that will then appear on the test staging server.  That
is nice.  But the changes that you, me and others have made on that
content is not being seen by real users.  It is stuck in limbo.  We
can invite committers to stick more content into limbo, of course, to
queue it up for publication at some indeterminate point in the future.
  But I'm more interested in what we need to do to get the content out
of limbo and live on www.openoffice.org.  How do we complete this?

So this is not about ooo-site.  This is about the complete publication
pipeline.  That is  what matters for the PPMC's ability to properly
manage the www.openoffice.org website.  Nothing is live until the PPMC
can effectively update the real site.

Remember, what our users have on www.openoffice.org is very wrong in
many places.  We're continuing every day to harm the project if that
content remains as-is and is not replaced by accurate project
information.   The fact that some of the content is corrected in SVN
or on ooo-site is not enough.

If at all possible, I'd urge us to take a "release early, release
often" approach to the website migration rather than a "big bang
integration" approach.

What is the minimum that really needs to be done to make this site go
live?   And how can I, and anyone else who is interested in
accelerating this work, help?

-Rob

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Dec 11, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> 
>> I've already answered. I've been very clear. Nothing has stopped others from working on ooo-site.
>> 
> 
> I apologize if I was not clear.  I'm not interested in editing
> ooo-site.apache.org.

And I happen to think that this is absolute nonsense. ooo-site will be www.openoffice.org when the time comes. Waiting is a bogus excuse.

>  I'm interested in editing www.openoffice.org,
> the site that users actually visit.  I assume that is what most people
> want to edit.
> 
> The fact that the PMC does not have the ability currently to update
> the website is a problem.  I realize that this is not a problem that
> you created.  I also know that you are trying to address this.  We all
> appreciate that.  But you are one person only, and you appear to be
> the bottleneck.  That is not a personal attack.  It is an observation.

I reject that I am a bottleneck. You only think I'm a bottleneck. I've provided documentation. Many others have edited ooo-site. Do you require a list of committers?

> 
> If you think this work will take much more time (say more than 2 weeks
> more) then you would do us all a great favor and help the project
> immensely if you could write up a plan for the remaining work, break
> it down into remaining tasks, and ask for help with the remaining
> tasks, so we can move this forward faster.

I was planning on doing most of the work later today.

> 
> And again, I'm looking for the minimum technical work needed to go
> live.  Updating the "why" page or the "contributor" page or any other
> existing content should not hold us back from going live.

Updating these pages does not need to wait. It doesn't matter and I'm not saying it is contingent. There is no reason to wait.


> 
>> These incessant and accusatory emails are not encouraging me to finish.
>> 
> 
> I'm not accusing you of anything, David.  I'm encouraging you to
> release early and often and enable others to help. I hope that others
> on this project can have priorities that may differ from yours without
> you taking it as a personal attack.

You missed a number of hints. I asked to be left alone today to do the work. You never asked how much time was needed.

What do you think I meant by the situation might differ tomorrow?

Regards,
Dave


> 
> -Rob

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:

<snip>

>
> I've already answered. I've been very clear. Nothing has stopped others from working on ooo-site.
>

I apologize if I was not clear.  I'm not interested in editing
ooo-site.apache.org.  I'm interested in editing www.openoffice.org,
the site that users actually visit.  I assume that is what most people
want to edit.

The fact that the PMC does not have the ability currently to update
the website is a problem.  I realize that this is not a problem that
you created.  I also know that you are trying to address this.  We all
appreciate that.  But you are one person only, and you appear to be
the bottleneck.  That is not a personal attack.  It is an observation.

If you think this work will take much more time (say more than 2 weeks
more) then you would do us all a great favor and help the project
immensely if you could write up a plan for the remaining work, break
it down into remaining tasks, and ask for help with the remaining
tasks, so we can move this forward faster.

And again, I'm looking for the minimum technical work needed to go
live.  Updating the "why" page or the "contributor" page or any other
existing content should not hold us back from going live.

> These incessant and accusatory emails are not encouraging me to finish.
>

I'm not accusing you of anything, David.  I'm encouraging you to
release early and often and enable others to help. I hope that others
on this project can have priorities that may differ from yours without
you taking it as a personal attack.

-Rob

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Dec 11, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/11/2011 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ps. Andrea, please do link the document in the new site :).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Done some days ago in revision 1212124, but it doesn't show up on the live instance. And actually I can't see the previous commit by you either (revision 1203948), so I'm probably looking at the wrong pages or I didn't trigger some update procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> My revision 1212124 modified the SVN file
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> and I expected the new guide ("Guida al DataPilot") to appear in
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, Pedro's revision 1203948 modified
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> but I don't see the change (Protezione dei Dati su Apache OpenOffice) at
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I use a different URL?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Try http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The publish step has not been applied. It is going to be huge and we need to co-ordinate w/Infrastructure. I expected to get to wrapping last week. I plan some work today. Depending on that someone should co-ordinate the publish step for ooo-site with Infrastructure.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> So publishing then moves it from staging to ooo-site.apache.org.    At
>>>>>>>>>> the same time can we direct www.openoffice.org there?  Or is other
>>>>>>>>>> work needed before we take that step?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Depends on when we publish. Here are some of the tasks required before changing the DNS.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> (1) Finish the wrapping. I am adding breadcrumbs, topnav, folder specific topnav and adjusting the footer as best I can tell from LEGAL-104.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> (2) Make sure that Trademarks and Dennis don't have any issues with license notices and copyright.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> (3) Make sure that the subdomain redirections are ready for the migration.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> (4) Make sure that the places where a podling page takes precedence land on a proper page - contribute / participate changes.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> We might debate (4) as a prerequisite, (1), (2) and (3) are definite.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If we took the existing openoffice.org site, as-is, and hosted it on
>>>>>>>> Apache, and did the redirection so it looked like openoffice.org,
>>>>>>>> would there be any problem?  It would reflect the status quo on the
>>>>>>>> legacy site, including possible trademark and other issues.  But it
>>>>>>>> would be no worse.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, making this go live now allows all of us to start
>>>>>>>> making content changes that are relevant and needed in many areas.
>>>>>>>> You open it up for the other 78 of us to start contributing to the
>>>>>>>> website.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So if there is a way we can can the footer cleanup, etc., in-situ,
>>>>>>>> then I'd urge that approach.  Otherwise we're all being held back from
>>>>>>>> making meaningful corrections to the website.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Or to put it differently, let's not let graduation requirements hold
>>>>>>> us back from going live with the new hosting.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Since you started another thread. Let's discuss this there. Or better wait until tomorrow and the situation might differ.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's OK.  I'm looking to help, not to debate.  I'm sure there are
>>>>> others who would like to help as well, on the content editing side.
>>>>> But it is bottlenecked right now.
>>>> 
>>>> That is a matter of opinion. Several people have made commits to ooo-site. http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/website-local.html
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> No one is looking to edit ooo-site purely for the sake of editing.
>>> They want to have it published where users will actually see it.
>>> Right now, if someone wants to edit the non-wiki portions of
>>> openoffice.org then they are bottlenecked.  Going live with your (and
>>> Kay's) great ooo-site work will eliminate that bottleneck.
>> 
>> It a false bottleneck. Users will see changes, just not immediately. That could be an advantage. It allows CTR before users see it.
>> 
> 
> If "eventually" means we wait a month, then that is false CTR.
> 
> I'm looking for enabling effective collaboration.  There is ton's of
> stuff one the website that is wrong now and has been wrong for nearly
> 6 months.  But we have no effective way of updating it.
> 
>> Just this morning I suggested to Graham Lauder that the why.openoffice.org page needs work. Why wait?
>> 
> 
> Again, the ability to edit absent the ability to publish, is not going
> to encourage effective collaboration.
> 
> Let's get to "release early and often" on the website.  Waiting months
> for the ability to publish is not healthy for the community.
> 
> So what is the least that is required technically to make this live?
> We can deal with your and Dennis's 6 month long debate about terms of
> use later.

I've already answered. I've been very clear. Nothing has stopped others from working on ooo-site.

These incessant and accusatory emails are not encouraging me to finish.

Did you even notice that there is a reason to have caution related to the extensions and templates?

Please excuse me for being an individual who is not paid at all for working on this project. Nothing about my current work duties has anything to do with OpenOffice. I have been using the Apache CMS for a work project and have already solved what to do to support what I want to do in the headers.

Why do you choose to spend today engaging in troll like behavior? Gone is an hour I could have spent on OOo.

Regards,
Dave

> 
>> Can we please pause this discussion so I actually feel like doing with OOo today?
>> 
>> BTW - Note that the extensions and templates are a problem with migrating the domain. This needs to be understood.
>> 
>> (5) Understanding the impact of moving for extensions and templates.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>>> 
>>> -Rob
>>> 
>>>> I would avoid the CMS bookmarklet for ooo-site as it would take 30 minutes for an internal checkout.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dave
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Rob
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>  Andrea.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Dec 11, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/11/2011 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ps. Andrea, please do link the document in the new site :).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Done some days ago in revision 1212124, but it doesn't show up on the live instance. And actually I can't see the previous commit by you either (revision 1203948), so I'm probably looking at the wrong pages or I didn't trigger some update procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My revision 1212124 modified the SVN file
>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>> and I expected the new guide ("Guida al DataPilot") to appear in
>>>>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, Pedro's revision 1203948 modified
>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>>>>>>>>> but I don't see the change (Protezione dei Dati su Apache OpenOffice) at
>>>>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Should I use a different URL?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The publish step has not been applied. It is going to be huge and we need to co-ordinate w/Infrastructure. I expected to get to wrapping last week. I plan some work today. Depending on that someone should co-ordinate the publish step for ooo-site with Infrastructure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So publishing then moves it from staging to ooo-site.apache.org.    At
>>>>>>>>> the same time can we direct www.openoffice.org there?  Or is other
>>>>>>>>> work needed before we take that step?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Depends on when we publish. Here are some of the tasks required before changing the DNS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (1) Finish the wrapping. I am adding breadcrumbs, topnav, folder specific topnav and adjusting the footer as best I can tell from LEGAL-104.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (2) Make sure that Trademarks and Dennis don't have any issues with license notices and copyright.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (3) Make sure that the subdomain redirections are ready for the migration.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (4) Make sure that the places where a podling page takes precedence land on a proper page - contribute / participate changes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We might debate (4) as a prerequisite, (1), (2) and (3) are definite.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we took the existing openoffice.org site, as-is, and hosted it on
>>>>>>> Apache, and did the redirection so it looked like openoffice.org,
>>>>>>> would there be any problem?  It would reflect the status quo on the
>>>>>>> legacy site, including possible trademark and other issues.  But it
>>>>>>> would be no worse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other hand, making this go live now allows all of us to start
>>>>>>> making content changes that are relevant and needed in many areas.
>>>>>>> You open it up for the other 78 of us to start contributing to the
>>>>>>> website.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if there is a way we can can the footer cleanup, etc., in-situ,
>>>>>>> then I'd urge that approach.  Otherwise we're all being held back from
>>>>>>> making meaningful corrections to the website.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or to put it differently, let's not let graduation requirements hold
>>>>>> us back from going live with the new hosting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you started another thread. Let's discuss this there. Or better wait until tomorrow and the situation might differ.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's OK.  I'm looking to help, not to debate.  I'm sure there are
>>>> others who would like to help as well, on the content editing side.
>>>> But it is bottlenecked right now.
>>>
>>> That is a matter of opinion. Several people have made commits to ooo-site. http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/website-local.html
>>>
>>
>> No one is looking to edit ooo-site purely for the sake of editing.
>> They want to have it published where users will actually see it.
>> Right now, if someone wants to edit the non-wiki portions of
>> openoffice.org then they are bottlenecked.  Going live with your (and
>> Kay's) great ooo-site work will eliminate that bottleneck.
>
> It a false bottleneck. Users will see changes, just not immediately. That could be an advantage. It allows CTR before users see it.
>

If "eventually" means we wait a month, then that is false CTR.

I'm looking for enabling effective collaboration.  There is ton's of
stuff one the website that is wrong now and has been wrong for nearly
6 months.  But we have no effective way of updating it.

> Just this morning I suggested to Graham Lauder that the why.openoffice.org page needs work. Why wait?
>

Again, the ability to edit absent the ability to publish, is not going
to encourage effective collaboration.

Let's get to "release early and often" on the website.  Waiting months
for the ability to publish is not healthy for the community.

So what is the least that is required technically to make this live?
We can deal with your and Dennis's 6 month long debate about terms of
use later.

> Can we please pause this discussion so I actually feel like doing with OOo today?
>
> BTW - Note that the extensions and templates are a problem with migrating the domain. This needs to be understood.
>
> (5) Understanding the impact of moving for extensions and templates.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> I would avoid the CMS bookmarklet for ooo-site as it would take 30 minutes for an internal checkout.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>  Andrea.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Dec 11, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 28/11/2011 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ps. Andrea, please do link the document in the new site :).
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Done some days ago in revision 1212124, but it doesn't show up on the live instance. And actually I can't see the previous commit by you either (revision 1203948), so I'm probably looking at the wrong pages or I didn't trigger some update procedure.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> My revision 1212124 modified the SVN file
>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>>>>>>>> and I expected the new guide ("Guida al DataPilot") to appear in
>>>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, Pedro's revision 1203948 modified
>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>>>>>>>> but I don't see the change (Protezione dei Dati su Apache OpenOffice) at
>>>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Should I use a different URL?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Try http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The publish step has not been applied. It is going to be huge and we need to co-ordinate w/Infrastructure. I expected to get to wrapping last week. I plan some work today. Depending on that someone should co-ordinate the publish step for ooo-site with Infrastructure.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So publishing then moves it from staging to ooo-site.apache.org.    At
>>>>>>>> the same time can we direct www.openoffice.org there?  Or is other
>>>>>>>> work needed before we take that step?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Depends on when we publish. Here are some of the tasks required before changing the DNS.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> (1) Finish the wrapping. I am adding breadcrumbs, topnav, folder specific topnav and adjusting the footer as best I can tell from LEGAL-104.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> (2) Make sure that Trademarks and Dennis don't have any issues with license notices and copyright.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> (3) Make sure that the subdomain redirections are ready for the migration.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> (4) Make sure that the places where a podling page takes precedence land on a proper page - contribute / participate changes.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We might debate (4) as a prerequisite, (1), (2) and (3) are definite.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If we took the existing openoffice.org site, as-is, and hosted it on
>>>>>> Apache, and did the redirection so it looked like openoffice.org,
>>>>>> would there be any problem?  It would reflect the status quo on the
>>>>>> legacy site, including possible trademark and other issues.  But it
>>>>>> would be no worse.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On the other hand, making this go live now allows all of us to start
>>>>>> making content changes that are relevant and needed in many areas.
>>>>>> You open it up for the other 78 of us to start contributing to the
>>>>>> website.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So if there is a way we can can the footer cleanup, etc., in-situ,
>>>>>> then I'd urge that approach.  Otherwise we're all being held back from
>>>>>> making meaningful corrections to the website.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or to put it differently, let's not let graduation requirements hold
>>>>> us back from going live with the new hosting.
>>>> 
>>>> Since you started another thread. Let's discuss this there. Or better wait until tomorrow and the situation might differ.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> That's OK.  I'm looking to help, not to debate.  I'm sure there are
>>> others who would like to help as well, on the content editing side.
>>> But it is bottlenecked right now.
>> 
>> That is a matter of opinion. Several people have made commits to ooo-site. http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/website-local.html
>> 
> 
> No one is looking to edit ooo-site purely for the sake of editing.
> They want to have it published where users will actually see it.
> Right now, if someone wants to edit the non-wiki portions of
> openoffice.org then they are bottlenecked.  Going live with your (and
> Kay's) great ooo-site work will eliminate that bottleneck.

It a false bottleneck. Users will see changes, just not immediately. That could be an advantage. It allows CTR before users see it.

Just this morning I suggested to Graham Lauder that the why.openoffice.org page needs work. Why wait?

Can we please pause this discussion so I actually feel like doing with OOo today?

BTW - Note that the extensions and templates are a problem with migrating the domain. This needs to be understood.

(5) Understanding the impact of moving for extensions and templates.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -Rob
> 
>> I would avoid the CMS bookmarklet for ooo-site as it would take 30 minutes for an internal checkout.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>>> 
>>> -Rob
>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dave
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>  Andrea.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 28/11/2011 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ps. Andrea, please do link the document in the new site :).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Done some days ago in revision 1212124, but it doesn't show up on the live instance. And actually I can't see the previous commit by you either (revision 1203948), so I'm probably looking at the wrong pages or I didn't trigger some update procedure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My revision 1212124 modified the SVN file
>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>>>>>>> and I expected the new guide ("Guida al DataPilot") to appear in
>>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Similarly, Pedro's revision 1203948 modified
>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>>>>>>> but I don't see the change (Protezione dei Dati su Apache OpenOffice) at
>>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Should I use a different URL?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The publish step has not been applied. It is going to be huge and we need to co-ordinate w/Infrastructure. I expected to get to wrapping last week. I plan some work today. Depending on that someone should co-ordinate the publish step for ooo-site with Infrastructure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So publishing then moves it from staging to ooo-site.apache.org.    At
>>>>>>> the same time can we direct www.openoffice.org there?  Or is other
>>>>>>> work needed before we take that step?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depends on when we publish. Here are some of the tasks required before changing the DNS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) Finish the wrapping. I am adding breadcrumbs, topnav, folder specific topnav and adjusting the footer as best I can tell from LEGAL-104.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Make sure that Trademarks and Dennis don't have any issues with license notices and copyright.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (3) Make sure that the subdomain redirections are ready for the migration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (4) Make sure that the places where a podling page takes precedence land on a proper page - contribute / participate changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We might debate (4) as a prerequisite, (1), (2) and (3) are definite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we took the existing openoffice.org site, as-is, and hosted it on
>>>>> Apache, and did the redirection so it looked like openoffice.org,
>>>>> would there be any problem?  It would reflect the status quo on the
>>>>> legacy site, including possible trademark and other issues.  But it
>>>>> would be no worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, making this go live now allows all of us to start
>>>>> making content changes that are relevant and needed in many areas.
>>>>> You open it up for the other 78 of us to start contributing to the
>>>>> website.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if there is a way we can can the footer cleanup, etc., in-situ,
>>>>> then I'd urge that approach.  Otherwise we're all being held back from
>>>>> making meaningful corrections to the website.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or to put it differently, let's not let graduation requirements hold
>>>> us back from going live with the new hosting.
>>>
>>> Since you started another thread. Let's discuss this there. Or better wait until tomorrow and the situation might differ.
>>>
>>
>> That's OK.  I'm looking to help, not to debate.  I'm sure there are
>> others who would like to help as well, on the content editing side.
>> But it is bottlenecked right now.
>
> That is a matter of opinion. Several people have made commits to ooo-site. http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/website-local.html
>

No one is looking to edit ooo-site purely for the sake of editing.
They want to have it published where users will actually see it.
Right now, if someone wants to edit the non-wiki portions of
openoffice.org then they are bottlenecked.  Going live with your (and
Kay's) great ooo-site work will eliminate that bottleneck.

-Rob

> I would avoid the CMS bookmarklet for ooo-site as it would take 30 minutes for an internal checkout.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>  Andrea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 28/11/2011 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ps. Andrea, please do link the document in the new site :).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Done some days ago in revision 1212124, but it doesn't show up on the live instance. And actually I can't see the previous commit by you either (revision 1203948), so I'm probably looking at the wrong pages or I didn't trigger some update procedure.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> My revision 1212124 modified the SVN file
>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>>>>>> and I expected the new guide ("Guida al DataPilot") to appear in
>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Similarly, Pedro's revision 1203948 modified
>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>>>>>> but I don't see the change (Protezione dei Dati su Apache OpenOffice) at
>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Should I use a different URL?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Try http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The publish step has not been applied. It is going to be huge and we need to co-ordinate w/Infrastructure. I expected to get to wrapping last week. I plan some work today. Depending on that someone should co-ordinate the publish step for ooo-site with Infrastructure.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So publishing then moves it from staging to ooo-site.apache.org.    At
>>>>>> the same time can we direct www.openoffice.org there?  Or is other
>>>>>> work needed before we take that step?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Depends on when we publish. Here are some of the tasks required before changing the DNS.
>>>>> 
>>>>> (1) Finish the wrapping. I am adding breadcrumbs, topnav, folder specific topnav and adjusting the footer as best I can tell from LEGAL-104.
>>>>> 
>>>>> (2) Make sure that Trademarks and Dennis don't have any issues with license notices and copyright.
>>>>> 
>>>>> (3) Make sure that the subdomain redirections are ready for the migration.
>>>>> 
>>>>> (4) Make sure that the places where a podling page takes precedence land on a proper page - contribute / participate changes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We might debate (4) as a prerequisite, (1), (2) and (3) are definite.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> If we took the existing openoffice.org site, as-is, and hosted it on
>>>> Apache, and did the redirection so it looked like openoffice.org,
>>>> would there be any problem?  It would reflect the status quo on the
>>>> legacy site, including possible trademark and other issues.  But it
>>>> would be no worse.
>>>> 
>>>> On the other hand, making this go live now allows all of us to start
>>>> making content changes that are relevant and needed in many areas.
>>>> You open it up for the other 78 of us to start contributing to the
>>>> website.
>>>> 
>>>> So if there is a way we can can the footer cleanup, etc., in-situ,
>>>> then I'd urge that approach.  Otherwise we're all being held back from
>>>> making meaningful corrections to the website.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Or to put it differently, let's not let graduation requirements hold
>>> us back from going live with the new hosting.
>> 
>> Since you started another thread. Let's discuss this there. Or better wait until tomorrow and the situation might differ.
>> 
> 
> That's OK.  I'm looking to help, not to debate.  I'm sure there are
> others who would like to help as well, on the content editing side.
> But it is bottlenecked right now.

That is a matter of opinion. Several people have made commits to ooo-site. http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/website-local.html

I would avoid the CMS bookmarklet for ooo-site as it would take 30 minutes for an internal checkout.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -Rob
> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>>> 
>>>> -Rob
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dave
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>  Andrea.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> 

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28/11/2011 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>>>>>> ps. Andrea, please do link the document in the new site :).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Done some days ago in revision 1212124, but it doesn't show up on the live instance. And actually I can't see the previous commit by you either (revision 1203948), so I'm probably looking at the wrong pages or I didn't trigger some update procedure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My revision 1212124 modified the SVN file
>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>>>>> and I expected the new guide ("Guida al DataPilot") to appear in
>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Similarly, Pedro's revision 1203948 modified
>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>>>>> but I don't see the change (Protezione dei Dati su Apache OpenOffice) at
>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should I use a different URL?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The publish step has not been applied. It is going to be huge and we need to co-ordinate w/Infrastructure. I expected to get to wrapping last week. I plan some work today. Depending on that someone should co-ordinate the publish step for ooo-site with Infrastructure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So publishing then moves it from staging to ooo-site.apache.org.    At
>>>>> the same time can we direct www.openoffice.org there?  Or is other
>>>>> work needed before we take that step?
>>>>
>>>> Depends on when we publish. Here are some of the tasks required before changing the DNS.
>>>>
>>>> (1) Finish the wrapping. I am adding breadcrumbs, topnav, folder specific topnav and adjusting the footer as best I can tell from LEGAL-104.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Make sure that Trademarks and Dennis don't have any issues with license notices and copyright.
>>>>
>>>> (3) Make sure that the subdomain redirections are ready for the migration.
>>>>
>>>> (4) Make sure that the places where a podling page takes precedence land on a proper page - contribute / participate changes.
>>>>
>>>> We might debate (4) as a prerequisite, (1), (2) and (3) are definite.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If we took the existing openoffice.org site, as-is, and hosted it on
>>> Apache, and did the redirection so it looked like openoffice.org,
>>> would there be any problem?  It would reflect the status quo on the
>>> legacy site, including possible trademark and other issues.  But it
>>> would be no worse.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, making this go live now allows all of us to start
>>> making content changes that are relevant and needed in many areas.
>>> You open it up for the other 78 of us to start contributing to the
>>> website.
>>>
>>> So if there is a way we can can the footer cleanup, etc., in-situ,
>>> then I'd urge that approach.  Otherwise we're all being held back from
>>> making meaningful corrections to the website.
>>>
>>
>> Or to put it differently, let's not let graduation requirements hold
>> us back from going live with the new hosting.
>
> Since you started another thread. Let's discuss this there. Or better wait until tomorrow and the situation might differ.
>

That's OK.  I'm looking to help, not to debate.  I'm sure there are
others who would like to help as well, on the content editing side.
But it is bottlenecked right now.

-Rob

> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>  Andrea.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 28/11/2011 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>>>>> ps. Andrea, please do link the document in the new site :).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Done some days ago in revision 1212124, but it doesn't show up on the live instance. And actually I can't see the previous commit by you either (revision 1203948), so I'm probably looking at the wrong pages or I didn't trigger some update procedure.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My revision 1212124 modified the SVN file
>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>>>> and I expected the new guide ("Guida al DataPilot") to appear in
>>>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Similarly, Pedro's revision 1203948 modified
>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>>>> but I don't see the change (Protezione dei Dati su Apache OpenOffice) at
>>>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Should I use a different URL?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Try http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> The publish step has not been applied. It is going to be huge and we need to co-ordinate w/Infrastructure. I expected to get to wrapping last week. I plan some work today. Depending on that someone should co-ordinate the publish step for ooo-site with Infrastructure.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> So publishing then moves it from staging to ooo-site.apache.org.    At
>>>> the same time can we direct www.openoffice.org there?  Or is other
>>>> work needed before we take that step?
>>> 
>>> Depends on when we publish. Here are some of the tasks required before changing the DNS.
>>> 
>>> (1) Finish the wrapping. I am adding breadcrumbs, topnav, folder specific topnav and adjusting the footer as best I can tell from LEGAL-104.
>>> 
>>> (2) Make sure that Trademarks and Dennis don't have any issues with license notices and copyright.
>>> 
>>> (3) Make sure that the subdomain redirections are ready for the migration.
>>> 
>>> (4) Make sure that the places where a podling page takes precedence land on a proper page - contribute / participate changes.
>>> 
>>> We might debate (4) as a prerequisite, (1), (2) and (3) are definite.
>>> 
>> 
>> If we took the existing openoffice.org site, as-is, and hosted it on
>> Apache, and did the redirection so it looked like openoffice.org,
>> would there be any problem?  It would reflect the status quo on the
>> legacy site, including possible trademark and other issues.  But it
>> would be no worse.
>> 
>> On the other hand, making this go live now allows all of us to start
>> making content changes that are relevant and needed in many areas.
>> You open it up for the other 78 of us to start contributing to the
>> website.
>> 
>> So if there is a way we can can the footer cleanup, etc., in-situ,
>> then I'd urge that approach.  Otherwise we're all being held back from
>> making meaningful corrections to the website.
>> 
> 
> Or to put it differently, let's not let graduation requirements hold
> us back from going live with the new hosting.

Since you started another thread. Let's discuss this there. Or better wait until tomorrow and the situation might differ.

Regards,
Dave

> 
>> -Rob
>> 
>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dave
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>  Andrea.
>>>>> 
>>> 

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 28/11/2011 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>>>> ps. Andrea, please do link the document in the new site :).
>>>>>
>>>>> Done some days ago in revision 1212124, but it doesn't show up on the live instance. And actually I can't see the previous commit by you either (revision 1203948), so I'm probably looking at the wrong pages or I didn't trigger some update procedure.
>>>>>
>>>>> My revision 1212124 modified the SVN file
>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>>> and I expected the new guide ("Guida al DataPilot") to appear in
>>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, Pedro's revision 1203948 modified
>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>>> but I don't see the change (Protezione dei Dati su Apache OpenOffice) at
>>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Should I use a different URL?
>>>>
>>>> Try http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/
>>>>
>>>> The publish step has not been applied. It is going to be huge and we need to co-ordinate w/Infrastructure. I expected to get to wrapping last week. I plan some work today. Depending on that someone should co-ordinate the publish step for ooo-site with Infrastructure.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So publishing then moves it from staging to ooo-site.apache.org.    At
>>> the same time can we direct www.openoffice.org there?  Or is other
>>> work needed before we take that step?
>>
>> Depends on when we publish. Here are some of the tasks required before changing the DNS.
>>
>> (1) Finish the wrapping. I am adding breadcrumbs, topnav, folder specific topnav and adjusting the footer as best I can tell from LEGAL-104.
>>
>> (2) Make sure that Trademarks and Dennis don't have any issues with license notices and copyright.
>>
>> (3) Make sure that the subdomain redirections are ready for the migration.
>>
>> (4) Make sure that the places where a podling page takes precedence land on a proper page - contribute / participate changes.
>>
>> We might debate (4) as a prerequisite, (1), (2) and (3) are definite.
>>
>
> If we took the existing openoffice.org site, as-is, and hosted it on
> Apache, and did the redirection so it looked like openoffice.org,
> would there be any problem?  It would reflect the status quo on the
> legacy site, including possible trademark and other issues.  But it
> would be no worse.
>
> On the other hand, making this go live now allows all of us to start
> making content changes that are relevant and needed in many areas.
> You open it up for the other 78 of us to start contributing to the
> website.
>
> So if there is a way we can can the footer cleanup, etc., in-situ,
> then I'd urge that approach.  Otherwise we're all being held back from
> making meaningful corrections to the website.
>

Or to put it differently, let's not let graduation requirements hold
us back from going live with the new hosting.

> -Rob
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>  Andrea.
>>>>
>>

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Dec 11, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 28/11/2011 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>>> ps. Andrea, please do link the document in the new site :).
>>>>
>>>> Done some days ago in revision 1212124, but it doesn't show up on the live instance. And actually I can't see the previous commit by you either (revision 1203948), so I'm probably looking at the wrong pages or I didn't trigger some update procedure.
>>>>
>>>> My revision 1212124 modified the SVN file
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>> and I expected the new guide ("Guida al DataPilot") to appear in
>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, Pedro's revision 1203948 modified
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>> but I don't see the change (Protezione dei Dati su Apache OpenOffice) at
>>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>>>
>>>> Should I use a different URL?
>>>
>>> Try http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/
>>>
>>> The publish step has not been applied. It is going to be huge and we need to co-ordinate w/Infrastructure. I expected to get to wrapping last week. I plan some work today. Depending on that someone should co-ordinate the publish step for ooo-site with Infrastructure.
>>>
>>
>> So publishing then moves it from staging to ooo-site.apache.org.    At
>> the same time can we direct www.openoffice.org there?  Or is other
>> work needed before we take that step?
>
> Depends on when we publish. Here are some of the tasks required before changing the DNS.
>
> (1) Finish the wrapping. I am adding breadcrumbs, topnav, folder specific topnav and adjusting the footer as best I can tell from LEGAL-104.
>
> (2) Make sure that Trademarks and Dennis don't have any issues with license notices and copyright.
>
> (3) Make sure that the subdomain redirections are ready for the migration.
>
> (4) Make sure that the places where a podling page takes precedence land on a proper page - contribute / participate changes.
>
> We might debate (4) as a prerequisite, (1), (2) and (3) are definite.
>

If we took the existing openoffice.org site, as-is, and hosted it on
Apache, and did the redirection so it looked like openoffice.org,
would there be any problem?  It would reflect the status quo on the
legacy site, including possible trademark and other issues.  But it
would be no worse.

On the other hand, making this go live now allows all of us to start
making content changes that are relevant and needed in many areas.
You open it up for the other 78 of us to start contributing to the
website.

So if there is a way we can can the footer cleanup, etc., in-situ,
then I'd urge that approach.  Otherwise we're all being held back from
making meaningful corrections to the website.

-Rob


> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>  Andrea.
>>>
>

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Dec 11, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> 
>>> On 28/11/2011 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>> ps. Andrea, please do link the document in the new site :).
>>> 
>>> Done some days ago in revision 1212124, but it doesn't show up on the live instance. And actually I can't see the previous commit by you either (revision 1203948), so I'm probably looking at the wrong pages or I didn't trigger some update procedure.
>>> 
>>> My revision 1212124 modified the SVN file
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>> and I expected the new guide ("Guida al DataPilot") to appear in
>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>> 
>>> Similarly, Pedro's revision 1203948 modified
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>> but I don't see the change (Protezione dei Dati su Apache OpenOffice) at
>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>> 
>>> Should I use a different URL?
>> 
>> Try http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/
>> 
>> The publish step has not been applied. It is going to be huge and we need to co-ordinate w/Infrastructure. I expected to get to wrapping last week. I plan some work today. Depending on that someone should co-ordinate the publish step for ooo-site with Infrastructure.
>> 
> 
> So publishing then moves it from staging to ooo-site.apache.org.    At
> the same time can we direct www.openoffice.org there?  Or is other
> work needed before we take that step?

Depends on when we publish. Here are some of the tasks required before changing the DNS.

(1) Finish the wrapping. I am adding breadcrumbs, topnav, folder specific topnav and adjusting the footer as best I can tell from LEGAL-104.

(2) Make sure that Trademarks and Dennis don't have any issues with license notices and copyright.

(3) Make sure that the subdomain redirections are ready for the migration.

(4) Make sure that the places where a podling page takes precedence land on a proper page - contribute / participate changes.

We might debate (4) as a prerequisite, (1), (2) and (3) are definite.

Regards,
Dave


> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>>  Andrea.
>> 

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> On 28/11/2011 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>> ps. Andrea, please do link the document in the new site :).
>>
>> Done some days ago in revision 1212124, but it doesn't show up on the live instance. And actually I can't see the previous commit by you either (revision 1203948), so I'm probably looking at the wrong pages or I didn't trigger some update procedure.
>>
>> My revision 1212124 modified the SVN file
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>> and I expected the new guide ("Guida al DataPilot") to appear in
>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/doc/manuali/index.html
>>
>> Similarly, Pedro's revision 1203948 modified
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/contribuire/legale.html
>> but I don't see the change (Protezione dei Dati su Apache OpenOffice) at
>> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/contribuire/legale.html
>>
>> Should I use a different URL?
>
> Try http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/
>
> The publish step has not been applied. It is going to be huge and we need to co-ordinate w/Infrastructure. I expected to get to wrapping last week. I plan some work today. Depending on that someone should co-ordinate the publish step for ooo-site with Infrastructure.
>

So publishing then moves it from staging to ooo-site.apache.org.    At
the same time can we direct www.openoffice.org there?  Or is other
work needed before we take that step?

> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Andrea.
>

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:03 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

> On 28/11/2011 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> ps. Andrea, please do link the document in the new site :).
> 
> Done some days ago in revision 1212124, but it doesn't show up on the live instance. And actually I can't see the previous commit by you either (revision 1203948), so I'm probably looking at the wrong pages or I didn't trigger some update procedure.
> 
> My revision 1212124 modified the SVN file
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/doc/manuali/index.html
> and I expected the new guide ("Guida al DataPilot") to appear in
> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/doc/manuali/index.html
> 
> Similarly, Pedro's revision 1203948 modified
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/contribuire/legale.html
> but I don't see the change (Protezione dei Dati su Apache OpenOffice) at
> http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/contribuire/legale.html
> 
> Should I use a different URL?

Try http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/

The publish step has not been applied. It is going to be huge and we need to co-ordinate w/Infrastructure. I expected to get to wrapping last week. I plan some work today. Depending on that someone should co-ordinate the publish step for ooo-site with Infrastructure.

Regards,
Dave


> 
> Regards,
>  Andrea.

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>]

On 28/11/2011 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> ps. Andrea, please do link the document in the new site :).

Done some days ago in revision 1212124, but it doesn't show up on the 
live instance. And actually I can't see the previous commit by you 
either (revision 1203948), so I'm probably looking at the wrong pages or 
I didn't trigger some update procedure.

My revision 1212124 modified the SVN file
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/doc/manuali/index.html
and I expected the new guide ("Guida al DataPilot") to appear in
http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/doc/manuali/index.html

Similarly, Pedro's revision 1203948 modified
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/contribuire/legale.html
but I don't see the change (Protezione dei Dati su Apache OpenOffice) at
http://ooo-site.apache.org/it/contribuire/legale.html

Should I use a different URL?

Regards,
   Andrea.

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>]

Hi;

First of all ...

+1 To Andrea's general opinion in this email and
welcome as a committer!

I spent some time on the new Italian site (just playing
with Apache CMS) and I updated the links to use relative
URLS and the legal information, but I think thats about
what I was planning to do with it. I am glad Andrea is
here to help as even when I am rather fluent in Italian
my native language is actually Spanish and I don't currently
live in Italy.

I think that, despite being outdated, the Italian site is
much more friendly for both users and developers that the
English site and removing it would be a huge mistake. It
also has many specific links for educators, and consultants.

The Spanish site, on the other hand, is really poor in
content and while I wouldn't feel like helping translate
it, maybe that would make sense.

My recommendation here is to decide what to do case-by-case.
Ultimately just let each community decide, but absolutely
don't remove the site until there is a complete replacement.
For users seeing the own language supported is really
important. 

Pedro.

ps. Andrea, please do link the document in the new site :).


--- Dom 27/11/11, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org> ha scritto:

> On 24/11/2011 Dave Fisher wrote:
> > Yes and I would avoid doing anymore N-L projects.
> > Since Khirano is willing to do a translation of the
> > new main site. If Pedro and the other Italians and
> MArcus
> > and the other Germans. Plus Alexandro and the Spanish
> are in
> > Consensus to do translations of the new main (Am I
> missing
> > any other "active" N-L projects?) then I am for
> removing all
> > N-L now.
> 
> No, please don't! First of all let me congratulate with you
> for solving most remaining bugs with the Italian site
> import, that the last time I checked had no major display
> issues on the Apache infrastructure.
> 
> Coming to the removal of N-L sites, we do have content that
> is specific: for example, I've just published a link on http://it.openoffice.org to a new guide, in Italian,
> about how to use the DataPilot/Pivot Tables; this was
> provided by an Italian public institution and its natural
> place would be on the Italian N-L site rather than somewhere
> on the wiki.
> 
> So, even though an update (even a major update) of the
> Italian site and of some other N-L sites is acceptable and,
> I'd say, badly needed, I would still keep the possibility
> for the N-L sites to provide content that is
> language-specific and not a translation of content from the
> English site.
> 
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
> 

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

On Nov 27, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

> On 24/11/2011 Dave Fisher wrote:
>> Yes and I would avoid doing anymore N-L projects.
>> Since Khirano is willing to do a translation of the
>> new main site. If Pedro and the other Italians and MArcus
>> and the other Germans. Plus Alexandro and the Spanish are in
>> Consensus to do translations of the new main (Am I missing
>> any other "active" N-L projects?) then I am for removing all
>> N-L now.
> 
> No, please don't! First of all let me congratulate with you for solving most remaining bugs with the Italian site import, that the last time I checked had no major display issues on the Apache infrastructure.

Thanks :-)

> Coming to the removal of N-L sites, we do have content that is specific: for example, I've just published a link on http://it.openoffice.org to a new guide, in Italian, about how to use the DataPilot/Pivot Tables; this was provided by an Italian public institution and its natural place would be on the Italian N-L site rather than somewhere on the wiki.

Congratulations on your shiny, new committer powers!

> 
> So, even though an update (even a major update) of the Italian site and of some other N-L sites is acceptable and, I'd say, badly needed, I would still keep the possibility for the N-L sites to provide content that is language-specific and not a translation of content from the English site.

Thanks for responding. Where we have no one here from a N-L we will take the approach of archiving the N-L site.

Where there is someone from a N-L project involved I much prefer to leave it their expert hands. I think that the idea of archiving the true legacy makes sense.

We'll need to all come together to make sure the N-L approach will work and that it provides a good process for other N-L sites as volunteers appear.

Best Regards,
Dave



> 
> Regards,
>  Andrea.

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>]

On 24/11/2011 Dave Fisher wrote:
> Yes and I would avoid doing anymore N-L projects.
>Since Khirano is willing to do a translation of the
> new main site. If Pedro and the other Italians and MArcus
> and the other Germans. Plus Alexandro and the Spanish are in
> Consensus to do translations of the new main (Am I missing
> any other "active" N-L projects?) then I am for removing all
> N-L now.

No, please don't! First of all let me congratulate with you for solving 
most remaining bugs with the Italian site import, that the last time I 
checked had no major display issues on the Apache infrastructure.

Coming to the removal of N-L sites, we do have content that is specific: 
for example, I've just published a link on http://it.openoffice.org to a 
new guide, in Italian, about how to use the DataPilot/Pivot Tables; this 
was provided by an Italian public institution and its natural place 
would be on the Italian N-L site rather than somewhere on the wiki.

So, even though an update (even a major update) of the Italian site and 
of some other N-L sites is acceptable and, I'd say, badly needed, I 
would still keep the possibility for the N-L sites to provide content 
that is language-specific and not a translation of content from the 
English site.

Regards,
   Andrea.

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Hi Kay,
>
> I have some concerns that the buildbot broke recently. Also, somehow my
> checkout of ooo-site was busted with a lock. I am currently doing a
> re-checkout.
>

yes...sorry about that! "documentation" was HUGE and caused many problems I
guess. Really I didn't know beforehand that this would happen.  I even did
a clean on it myself to try to resolve issues. Now that I have some better
size guidelines, I think I can do better...although it will be less
efficient.


> On Nov 23, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
> > OK, I understand. As a point of clarification. I have a complete set vis
> a
> > vis openoffice.svn sites of all "accepted" and "incubator" projects
> which I
> > am now cleaning up and importing into the ooo-site svn tree.
> >
> > So, no matter what we decided ultimately about the ooo-site tree, we we
> > will ahve copies.
>
> Excellent, having all the projects there is excellent. Let's take
> advantage of this.
>
> >
> > Given the large size of some of these areas, I was just concerned about
> the
> > import of some of them *at all* into the ooo-site svn tree.  however, I
> > know they really do need to be someplace where all the project committers
> > (and contributors) can access them in order to be of any use right now.
>
> If you set the group ownership correctly all other committers should be
> able to access your account in people.apache.org. Let's assume I am
> correct for now without double checking.
>

I'll double check this. I thought anyone should be able to access these
areas.


> I was planning to check in every N-L site, tag each and then delete the
> N-L from ooo-site. If your archive is available to all committers then this
> is a better archive location than svn. Fewer steps and less impact to the
> ASF infrastructure.
>
> >
> > So, I will get back to the import process on Friday, and hopefully, can
> get
> > the legacy "accepted" projects in the ooo-site tree for further
> evaluation
> > by SUnday.
>
> Yes and I would avoid doing anymore N-L projects.
>
> Since Khirano is willing to do a translation of the new main site. If
> Pedro and the other Italians and MArcus and the other Germans. Plus
> Alexandro and the Spanish are in Consensus to do translations of the new
> main (Am I missing any other "active" N-L projects?) then I am for removing
> all N-L now.
>
> I am back over the weekend and we can start focusing on the final push.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
> > dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> >
> >> My recommendation is that everything in terms of web pages should be
> >> preserved that is not already captured in the bugzilla, MediaWiki, and
> >> Community Forums.
> >>
> >> Cleanup can happen on our ooo-site SVN in anticipation of the cut-over
> and
> >> after the cut-over.  The remodeling to divide up the site content and
> also
> >> provide adequate portal operation from openoffice.org to the Apache
> >> OpenOffice development/project site does not have to be completed, or
> even
> >> started very much, prior to cut-over.  It is something to nibble through
> >> when there is no time-limit over our heads and the keys to the live
> content
> >> are in our custody.
> >>
> >> - Dennis
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 08:56
> >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
> >>
> >> +1...all good, and something we had discussed early on.
> >>
> >> However, as I work on porting legacy info over, I am wondering what to
> do
> >> about the more "developer" centered areas of the site: api, sc, sw,
> >> framework, external (? -- I need to look at this one), tools,porting,
> and
> >> many others that are not really "user centered". I will load these into
> the
> >> ooo-site tree, but at some point, someone on the "developer" side should
> >> really cull this out and move them to the "developer" side so we don't
> >> continually deal with these areas on the "user portal".
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
> >>> don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
> >>> independent websites.
> >>>
> >>> We have the legacy www.openoffice.org website, which served as an
> >>> end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
> >>> participants.
> >>>
> >>> And we have the http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, which on
> >>> graduation probably becomes something shorter,  like
> >>> http://openoffice.apache.org.  For most Apache projects their website
> >>> also serves both purposes:  a site for users as well as project
> >>> participants.
> >>>
> >>> So, we have both of these websites, and a lot of redundancy caused by
> >>> it.  This obviously has a downside.  It makes it hard to update, since
> >>> a lot of information is in both places.  And it confuses users since
> >>> the websites are out of sync on some important topics.  It also
> >>> prevents us from really optimizing the experience for each audience.
> >>> I suspect that long-term this dual-website with overlapping content is
> >>> not a maintainable model.
> >>>
> >>> What can we do?
> >>>
> >>> I hope I am not committing heresy if I say that most users of
> >>> OpenOffice care as little about Apache as drinker of a Pepsi cares
> >>> about the Board of Directors of PepsiCo Corporation.  The average user
> >>> (and we're talking about millions of them) cares about downloading,
> >>> installing, using, learning about and generally being productive with
> >>> OpenOffice.  It is a tool they use to do their work. Their work is
> >>> what matters to them, not our work.
> >>>
> >>> But of course we also have a growing number of users, contributors and
> >>> committers who want to get more involved with the project. OpenOffice
> >>> is interesting to them.  They identify with it.  They want to learn
> >>> more than just the basics.  They are intrigued by open source.  They
> >>> want to help.  They want to get more involved.
> >>>
> >>> The trick I think, is to have websites that speak to each of these
> >>> audiences, as well as an easy/obvious way to navigate between them,
> >>> while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cross talk and redundancy.
> >>>
> >>> For example, could we have something like this:
> >>>
> >>> 1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
> >>> is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
> >>> So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
> >>> with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
> >>> openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
> >>> work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
> >>> project. Not the product, but the project.
> >>>
> >>> This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
> >>> important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
> >>> the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.pepsi.com
> >>>
> >>> But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to
> another
> >>> URL:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.pepsico.com/
> >>>
> >>> Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
> >>> But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> MzK
> >>
> >> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> >> by the way its animals are treated."
> >>                             -- Mohandas Gandhi
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> > by the way its animals are treated."
> >                              -- Mohandas Gandhi
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
 by the way its animals are treated."
                              -- Mohandas Gandhi

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

Hi Kay,

I have some concerns that the buildbot broke recently. Also, somehow my checkout of ooo-site was busted with a lock. I am currently doing a re-checkout.

On Nov 23, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

> OK, I understand. As a point of clarification. I have a complete set vis a
> vis openoffice.svn sites of all "accepted" and "incubator" projects which I
> am now cleaning up and importing into the ooo-site svn tree.
> 
> So, no matter what we decided ultimately about the ooo-site tree, we we
> will ahve copies.

Excellent, having all the projects there is excellent. Let's take advantage of this.

> 
> Given the large size of some of these areas, I was just concerned about the
> import of some of them *at all* into the ooo-site svn tree.  however, I
> know they really do need to be someplace where all the project committers
> (and contributors) can access them in order to be of any use right now.

If you set the group ownership correctly all other committers should be able to access your account in people.apache.org. Let's assume I am correct for now without double checking.

I was planning to check in every N-L site, tag each and then delete the N-L from ooo-site. If your archive is available to all committers then this is a better archive location than svn. Fewer steps and less impact to the ASF infrastructure.

> 
> So, I will get back to the import process on Friday, and hopefully, can get
> the legacy "accepted" projects in the ooo-site tree for further evaluation
> by SUnday.

Yes and I would avoid doing anymore N-L projects.

Since Khirano is willing to do a translation of the new main site. If Pedro and the other Italians and MArcus and the other Germans. Plus Alexandro and the Spanish are in Consensus to do translations of the new main (Am I missing any other "active" N-L projects?) then I am for removing all N-L now.

I am back over the weekend and we can start focusing on the final push.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
> dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> My recommendation is that everything in terms of web pages should be
>> preserved that is not already captured in the bugzilla, MediaWiki, and
>> Community Forums.
>> 
>> Cleanup can happen on our ooo-site SVN in anticipation of the cut-over and
>> after the cut-over.  The remodeling to divide up the site content and also
>> provide adequate portal operation from openoffice.org to the Apache
>> OpenOffice development/project site does not have to be completed, or even
>> started very much, prior to cut-over.  It is something to nibble through
>> when there is no time-limit over our heads and the keys to the live content
>> are in our custody.
>> 
>> - Dennis
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 08:56
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>> 
>> +1...all good, and something we had discussed early on.
>> 
>> However, as I work on porting legacy info over, I am wondering what to do
>> about the more "developer" centered areas of the site: api, sc, sw,
>> framework, external (? -- I need to look at this one), tools,porting, and
>> many others that are not really "user centered". I will load these into the
>> ooo-site tree, but at some point, someone on the "developer" side should
>> really cull this out and move them to the "developer" side so we don't
>> continually deal with these areas on the "user portal".
>> 
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
>>> don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
>>> independent websites.
>>> 
>>> We have the legacy www.openoffice.org website, which served as an
>>> end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
>>> participants.
>>> 
>>> And we have the http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, which on
>>> graduation probably becomes something shorter,  like
>>> http://openoffice.apache.org.  For most Apache projects their website
>>> also serves both purposes:  a site for users as well as project
>>> participants.
>>> 
>>> So, we have both of these websites, and a lot of redundancy caused by
>>> it.  This obviously has a downside.  It makes it hard to update, since
>>> a lot of information is in both places.  And it confuses users since
>>> the websites are out of sync on some important topics.  It also
>>> prevents us from really optimizing the experience for each audience.
>>> I suspect that long-term this dual-website with overlapping content is
>>> not a maintainable model.
>>> 
>>> What can we do?
>>> 
>>> I hope I am not committing heresy if I say that most users of
>>> OpenOffice care as little about Apache as drinker of a Pepsi cares
>>> about the Board of Directors of PepsiCo Corporation.  The average user
>>> (and we're talking about millions of them) cares about downloading,
>>> installing, using, learning about and generally being productive with
>>> OpenOffice.  It is a tool they use to do their work. Their work is
>>> what matters to them, not our work.
>>> 
>>> But of course we also have a growing number of users, contributors and
>>> committers who want to get more involved with the project. OpenOffice
>>> is interesting to them.  They identify with it.  They want to learn
>>> more than just the basics.  They are intrigued by open source.  They
>>> want to help.  They want to get more involved.
>>> 
>>> The trick I think, is to have websites that speak to each of these
>>> audiences, as well as an easy/obvious way to navigate between them,
>>> while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cross talk and redundancy.
>>> 
>>> For example, could we have something like this:
>>> 
>>> 1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
>>> is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
>>> So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
>>> with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
>>> openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
>>> work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
>>> project. Not the product, but the project.
>>> 
>>> This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
>>> important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
>>> the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:
>>> 
>>> http://www.pepsi.com
>>> 
>>> But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another
>>> URL:
>>> 
>>> http://www.pepsico.com/
>>> 
>>> Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
>>> But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>> 
>> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>> by the way its animals are treated."
>>                             -- Mohandas Gandhi
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
> 
> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> by the way its animals are treated."
>                              -- Mohandas Gandhi

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>]

OK, I understand. As a point of clarification. I have a complete set vis a
vis openoffice.svn sites of all "accepted" and "incubator" projects which I
am now cleaning up and importing into the ooo-site svn tree.

So, no matter what we decided ultimately about the ooo-site tree, we we
will ahve copies.

Given the large size of some of these areas, I was just concerned about the
import of some of them *at all* into the ooo-site svn tree.  however, I
know they really do need to be someplace where all the project committers
(and contributors) can access them in order to be of any use right now.

So, I will get back to the import process on Friday, and hopefully, can get
the legacy "accepted" projects in the ooo-site tree for further evaluation
by SUnday.

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:

> My recommendation is that everything in terms of web pages should be
> preserved that is not already captured in the bugzilla, MediaWiki, and
> Community Forums.
>
> Cleanup can happen on our ooo-site SVN in anticipation of the cut-over and
> after the cut-over.  The remodeling to divide up the site content and also
> provide adequate portal operation from openoffice.org to the Apache
> OpenOffice development/project site does not have to be completed, or even
> started very much, prior to cut-over.  It is something to nibble through
> when there is no time-limit over our heads and the keys to the live content
> are in our custody.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 08:56
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>
> +1...all good, and something we had discussed early on.
>
> However, as I work on porting legacy info over, I am wondering what to do
> about the more "developer" centered areas of the site: api, sc, sw,
> framework, external (? -- I need to look at this one), tools,porting, and
> many others that are not really "user centered". I will load these into the
> ooo-site tree, but at some point, someone on the "developer" side should
> really cull this out and move them to the "developer" side so we don't
> continually deal with these areas on the "user portal".
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
> > don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
> > independent websites.
> >
> > We have the legacy www.openoffice.org website, which served as an
> > end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
> > participants.
> >
> > And we have the http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, which on
> > graduation probably becomes something shorter,  like
> > http://openoffice.apache.org.  For most Apache projects their website
> > also serves both purposes:  a site for users as well as project
> > participants.
> >
> > So, we have both of these websites, and a lot of redundancy caused by
> > it.  This obviously has a downside.  It makes it hard to update, since
> > a lot of information is in both places.  And it confuses users since
> > the websites are out of sync on some important topics.  It also
> > prevents us from really optimizing the experience for each audience.
> > I suspect that long-term this dual-website with overlapping content is
> > not a maintainable model.
> >
> > What can we do?
> >
> > I hope I am not committing heresy if I say that most users of
> > OpenOffice care as little about Apache as drinker of a Pepsi cares
> > about the Board of Directors of PepsiCo Corporation.  The average user
> > (and we're talking about millions of them) cares about downloading,
> > installing, using, learning about and generally being productive with
> > OpenOffice.  It is a tool they use to do their work. Their work is
> > what matters to them, not our work.
> >
> > But of course we also have a growing number of users, contributors and
> > committers who want to get more involved with the project. OpenOffice
> > is interesting to them.  They identify with it.  They want to learn
> > more than just the basics.  They are intrigued by open source.  They
> > want to help.  They want to get more involved.
> >
> > The trick I think, is to have websites that speak to each of these
> > audiences, as well as an easy/obvious way to navigate between them,
> > while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cross talk and redundancy.
> >
> > For example, could we have something like this:
> >
> > 1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
> > is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
> > So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
> > with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.
> >
> >
> > 2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
> > openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
> > work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
> > project. Not the product, but the project.
> >
> > This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
> > important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
> > the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:
> >
> > http://www.pepsi.com
> >
> > But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another
> > URL:
> >
> > http://www.pepsico.com/
> >
> > Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
> > But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>  by the way its animals are treated."
>                              -- Mohandas Gandhi
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
 by the way its animals are treated."
                              -- Mohandas Gandhi

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

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

Sorry I've been in Chicago and a little out of touch. I'll be back at home Saturday and will contribute.

Keep up the good work Kay!

+1 to Dennis

BR
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 23, 2011, at 1:55 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org> wrote:

> My recommendation is that everything in terms of web pages should be preserved that is not already captured in the bugzilla, MediaWiki, and Community Forums.  
> 
> Cleanup can happen on our ooo-site SVN in anticipation of the cut-over and after the cut-over.  The remodeling to divide up the site content and also provide adequate portal operation from openoffice.org to the Apache OpenOffice development/project site does not have to be completed, or even started very much, prior to cut-over.  It is something to nibble through when there is no time-limit over our heads and the keys to the live content are in our custody.  
> 
> - Dennis
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 08:56
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
> 
> +1...all good, and something we had discussed early on.
> 
> However, as I work on porting legacy info over, I am wondering what to do
> about the more "developer" centered areas of the site: api, sc, sw,
> framework, external (? -- I need to look at this one), tools,porting, and
> many others that are not really "user centered". I will load these into the
> ooo-site tree, but at some point, someone on the "developer" side should
> really cull this out and move them to the "developer" side so we don't
> continually deal with these areas on the "user portal".
> 
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
>> don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
>> independent websites.
>> 
>> We have the legacy www.openoffice.org website, which served as an
>> end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
>> participants.
>> 
>> And we have the http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, which on
>> graduation probably becomes something shorter,  like
>> http://openoffice.apache.org.  For most Apache projects their website
>> also serves both purposes:  a site for users as well as project
>> participants.
>> 
>> So, we have both of these websites, and a lot of redundancy caused by
>> it.  This obviously has a downside.  It makes it hard to update, since
>> a lot of information is in both places.  And it confuses users since
>> the websites are out of sync on some important topics.  It also
>> prevents us from really optimizing the experience for each audience.
>> I suspect that long-term this dual-website with overlapping content is
>> not a maintainable model.
>> 
>> What can we do?
>> 
>> I hope I am not committing heresy if I say that most users of
>> OpenOffice care as little about Apache as drinker of a Pepsi cares
>> about the Board of Directors of PepsiCo Corporation.  The average user
>> (and we're talking about millions of them) cares about downloading,
>> installing, using, learning about and generally being productive with
>> OpenOffice.  It is a tool they use to do their work. Their work is
>> what matters to them, not our work.
>> 
>> But of course we also have a growing number of users, contributors and
>> committers who want to get more involved with the project. OpenOffice
>> is interesting to them.  They identify with it.  They want to learn
>> more than just the basics.  They are intrigued by open source.  They
>> want to help.  They want to get more involved.
>> 
>> The trick I think, is to have websites that speak to each of these
>> audiences, as well as an easy/obvious way to navigate between them,
>> while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cross talk and redundancy.
>> 
>> For example, could we have something like this:
>> 
>> 1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
>> is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
>> So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
>> with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.
>> 
>> 
>> 2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
>> openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
>> work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
>> project. Not the product, but the project.
>> 
>> This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
>> important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
>> the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:
>> 
>> http://www.pepsi.com
>> 
>> But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another
>> URL:
>> 
>> http://www.pepsico.com/
>> 
>> Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
>> But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
> 
> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> by the way its animals are treated."
>                              -- Mohandas Gandhi
> 

RE: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>]

My recommendation is that everything in terms of web pages should be preserved that is not already captured in the bugzilla, MediaWiki, and Community Forums.  

Cleanup can happen on our ooo-site SVN in anticipation of the cut-over and after the cut-over.  The remodeling to divide up the site content and also provide adequate portal operation from openoffice.org to the Apache OpenOffice development/project site does not have to be completed, or even started very much, prior to cut-over.  It is something to nibble through when there is no time-limit over our heads and the keys to the live content are in our custody.  

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 08:56
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

+1...all good, and something we had discussed early on.

However, as I work on porting legacy info over, I am wondering what to do
about the more "developer" centered areas of the site: api, sc, sw,
framework, external (? -- I need to look at this one), tools,porting, and
many others that are not really "user centered". I will load these into the
ooo-site tree, but at some point, someone on the "developer" side should
really cull this out and move them to the "developer" side so we don't
continually deal with these areas on the "user portal".

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:

> We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
> don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
> independent websites.
>
> We have the legacy www.openoffice.org website, which served as an
> end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
> participants.
>
> And we have the http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, which on
> graduation probably becomes something shorter,  like
> http://openoffice.apache.org.  For most Apache projects their website
> also serves both purposes:  a site for users as well as project
> participants.
>
> So, we have both of these websites, and a lot of redundancy caused by
> it.  This obviously has a downside.  It makes it hard to update, since
> a lot of information is in both places.  And it confuses users since
> the websites are out of sync on some important topics.  It also
> prevents us from really optimizing the experience for each audience.
> I suspect that long-term this dual-website with overlapping content is
> not a maintainable model.
>
> What can we do?
>
> I hope I am not committing heresy if I say that most users of
> OpenOffice care as little about Apache as drinker of a Pepsi cares
> about the Board of Directors of PepsiCo Corporation.  The average user
> (and we're talking about millions of them) cares about downloading,
> installing, using, learning about and generally being productive with
> OpenOffice.  It is a tool they use to do their work. Their work is
> what matters to them, not our work.
>
> But of course we also have a growing number of users, contributors and
> committers who want to get more involved with the project. OpenOffice
> is interesting to them.  They identify with it.  They want to learn
> more than just the basics.  They are intrigued by open source.  They
> want to help.  They want to get more involved.
>
> The trick I think, is to have websites that speak to each of these
> audiences, as well as an easy/obvious way to navigate between them,
> while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cross talk and redundancy.
>
> For example, could we have something like this:
>
> 1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
> is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
> So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
> with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.
>
>
> 2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
> openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
> work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
> project. Not the product, but the project.
>
> This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
> important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
> the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:
>
> http://www.pepsi.com
>
> But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another
> URL:
>
> http://www.pepsico.com/
>
> Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
> But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
 by the way its animals are treated."
                              -- Mohandas Gandhi

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>]

+1...all good, and something we had discussed early on.

However, as I work on porting legacy info over, I am wondering what to do
about the more "developer" centered areas of the site: api, sc, sw,
framework, external (? -- I need to look at this one), tools,porting, and
many others that are not really "user centered". I will load these into the
ooo-site tree, but at some point, someone on the "developer" side should
really cull this out and move them to the "developer" side so we don't
continually deal with these areas on the "user portal".

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:

> We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
> don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
> independent websites.
>
> We have the legacy www.openoffice.org website, which served as an
> end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
> participants.
>
> And we have the http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, which on
> graduation probably becomes something shorter,  like
> http://openoffice.apache.org.  For most Apache projects their website
> also serves both purposes:  a site for users as well as project
> participants.
>
> So, we have both of these websites, and a lot of redundancy caused by
> it.  This obviously has a downside.  It makes it hard to update, since
> a lot of information is in both places.  And it confuses users since
> the websites are out of sync on some important topics.  It also
> prevents us from really optimizing the experience for each audience.
> I suspect that long-term this dual-website with overlapping content is
> not a maintainable model.
>
> What can we do?
>
> I hope I am not committing heresy if I say that most users of
> OpenOffice care as little about Apache as drinker of a Pepsi cares
> about the Board of Directors of PepsiCo Corporation.  The average user
> (and we're talking about millions of them) cares about downloading,
> installing, using, learning about and generally being productive with
> OpenOffice.  It is a tool they use to do their work. Their work is
> what matters to them, not our work.
>
> But of course we also have a growing number of users, contributors and
> committers who want to get more involved with the project. OpenOffice
> is interesting to them.  They identify with it.  They want to learn
> more than just the basics.  They are intrigued by open source.  They
> want to help.  They want to get more involved.
>
> The trick I think, is to have websites that speak to each of these
> audiences, as well as an easy/obvious way to navigate between them,
> while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cross talk and redundancy.
>
> For example, could we have something like this:
>
> 1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
> is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
> So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
> with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.
>
>
> 2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
> openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
> work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
> project. Not the product, but the project.
>
> This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
> important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
> the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:
>
> http://www.pepsi.com
>
> But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another
> URL:
>
> http://www.pepsico.com/
>
> Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
> But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
 by the way its animals are treated."
                              -- Mohandas Gandhi

Res: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Jomar Silva <ho...@gmail.com>]

+1 on that too.

Best,

Jomar
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:46:08 
To: <oo...@incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
independent websites.

We have the legacy www.openoffice.org website, which served as an
end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
participants.

And we have the http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, which on
graduation probably becomes something shorter,  like
http://openoffice.apache.org.  For most Apache projects their website
also serves both purposes:  a site for users as well as project
participants.

So, we have both of these websites, and a lot of redundancy caused by
it.  This obviously has a downside.  It makes it hard to update, since
a lot of information is in both places.  And it confuses users since
the websites are out of sync on some important topics.  It also
prevents us from really optimizing the experience for each audience.
I suspect that long-term this dual-website with overlapping content is
not a maintainable model.

What can we do?

I hope I am not committing heresy if I say that most users of
OpenOffice care as little about Apache as drinker of a Pepsi cares
about the Board of Directors of PepsiCo Corporation.  The average user
(and we're talking about millions of them) cares about downloading,
installing, using, learning about and generally being productive with
OpenOffice.  It is a tool they use to do their work. Their work is
what matters to them, not our work.

But of course we also have a growing number of users, contributors and
committers who want to get more involved with the project. OpenOffice
is interesting to them.  They identify with it.  They want to learn
more than just the basics.  They are intrigued by open source.  They
want to help.  They want to get more involved.

The trick I think, is to have websites that speak to each of these
audiences, as well as an easy/obvious way to navigate between them,
while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cross talk and redundancy.

For example, could we have something like this:

1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.


2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
project. Not the product, but the project.

This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:

http://www.pepsi.com

But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another URL:

http://www.pepsico.com/

Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.

RE: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>]

+1

I think this is a good separation.

It is also likely, I think, that there will be pathways from openoffice.org to 
openoffice.apache.org for situations that end-users and power users will 
certainly engage in, such as creating bug reports and interacting in other 
ways with the Apache OpenOffice project.


-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 15:46
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[ ... ]

For example, could we have something like this:

1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.


2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
project. Not the product, but the project.

[ ... ]

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

["Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>]

+1

Marcus



Am 11/22/2011 11:24 AM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> it sounds like a Déjà vu and i think we had already a discussion that
> goes in this direction.
>
> Yes, i totally agree on this separation and it makes sense to me. Moving
> forward with this separation we need much less migration and can
> concentrate on the most important pages of the main portal (for users)
> www.openoffice.org.
>
> Hopefully we can change wiki.services.openoffice.org to
> wiki.openoffice.org and can redirect the old Url to the new short one.
> and the same for the forum users.services.openoffice.org
>
> The portal side provide the main info about the product (mainly
> marketing material), provide the download (with the infra structure
> behind), but also provides the entry points to the wiki, to the forum
> and of course openoffice.apache.org for project members.
>
> I really like that
>
> Juergen
>
>
> On 11/22/11 12:46 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
>> don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had. We have two
>> independent websites.
>>
>> We have the legacy www.openoffice.org website, which served as an
>> end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
>> participants.
>>
>> And we have the http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, which on
>> graduation probably becomes something shorter, like
>> http://openoffice.apache.org. For most Apache projects their website
>> also serves both purposes: a site for users as well as project
>> participants.
>>
>> So, we have both of these websites, and a lot of redundancy caused by
>> it. This obviously has a downside. It makes it hard to update, since
>> a lot of information is in both places. And it confuses users since
>> the websites are out of sync on some important topics. It also
>> prevents us from really optimizing the experience for each audience.
>> I suspect that long-term this dual-website with overlapping content is
>> not a maintainable model.
>>
>> What can we do?
>>
>> I hope I am not committing heresy if I say that most users of
>> OpenOffice care as little about Apache as drinker of a Pepsi cares
>> about the Board of Directors of PepsiCo Corporation. The average user
>> (and we're talking about millions of them) cares about downloading,
>> installing, using, learning about and generally being productive with
>> OpenOffice. It is a tool they use to do their work. Their work is
>> what matters to them, not our work.
>>
>> But of course we also have a growing number of users, contributors and
>> committers who want to get more involved with the project. OpenOffice
>> is interesting to them. They identify with it. They want to learn
>> more than just the basics. They are intrigued by open source. They
>> want to help. They want to get more involved.
>>
>> The trick I think, is to have websites that speak to each of these
>> audiences, as well as an easy/obvious way to navigate between them,
>> while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cross talk and redundancy.
>>
>> For example, could we have something like this:
>>
>> 1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product. It
>> is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
>> So download, help, extensions, support. It is not how they interact
>> with the project. It serves the narrow focus on the product.
>>
>>
>> 2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
>> openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
>> work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
>> project. Not the product, but the project.
>>
>> This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
>> important brands. For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
>> the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:
>>
>> http://www.pepsi.com
>>
>> But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to
>> another URL:
>>
>> http://www.pepsico.com/
>>
>> Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
>> But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

["Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>]

Am 11/25/2011 02:04 AM, schrieb TJ Frazier:
> Hi, Marcus,
> Off-topic (re PS:), but couldn't resist.
>
> On 11/24/2011 18:42, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> Am 11/22/2011 06:54 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> [...]
>
>>> I would rather preserve those URLs. The shorter ones are nice and the
>> > old ones could redirect to them. And I wouldn't do this quickly
>> > unless it is clearly a no-brainer and the redirect/rewrite works
>> > perfectly. It is also something that could be done independently of
>> > all the static-page remodeling that is needed.
>>
>> PS:
>> How comes that the text is sometimes well formatting and like in this
>> mail it's only one long unwrapped line.
>>
>> So, sorry if my hand-quoted text is worse.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
> Dennis hasn't set a word-wrap parameter for his outgoing messages. (The
> protocol write-ups I've seen recommend 72 characters or less.) The Tb
> client handles the original message just fine, wrapping the lines to fit
> the user's display width. Sending a reply, Tb leaves the long lines
> unwrapped, but quoted (edge-marked).
>
> Tb does not handle /reading/ such a reply gracefully. It marks the first
> line as quoted, but not the wrapped line(s). I think I'll poke around in
> Mozilla Bugzilla; this sounds like a bug to me.

Thanks for the info.

Of course, +1 :-D

Marcus

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>]

Hi, Marcus,
Off-topic (re PS:), but couldn't resist.

On 11/24/2011 18:42, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 11/22/2011 06:54 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
[...]

>> I would rather preserve those URLs. The shorter ones are nice and the
>  > old ones could redirect to them. And I wouldn't do this quickly
>  > unless it is clearly a no-brainer and the redirect/rewrite works
>  > perfectly. It is also something that could be done independently of
>  > all the static-page remodeling that is needed.
>
> PS:
> How comes that the text is sometimes well formatting and like in this
> mail it's only one long unwrapped line.
>
> So, sorry if my hand-quoted text is worse.
>
> Marcus
>
Dennis hasn't set a word-wrap parameter for his outgoing messages. (The 
protocol write-ups I've seen recommend 72 characters or less.) The Tb 
client handles the original message just fine, wrapping the lines to fit 
the user's display width. Sending a reply, Tb leaves the long lines 
unwrapped, but quoted (edge-marked).

Tb does not handle /reading/ such a reply gracefully. It marks the first 
line as quoted, but not the wrapped line(s). I think I'll poke around in 
Mozilla Bugzilla; this sounds like a bug to me.

-- 
/tj/

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

["Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>]

Am 11/22/2011 06:54 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> ++1
>
> AH!! Jürgen said the magic word: PORTAL.  Now I can say something that
 > has been nagging at me without words.
>
> It will be extremely valuable for the openoffice.org web site to remain
 > the portal of the openoffice.org lineage, where the entry to Apache
 > OpenOffice is more tightly-coupled but not exclusive. And user support
 > is for the lineage, even though activity may become more about Apache
 > OpenOffice releases in the future.
>
> One concern about changing the URLs for the wiki and the forums:  This
 > will break absolute bookmarks and cross-references from users and from
 > elsewhere in the site, including in the forums, unless the existing
 > URLs are (also) preserved.  This also impacts existing search-engine
 > indexing.

Right. These are really wideley used and known URLs and should be (kind 
of) preserved. So, if possible I would suggest to let the shorter URLs 
become the real ones and make a DNS redirect or httpd rewrite (depends 
on the techncially backgound that I don't know) of the longer to the 
shorter URLs.

In 1, 2 or 3 years we could define that the longer URLs can now be deleted.

> I would rather preserve those URLs.  The shorter ones are nice and the
 > old ones could redirect to them.  And I wouldn't do this quickly
 > unless it is clearly a no-brainer and the redirect/rewrite works
 > perfectly. It is also something that could be done independently of
 > all the static-page remodeling that is needed.

PS:
How comes that the text is sometimes well formatting and like in this 
mail it's only one long unwrapped line.

So, sorry if my hand-quoted text is worse.

Marcus



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 02:25
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
>
> it sounds like a Déjà vu and i think we had already a discussion that
> goes in this direction.
>
> Yes, i totally agree on this separation and it makes sense to me. Moving
> forward with this separation we need much less migration and can
> concentrate on the most important pages of the main portal (for users)
> www.openoffice.org.
>
> Hopefully we can change wiki.services.openoffice.org to
> wiki.openoffice.org and can redirect the old Url to the new short one.
> and the same for the forum users.services.openoffice.org
>
> The portal side provide the main info about the product (mainly
> marketing material), provide the download (with the infra structure
> behind), but also provides the entry points to the wiki, to the forum
> and of course openoffice.apache.org for project members.
>
> I really like that
>
> Juergen
>
>
> On 11/22/11 12:46 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
>> don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
>> independent websites.
>>
> [ ... ]
>>
>> For example, could we have something like this:
>>
>> 1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
>> is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
>> So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
>> with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.
>>
>>
>> 2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
>> openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
>> work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
>> project. Not the product, but the project.
>>
>> This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
>> important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
>> the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:
>>
>> http://www.pepsi.com
>>
>> But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another URL:
>>
>> http://www.pepsico.com/
>>
>> Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
>> But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.

RE: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>]

++1

AH!! Jürgen said the magic word: PORTAL.  Now I can say something that has been nagging at me without words.

It will be extremely valuable for the openoffice.org web site to remain the portal of the openoffice.org lineage, where the entry to Apache OpenOffice is more tightly-coupled but not exclusive. And user support is for the lineage, even though activity may become more about Apache OpenOffice releases in the future. 

One concern about changing the URLs for the wiki and the forums:  This will break absolute bookmarks and cross-references from users and from elsewhere in the site, including in the forums, unless the existing URLs are (also) preserved.  This also impacts existing search-engine indexing.

I would rather preserve those URLs.  The shorter ones are nice and the old ones could redirect to them.  And I wouldn't do this quickly unless it is clearly a no-brainer and the redirect/rewrite works perfectly. It is also something that could be done independently of all the static-page remodeling that is needed.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 02:25
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

it sounds like a Déjà vu and i think we had already a discussion that 
goes in this direction.

Yes, i totally agree on this separation and it makes sense to me. Moving 
forward with this separation we need much less migration and can 
concentrate on the most important pages of the main portal (for users) 
www.openoffice.org.

Hopefully we can change wiki.services.openoffice.org to 
wiki.openoffice.org and can redirect the old Url to the new short one. 
and the same for the forum users.services.openoffice.org

The portal side provide the main info about the product (mainly 
marketing material), provide the download (with the infra structure 
behind), but also provides the entry points to the wiki, to the forum 
and of course openoffice.apache.org for project members.

I really like that

Juergen


On 11/22/11 12:46 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
> don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
> independent websites.
>
[ ... ]
>
> For example, could we have something like this:
>
> 1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
> is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
> So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
> with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.
>
>
> 2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
> openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
> work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
> project. Not the product, but the project.
>
> This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
> important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
> the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:
>
> http://www.pepsi.com
>
> But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another URL:
>
> http://www.pepsico.com/
>
> Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
> But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.

Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites

[Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>]

it sounds like a Déjà vu and i think we had already a discussion that 
goes in this direction.

Yes, i totally agree on this separation and it makes sense to me. Moving 
forward with this separation we need much less migration and can 
concentrate on the most important pages of the main portal (for users) 
www.openoffice.org.

Hopefully we can change wiki.services.openoffice.org to 
wiki.openoffice.org and can redirect the old Url to the new short one. 
and the same for the forum users.services.openoffice.org

The portal side provide the main info about the product (mainly 
marketing material), provide the download (with the infra structure 
behind), but also provides the entry points to the wiki, to the forum 
and of course openoffice.apache.org for project members.

I really like that

Juergen


On 11/22/11 12:46 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
> don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
> independent websites.
>
> We have the legacy www.openoffice.org website, which served as an
> end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
> participants.
>
> And we have the http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, which on
> graduation probably becomes something shorter,  like
> http://openoffice.apache.org.  For most Apache projects their website
> also serves both purposes:  a site for users as well as project
> participants.
>
> So, we have both of these websites, and a lot of redundancy caused by
> it.  This obviously has a downside.  It makes it hard to update, since
> a lot of information is in both places.  And it confuses users since
> the websites are out of sync on some important topics.  It also
> prevents us from really optimizing the experience for each audience.
> I suspect that long-term this dual-website with overlapping content is
> not a maintainable model.
>
> What can we do?
>
> I hope I am not committing heresy if I say that most users of
> OpenOffice care as little about Apache as drinker of a Pepsi cares
> about the Board of Directors of PepsiCo Corporation.  The average user
> (and we're talking about millions of them) cares about downloading,
> installing, using, learning about and generally being productive with
> OpenOffice.  It is a tool they use to do their work. Their work is
> what matters to them, not our work.
>
> But of course we also have a growing number of users, contributors and
> committers who want to get more involved with the project. OpenOffice
> is interesting to them.  They identify with it.  They want to learn
> more than just the basics.  They are intrigued by open source.  They
> want to help.  They want to get more involved.
>
> The trick I think, is to have websites that speak to each of these
> audiences, as well as an easy/obvious way to navigate between them,
> while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cross talk and redundancy.
>
> For example, could we have something like this:
>
> 1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
> is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
> So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
> with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.
>
>
> 2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
> openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
> work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
> project. Not the product, but the project.
>
> This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
> important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
> the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:
>
> http://www.pepsi.com
>
> But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another URL:
>
> http://www.pepsico.com/
>
> Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
> But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.