incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: Native Language vs l10n
Date Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:15:34 GMT

On Jun 17, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:

> Dear Rob,
> Am 17.06.2011 21:49, schrieb Rob Weir:
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Manfred A. Reiter<>wrote:
>>> Can you understand, that due to the nature of OOo it always
>>> had very strong language specific communities, wich significantly
>>> contributed to the huge success of OOo?
>>> Interfering with the habits and cultures established within these
>>> communties will in fact not take you any further than somebody
>>> can say "we obeyed the Apache standard rules".
>>> The power of local communites which can act independently,
>>> has proven to be especially usefull in these areas were competing
>>> products simply couldn't offer a "consumer focused" localised solution.
>>> I'm just worried that you will alienate some very active contributors
>>> by enforcing PMC rules just ... "because ..."
>> For things that impact the product release, things like code contributions,
>> documentation, translations, etc., things that actually could make the bits
>> and bytes of the release different, I think it is very important that these
>> pieces are done in Apache.  And by being in the Apache project, they are
>> covered by the Apache 2.0 license and by our consensus decision making
>> process.
> never questioned that.
> IF a spelling mistake and a correction of the same in <Klingon - or your favorite
language> is actually core development, that needs to be covered by a full blown PMC
> then you probably need a round of refactoring in the core ;-).
>> For the activities that do not impact the actual contents of the release,
>> things like user support, country- or language-specific marketing activities
>> and so on, for these I could see other models working as well.
> you got it!
>> Remember,
>> with any Apache project, anyone is free to take the project's source code,
>> translate it, build it and market it or even sell it.  This could be done
>> with modifications and enhancements.  This is all possible under the Apache
>> 2.0 license, whether you participate in the project or not.
> ack
>> So if there are existing groups that do such activities under Sun/Oracle
>>, then they can continue to do so, by using Apache OpenOffice.
>> But when we start talking about the Apache project, then we are not talking
>> about "groups" joining.  We're talking about individuals joining.
> got that during last discussions ;-)
>>  I don't
>> think we want to have independent, autonomous groups within an Apache
>> project.
> neither do I
>> But I wonder whether one solution is this:
>> 1) Strong existing language projects continue to operate independently,
>> according to their own rules.
> exactly my point
>> 2) They ensure that their work is all done under Apache 2.0 license so it is
>> usable by Apache OpenOffice as well as by LibreOffice
>> 3) Language projects each appoint at least one member to join the Apache
>> OpenOffice project as a liaison.

(deleting 3 drafts to earlier messages in this thread.)

I like Rob's very direct 3 points. I would edit the language slightly.

Strike the words "Strong existing" from 1) - the language project should not need to think
about how strong they are - strong has differing cultural interpretations.

For 3) "as a liaison" ought to be dropped. Everyone joins as an individual. Many of us might
consider that we came here as liaisons, but that is not always the case.

Language projects
- continue to operate independently according to their own rules.
- ensure their work is done under the Apache 2.0 license so that it is usable by Apache OpenOffice
as well as LibreOffice.
- appoint at least one member to join the Apache OpenOffice project.

There are a couple of implicit "musts" on 1 or 2 that might be culturally insensitive... This
needs to be a well nuanced message IIRC Sally Khudairi's marketing 101 from Apachecon. Mentors
- should we get Sally involved in the nuance, or not?

The language needs to be as healing as possible. Language projects shouldn't feel abandoned
either. I'm feeling like I'm working here for a second:


+1 if the message is spun up and nuanced.

There are more pieces to an announcement, I think we owe the community some message by late
next week.

> that could do the trick ...
> but I would avoid to force grown and working communities
> under a gonvernance process they don't need.
> I would also avoid to deny those language projects to be
> seperated from ... in other words /home should
> be at and not
> that will cause confusion, and is not very smart marketingwise.

On the project website we can keep a roster of known Language projects with a registration

Happy Friday everyone :-)

Best Regards,


> cheers
> Manfred

View raw message