incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <>
Subject Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + (was branding)
Date Sun, 31 Jul 2011 22:17:35 GMT

On 07/30/2011 03:28 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Kay Schenk<>  wrote:
>> On 07/30/2011 11:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>> On another list, I saw a comment from Roy Fielding that resonated
>>> with me.  Others have mentioned it, but not here on ooo-dev.
>>> My interpretation is that we could have Apache ooo as the identifier
>>> of the core Apache project built on what we factor out of the Oracle
>>> grant, leaving as a web site and a family of
>>> distributions and support for end-user and adopter/integrator
>>> activities that reach out beyond the development of a buildable
>>> open-source code base.
>> This seems like a GREAT idea to me assuming it can be "done" vis a vis
>> current conditions -- the Apache way, etc. Also see below
> That has been the plan since the start.  We eventually have an
> web site that has the project-facing website and
> services, like source repositories, dev lists, work by translators,
> documentation, etc.  This is the web site where those who make OOo
> work, the project community.

Well OK, at some point I got very confused by what this meant I guess.
Should I take this remark will be primarily the 
stop off for what I'll call "code developers"?

> Then we have http:///, which remains the end-user
> facing portal, the entry way to downloads, to support, to templates
> and extensions, etc.

Right, OK, but again, where will this and many other ancillary sites (like the forums etc.) actually live?

> There are some services that have dual personalities, like bugzilla,
> which is used by users as well as those on the project development
> side.

-- more below....

> This would not be an attempt to create an artificial division between
> the project community and the users.  I'm very sensitive to that.  But
> in this space, we really need an extremely easy-to-use,  slee, sexy,
> consumer-friendly portal for end users. This is the face of the
> project to millions of current and potential users.  We should have
> hooks to draw them into the project community, for those with further
> interest.  But we can't scare them initially with the bare-bones
> standard Apache look and feel project site.
>>> I think we should consider that attempting to put atop
>>> all of it is over-constraining and also confusing, even though the
>>> result may be unrecognizably different at the end-user level.
>>> - Dennis
>>> [Disclaimer.  This inspired my thinking but any misunderstanding of
>>> what Roy was thinking is mine and mine alone.]
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Roy T. Fielding
>>>> [] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 09:51 [
>>>> ... quoted by permission ] Subject: Re: branding
>>>> [ ... ]
>>>> BTW, my personal preference is to call our product Apache OOo and
>>>> leave the website as a joint forum and
>>>> redistribution site for all variations of the suite, docs,
>>>> tutorials, etc.  However, such decisions are typically made by the
>>>> people doing the work.
>>>> Cheers,
>> yes... +1
>>>> ....Roy T. Fielding, Director, The Apache Software Foundation
>>>> (<>
>>>> (<>
>>> I am not invested in the history or passion around as
>>> an ongoing development.  My perspective is as someone who works from
>>> the open standards and architectural perspective.  So I beg your
>>> forbearance if I have been insensitive to the history and the
>>> familiarity that there is in how things have been done over the
>>> years.  It is not my intention to offend but to see what we can see
>>> by thinking outside of the box.
>>> I trust it is clear to all of us that it will be unlikely that we can
>>> somehow revive to a place where it is a
>>> business-as-usual continuation of the now-stalled effort.
> Not business as usual.  Business better than usual.  But this is not
> something for arguing.  It is for doing.
>>> Furthermore, my attention is on the suitability of Apache ooo as a
>>> reference implementation with respect to ODF, with less emphasis on
>>> what it takes to continue a desirable and thriving
>>> software distribution.  I'm in favor of that.  It is not what my
>>> attention is on.  So this is not a balanced perspective.
> And why can't we do both?  Is there some reason why an application
> cannot both be a good implementation of ODF and also be a thriving
> product?  There are not mutually exclusive outcomes.
>>> Here are some loosely-conceived thoughts.  I don't have a clear or
>>> specific picture.  But I think the conceptual separation of ooo and
>>> is an opportunity that might unfreeze us from trying
>>> to move ahead under one giant lump.
>> I agree...but...
>>> I favor the idea of separating the "pure Apache-way" project effort
>>> and from the identity and "brand" as a broader
>>> umbrella for all of the variations that go into making end-user
>>> distributions, providing documentation materials, end-user support,
>>> and especially the various native-language efforts that are part of
>>> the ecosystem.
> I've heard this idea put forward by LibreOffice supports as well.  The
> brand name of is very strong.  The web site gets a lot
> of traffic.  Far more than  Far more than
>  I think we'd all love a link from that website.
> Who wouldn't? If you look at other Apache projects you see that they
> are quite liberal about providing links to distributions of downstream
> consumers, including other ports, distros and derived applications.
> This comes with a disclaimed that these are not official Apache
> releases, but it does help give these other projects some greater
> visibility and "link love".  See, for example, this Subversion page:
> As you can see, there is also some degree of co-branding.  So there is
> TortoiseSVN, uberSVN, visualSVN, etc
> I've always assumed we'd do something similar for Apache OpenOffice,
> provide links to other releases.  And if someone wants to call their
> release "SuperDuper OpenOffice" or whatever, then we'd handle that
> request via the normal process for Apache branding discussions.
>> HOW to do this? I mean from a practical, pragmatic perspective. How will
>> continued existence of what we might see as the "end user"
>> architecture (servers, administration architecture) be carried out? What
>> will we use, where will it be housed, how will it be administered it and who
>> will finance it? I am QUITE concerned about the existence of the current
>> site (on kenai). Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen a "drop dead" for
>> removal of from this platform.
> We've had discussions on the list on migration, some details here
> (look at the website transfer row of the table):

Yes, I know about this and have contributed to this but it doesn't 
really answer my question...where do we go?

The "user facing" sites are itemized in

assuming you exclude development, distribution, and api (maybe others 
related to direct development).

What is the suggestion to place this architecture elsewhere?

>>> I also see separation as rather easy because at the moment we are
>>> using "ooo" for these lists, for the podling's SVN repository branch,
>>> for the two wikis, for the Apache Extras (although that has forked
>>> already [;<), etc.
>> um....see my last comments. Easy from a philosophical standpoint, but not
>> necessarily from a practical one.
>>> I favor the idea of a cleaner separation of the development of the
>>> core ODF reference-implementation aspects from wider variations that
>>> are typical and appropriate for a production-usable productivity
>>> suite.  A distribution will have incidental and discretionary
>>> provisions that aren't particularly indicative of the "reference"
>>> aspects and have not been the subject of standardization.
>>> Important Context: There is wide latitude for discretion in the ODF
>>> specifications and even wider latitude for user-interface,
>>> non-UI-based processors, etc., that are not the subject matter of the
>>> ODF specification at all.  It would be good to remove confusion
>>> around that.  Also, a reference implementation, to the extent it is
>>> usable in practice, should not be taken as being in any sense
>>> compelling with regard to anything but its conformant support for the
>>> file format itself.  A reference implementation that can be operated
>>> needs to do something in discretionary areas.  The incidental and
>>> discretionary choices should be soundly done and well-narrated.  But
>>> there must be no suggestion that the approach to such incidental and
>>> discretionary cases reflect requirements of ODF.  The user interface
>>> and its functionality is not subject matter for the ODF specification
>>> as it now exists.  One wants ways to produce features of the format.
>>> One wants ways to deal with provisions of the format in any input
>>> that is processed.  But the gap from input to user presentation and
>>> interaction and from there to output is not prescribed in the ODF
>>> specification, nor are mappings between different formats and the
>>> treatment of different formats as defaults.
>>> I'm not sure how much the technology transfer/deployment would work
>>> from Apache ooo to and that is something we need to
>>> figure out.
>> Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I'm confused.
>>   When we have the code and the collateral artifacts in
>>> hand, our inspection may provide insight into how we can get rolling
>>> and also understand how the development can be modularized in a
>>> productive way.
>>> - Dennis
>> good discussion...
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>> "If you can keep your head when all others around you
>>   are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand
>>   the situation!"
>>                             -- Unknown


"If you can keep your head when all others around you
  are losing theirs - maybe you don't fully understand
  the situation!"
                             -- Unknown

View raw message