Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rabastus@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rabastus@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <1310461169.2068.97.camel@linux-krcc.site>
References: <B3EE6990-2D6C-47C6-85CF-9940E4AFFCEF@gmail.com>
	<D67A5FEA-8E60-4DB1-AB3F-F82ACFA04018@comcast.net>
	<B1AA907C-DE95-431C-97F6-D85CEF954645@free.fr>
	<4E182995.20203@btconnect.com>
	<1310382401.23340.203.camel@linux-krcc.site>
	<4E1AE1D5.9000709@khmeros.info>
	<20110711172123.GA11666@daniel3.local>
	<1310461169.2068.97.camel@linux-krcc.site>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:41:05 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAP-ksoiyfWKW6Lck93nknNd5HTZ6XEhje1hGVEXsXS1Mto4f-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
From: Rob Weir <apache@robweir.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Graham Lauder <yorick_@openoffice.org> wro=
te:
> On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 20:21 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:43:17 +0700:
>> > If Apache forced this without discussion it would be a bad start for
>> > the project.
>>
>> You're misportraying the facts; it's a preexisting Apache policy that
>> predates OOo being proposed as a podling.
>>
>> Now, we're generally reasonable people here, and the podling can always
>> request an exception (talk to trademarks@).
>
>
>
>> =C2=A0 But, with my Member hat on,
>> this collective "Let's join Apache, but not be called Apache, and not
>> work with existing Apache entities" spirit leaves a rather bad taste.
>
> I'm not saying we the community, should not be called Apache whatever.
> Nobody is down on Apache, but I just don't want to dilute the strong
> brand of the #product#. =C2=A0OOo has a very strong market share in the
> Office Suite Software Consumer market.
>
> http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/news/2010/02/05/international-openoffic=
e-market-shares.html
>
> It is important that we maintain that share and grow it.
> There is a large community: =C2=A035,000 individuals subscribed to OOo
> maillists when I last checked, Louis may have more up-to-date numbers
> Around 800 have signed the JCA/SCA
> Scores possibly Hundreds of Millions of Users worldwide and growing
>
> All this under the OpenOffice.org Brand. =C2=A0There has been a lot of no=
ise

Yes, under the Apache brand.  But also under the Obama presidency and
under the Chinese Year of the  Rabbit.  We don't know what is
coincidence versus a real essential cause and effect relationship.  In
other words, we don't know if we'd have the same number of users, or
even more, with a different name.

These seems like something we could debate endlessly without
resolution.  But I wonder if a more definitive answer might come from
a survey of users and other market participants, looking at branding
perceptions, trying out a few variations on the name, seeing which
ones elicit the most positive responses.  I'd be happy to yield to
facts.

> around LibreOffice with those Linux Distributions who used Go-OOo now
> distributing with LO, but those numbers, compared to OOo across all
> platforms are miniscule and I believe that will remain the same unless
> of course this stalling of development, forced on us by Oracle,
> continues or the brand is modified violently so that we have
> re-establish our brand right from the beginning. =C2=A0In our consumer ma=
rket
> tacking Apache on the end would do just this. =C2=A0This not a slight on
> Apache or lack of appreciation for their efforts thus far, just a
> statement of the circumstances.
>
> Cheers
> GL
> --
> Graham Lauder,
> OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ
> http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html
>
> OpenOffice.org Migration and training Consultant.
>
>
>
>