incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean Hollis Weber <jeanwe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:32:30 GMT
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 10:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> > -1
> >
> > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a release
have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the content of a release.  I thought
we had worked a high-level sketch of the user documentation case with Jean Hollis Weber some
time ago on this list.
> >
> 
> That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is
> external to Apache.  We're not discussing that right now.  What we're
> discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which we
> are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two
> different things.

*I* was talking about the docs produced by ODFAuthors, in my note quoted
below, and I asked a question that was not answered; the answer was
about the material directly edited on the wiki, not about the material I
asked about. 

--Jean

> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org
branding)
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <jeanweber@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>> I'd look at it like this:  The documentation that is needed for our
> >>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
> >>> application developers, that documentation is product documentation.
> >>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it, would cause
> >>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation.  If the right
> >>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is essentially to
> >>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or even a
> >>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project, then it
> >>> is product documentation.
> >>
> >> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items on the
> >> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of user
> >> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for download
> >> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit into this.
> >> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would never be
> >> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree to the
> >> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about future
> >> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every future
> >> contributor to these guides during their production must sign the iCLA?
> >> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights (committer?) can
> >> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
> >>
> >
> > I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code.  Not necessarily
> > the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
> > quality, namely:
> >
> > 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
> > must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer before they
> > become part of the documentation set.  Any such contributions must be
> > made under Apache 2.0 license.
> >
> > 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
> > documentation.  This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
> >
> > 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from committers and
> > tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
> > change.  So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches.  A user id that we
> > can trace to a real email address is fine.
> >
> > With code this works by non-committer contributors sending patches
> > (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and reviewed by
> > a committer, and then checked into the repository.  With
> > documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different mechanism for
> > achieving this.  Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to enable
> > this.
> >
> > I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the wiki.
> > That is its strength.  But we need to find away to also get this under
> > project oversight as well.  I think we can do both, without too much
> > annoyance to contributors.
> >
> >> --Jean
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >




Mime
View raw message