incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Terry Ellison <>
Subject Re: <id>
Date Sun, 21 Aug 2011 18:30:35 GMT
On 21/08/11 18:53, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Andy Brown<>  wrote:
>> Watching the discussions here I have a question.
>> How hard would it be to find out which forwarding addresses are in active
>> use, last six months, last year?
> You could find out which ones are used *in the project* by go through
> all OOo and AOOo mailing lists and collect the subscriber list, and
> from these extract the addresses.   That would be a
> list of all addresses that are potentially involved in project work.
> But it would not include anyone using an address for
> things entirely unrelated to OOo.
No.  Leaving aside the horrendous nature of this exercise,  it could be 
pointless as this would only capture the ones used on the MLs. Apart 
from <largely *nix> development communities, the rest of the world has 
abandoned using MLs for anything serious, so most OOo services used 
alternative mechanisms.  I accept that ML is the "Apache way" and 
something to be tolerated like the idiosyncrasies of ones parent, but  
since we are discussing historic data, my point still applies.

>> Seems to me if an address is "active' then it should be maintained for that
>> user as that is where some contacts expect to find that person.  I have one
>> of those addresses and in the last year I may have received two or three
>> messages, all spam, so I do not need the address or really want it.  As has
>> been indicated it was given when I initially registered OO.o.  I think I
>> have received two or three actual messages with that address and that was
>> over two years ago when I signed up for the Marketing Project.  I see no
>> need to maintain address forwarding for addresses that are not used but do
>> feel that those that use them should have them maintained for the benefit of
>> the community.  It seems that most of us agree that no new address should be
>> assigned.
> Whether the use of the forwarder is "for the benefit of the community"
> depends on how the address is being used.  If someone has the address
> "" and uses it to sell" copies of OOo, then that
> does not benefit the community. If someone has the OOo logo and
> address on their business cards and claims to represent the project,
> then this is not to the project's benefit.
> Remember, this project is already plagued with websites claiming to
> offer OpenOffice downloads, sometimes filled with bloatware or
> malware, duping uses. This harms the brand and dilutes the trademark.
> When someone set up the site, we try to shut it down.
> The use of the trademark to imply affiliation is
> something that requires approval from the trademark owner, in this
> case now Apache.
> I have serious concerns about having thousands of people with
> email addresses. Other OSS projects have had similar
> concerns, and problems, and have ended this practice, e.g., KDE.   In
> Apache, the addresses are limited to committers.
> I agree that we don't want to abruptly end the forwarding service.
> But I think we need a plan to end this service, with minimal
> disruption to users of that service and ample time to migrate to a new
> address.
Andy, you are right.  This is the sort of Q that we should consider.  
I've already got it on my list.  //Terry

View raw message