incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean Weber <jeanwe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Date Tue, 06 Sep 2011 03:34:10 GMT
Responding to some other points in this note

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:53, Pedro F. Giffuni <giffunip@tutopia.com> wrote:
>
> I recall someone (maybe you) had said that the
> ODFAuthors wanted to keep independent. If they
> want to join the podling they are welcome.

Sure. Each person can choose whether to join AOOo or not.

>
> There are some things which I think we should consider:
>
> 1) Many things are about to change, in particular when
> the new UI from Symphony is adopted, so we will have
> to do a lot of updating and new documentation anyways.
> Obviously all new documentation must be in a license
> acceptable to the Apache Foundation.

No argument there, though I believe CC-BY is acceptable, just not as
part of the docs that are shipped with the product.

>
> 2) infra@ is not complaining, but the fact the person
> doing the MW migration will leave is an issue. We should
> be considerate with the limited resources: is there a
> technical reason for not using confluence for all new
> documentation?


That's a different issue, whether docs should be in wiki format or in
ODT/PDF format that can be downloaded from the wiki or whatever. The
existing, most up to date user guides are in ODT/PDF, not wiki format.
The wiki is only a delivery mechanism. The docs could just as well be
delivered through the confluence wiki. But see another thread about
preserving the MediaWiki wiki and not the confluence wiki.

>
> 3) The license issue is really important. under all
> circumstances documentation without an acceptable
> copyright must be contained. In particular, the
> confluence wiki must be kept clean.
>
> I think the logical plan would be to either find a new
> home for the MW documentation or migrate what we can
> into a new project.


Yes, there is the possibility of apache-extras for the user guides, at
least for the short term.

>>
>> That would be only a few scattered chapters, because so
>> many people have worked on the docs over the years. And
>> it only takes one person to say no, I don't agree to
>> changing the license, and the chapter is
>> contaminated.
>>
>
> I am afraid we must still do this. Perhaps it's easier
> to find the people that oppose .. Can we legally make
> a call to everyone that opposes the change to speak up
> before a certain deadline?


I don't know if that would be legal, but even if it is, I think it
would be very difficult to do that in a fair way. Where are you going
to make this call? On a mailing list that many early contributors no
longer subscribe to? On a website that they don't visit any more?

>
> We would probably have to deprecate the documentation
> that we can't assimilate anyways (yes resistance is
> futile).

Sure, that is to be expected. Or it can be on apache-extras.

--Jean

Mime
View raw message