incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: working on a OpenOffice roadmap
Date Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:17:41 GMT
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Martin Hollmichel
<martin.hollmichel@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Wether to stay with OpenOffice or LibreOffice or to migrate to LibreOffice
> or to OpenOffce is a question in the recent past often occurred, by users,
> by people doing business with OpenOffice, by the press. The answer I would
> like to give is that this question is not really that relevant because there
> is a roadmap in place and both projects plan to stay close together.
>
> I suggest following actions:
>
> * A call to LibreOffice contributors also to contribute their changes to
> Apache as the ASF is the long desired independent foundation for
> OpenOffice.org. On this basis a collaboration among the OpenOffice.org
> Apache Project and TDF can be achieved and duplication of efforts get
> avoided. As a result the question which project/product to choose is not
> that important any more.
>

It would be good to have a write up on the 'best practices' or
'recommended practices' for doing this.  I'm sure there are many
developers who would like to make their patches available to both
projects, in order to benefit as much open source software as
possible.  But it may not be clear how they can do this.

For example, would it be a good idea, when submitting a patch to LO,
for a developer to say something like, "I make this patch also
available under the Apache 2.0 license"?

> * Provide an OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 micro release showing the world that
> OpenOffice.org continues to move (assuming that an production stable 3.4
> release is not ready to get happen within the next months), this release
> should include a prominent statement to show the upcoming roadmap with the
> next releases. This 3.3.x release may not comply with the ASF standards but
> is an ideal vehicle for doing communication and elaborate on the transition
> from the old to the new environment.
>

It is probably worth having a discussion on what a 3.4 schedule could
look like.  I don't think it will be a very long wait.  To me it makes
more sense to complete a release of 3.4, since the beta was already
released previously.  3.3.1 looks like we're going backwards.

Maybe we can do both:

1) AOOo 3.4 "beta 2", with the copyleft components removed/replaced.
This change has the potential to introduce new bugs, so we'll want to
be careful with regression testing.  Having a 2nd beta might be a good
ideas as well.

2) An OOo-branded 3.3.1 if there are any critical bugs that need to be
fixed before we have a stable 3.4 ready for release.

How much of an effort do you think a 3.3.1 would be?  If it was very,
very small, then I would support it.  But if it was very, very small,
then I assume you would have already done it already ;-)

> * Work on a model or agreement where user donations specific to the project
> can be continued. This is not only a matter for the ASF (and Team OOo), but
> for the overall community and we need to find ways to include them
> (including TDF) into this discussion. It is required that we have a clear
> communication on how donations will benefit the project and to provide
> transparency on the execution. A donation model shall give users a more
> direct possibility to influence the further development of the product
> without the filtering by own interests of a profit orientated organization.
> We need to include the expertise of people doing business with OpenOffice
> into this approach, so doing this discussion also on discuss@openoffice.org
> <mailto:discuss@openoffice.org>might makes sense. The employment of full
> time developers sponsored and directed by the community is IHMO a very good
> chance and would be examplary for the bigger opensource projects. I think
> this model is already to be proven as working fine for small OS projects and
> we now got that chance to introduce this also for OpenOffice.org.
>

There is no problem with developers being paid to work on the project.
 This is a good thing, a sign of a healthy ecosystem.  But Apache
cannot be involved in collecting money or spending money for that
purpose.

> Martin
>
> PS: I intentionally leave out the Apache vs. GNU license paradigm in these
> thoughts, assuming that this not the point for most users using product and
> discussion about this topic are quite predictable.
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message