Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of dave2wave@comcast.net
 designates 76.96.30.24 as permitted sender)
Subject: Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <00b001cc9809$a1f64260$e5e2c720$@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:35:23 -0700
Cc: "'Alexandro Colorado'" <jza@openoffice.org>,
 "'Rob Weir'" <robweir@apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E2705D00-2A98-4C21-9882-88A0CF1EAFA7@comcast.net>
References: 
 <CAP-ksojnyGsDzU6ENkczOC+-KQxooowxhkPShfsFcPmEpCpuBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMK9kTh48r_xT-hdwCbQ8kZbz+XK6vWzsBCtTQSYrAJWGaoi1g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-ksoh5RVSXU=XSMGnZ2Vusz1XJ2Yt3eX_Y166C-++um2XJ7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMK9kTixQjf=TgETc19w98+=O64FNMFY9HEWKseURGeUyrWLQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b001cc9809$a1f64260$e5e2c720$@acm.org>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org


On Oct 31, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> As far as I can tell, it is a condition of Apache governance that it =
be done on the list.  That is a requirement for how The Apache Way =
works.  It is up to all of us to have it work.
>=20
> I don't believe, however, that ooo-marketing counts as a list where =
deliberation on matters of the project should happen.

I thought we were too quick to set that up. It bifurcates discussions. =
This is the first example.

>=20
> It does not strike me that a lazy consensus is appropriate there, =
unless it is to bring something to this list.
>=20
> I also notice that the choice of product name suddenly forked onto =
ooo-user too.  Whoever did that was not being helpful.

It was a user who was having trouble posting to ooo-marketing.

Opinions about the name are everywhere.

Regards,
Dave

>=20
>=20
> - Dennis
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: acolorado@gmail.com [mailto:acolorado@gmail.com] On Behalf Of =
Alexandro Colorado
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:40
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first =
release
>=20
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>=20
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Alexandro Colorado =
<jza@openoffice.org>
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> =
wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> Looking at the dev work that remains, I think we need to move =
forward
>>>> on this with deliberate speed.  This impacts both the branding on =
our
>>>> 3.4 release, as well as the branding on our web sites, both of =
which
>>>> are making strong progress.
>>>>=20
>>>> I think there are two main elements we need to decide on:
>>>>=20
>>>> 1) Product name:  Apache OpenOffice, Apache OpenOffice.org or =
something
>>>> else
>>>>=20
>>>> 2) Logo, for use on website, product splash screen etc.
>>>>=20
>>>> I propose that we discuss these topics on the ooo-marketing for two
>>>> weeks, until November 14th.  If there is consensus on these =
questions
>>>> then we will go forward to implement that consensus.  But if there =
is
>>>> no consensus by the 14th, then we will have a 72-hour vote of PPMC
>>>> members to decide among the alternatives.
>>>>=20
>>>> Of course, it is better to reach consensus on such questions, but a
>>>> product name is not optional, so we need to resolve these questions
>>>> one way or another.
>>>>=20
>>>> Any objections to this general approach and time frame?
>>>>=20
>>>> -Rob
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> My largest issue is basically the way is being handled this voting,
>> usually
>>> it seems that is not as easily traceable as a poll. Mailing list can
>> easily
>>> bury vote by just having chatty people or flamewars.
>>> I rather see the forum as a more dynamic way to reach consensus like =
they
>>> do with a voting poll separate from the overall discussion why is a =
good
>>> idea or not. Also I would miss the ability to change the voting in =
case
>> the
>>> voter realize that he has a change of heart. I do like the timeline.
>>> So I would propose a decision making framework to account vote, =
change
>>> votes, and easily browse/review overall group decisions.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> The way an Apache project typically does this is via separate
>> [DISCUSSION] and [VOTE] threads.  So it would be clear which is =
which.
>> And in the [VOTE] thread we would only count the last vote a person
>> makes, so they can change their vote freely.
>>=20
>> But I would only have a [VOTE] if after 2 weeks there was still no
>> consensus.
>>=20
>> Would that work?
>>=20
>=20
> not really
>=20
>=20
>>=20
>> -Rob
>>=20
>>> --
>>> *Alexandro Colorado*
>>> *OpenOffice.org* Espa=F1ol
>>> http://es.openoffice.org
>>> fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
>>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> *Alexandro Colorado*
> *OpenOffice.org* Espa=F1ol
> http://es.openoffice.org
> fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6