incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <>
Subject Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2011 23:12:25 GMT
OK, I understand. As a point of clarification. I have a complete set vis a
vis openoffice.svn sites of all "accepted" and "incubator" projects which I
am now cleaning up and importing into the ooo-site svn tree.

So, no matter what we decided ultimately about the ooo-site tree, we we
will ahve copies.

Given the large size of some of these areas, I was just concerned about the
import of some of them *at all* into the ooo-site svn tree.  however, I
know they really do need to be someplace where all the project committers
(and contributors) can access them in order to be of any use right now.

So, I will get back to the import process on Friday, and hopefully, can get
the legacy "accepted" projects in the ooo-site tree for further evaluation
by SUnday.

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <> wrote:

> My recommendation is that everything in terms of web pages should be
> preserved that is not already captured in the bugzilla, MediaWiki, and
> Community Forums.
> Cleanup can happen on our ooo-site SVN in anticipation of the cut-over and
> after the cut-over.  The remodeling to divide up the site content and also
> provide adequate portal operation from to the Apache
> OpenOffice development/project site does not have to be completed, or even
> started very much, prior to cut-over.  It is something to nibble through
> when there is no time-limit over our heads and the keys to the live content
> are in our custody.
>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kay Schenk []
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 08:56
> To:
> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
> +1...all good, and something we had discussed early on.
> However, as I work on porting legacy info over, I am wondering what to do
> about the more "developer" centered areas of the site: api, sc, sw,
> framework, external (? -- I need to look at this one), tools,porting, and
> many others that are not really "user centered". I will load these into the
> ooo-site tree, but at some point, someone on the "developer" side should
> really cull this out and move them to the "developer" side so we don't
> continually deal with these areas on the "user portal".
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> > We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
> > don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
> > independent websites.
> >
> > We have the legacy website, which served as an
> > end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
> > participants.
> >
> > And we have the, which on
> > graduation probably becomes something shorter,  like
> >  For most Apache projects their website
> > also serves both purposes:  a site for users as well as project
> > participants.
> >
> > So, we have both of these websites, and a lot of redundancy caused by
> > it.  This obviously has a downside.  It makes it hard to update, since
> > a lot of information is in both places.  And it confuses users since
> > the websites are out of sync on some important topics.  It also
> > prevents us from really optimizing the experience for each audience.
> > I suspect that long-term this dual-website with overlapping content is
> > not a maintainable model.
> >
> > What can we do?
> >
> > I hope I am not committing heresy if I say that most users of
> > OpenOffice care as little about Apache as drinker of a Pepsi cares
> > about the Board of Directors of PepsiCo Corporation.  The average user
> > (and we're talking about millions of them) cares about downloading,
> > installing, using, learning about and generally being productive with
> > OpenOffice.  It is a tool they use to do their work. Their work is
> > what matters to them, not our work.
> >
> > But of course we also have a growing number of users, contributors and
> > committers who want to get more involved with the project. OpenOffice
> > is interesting to them.  They identify with it.  They want to learn
> > more than just the basics.  They are intrigued by open source.  They
> > want to help.  They want to get more involved.
> >
> > The trick I think, is to have websites that speak to each of these
> > audiences, as well as an easy/obvious way to navigate between them,
> > while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cross talk and redundancy.
> >
> > For example, could we have something like this:
> >
> > 1) is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
> > is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
> > So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
> > with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.
> >
> >
> > 2) (eventually
> > on the other hand is where the project members
> > work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
> > project. Not the product, but the project.
> >
> > This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
> > important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
> > the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:
> >
> >
> >
> > But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another
> > URL:
> >
> >
> >
> > Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
> > But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.
> >
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>  by the way its animals are treated."
>                              -- Mohandas Gandhi


"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
 by the way its animals are treated."
                              -- Mohandas Gandhi

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message