incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: request
Date Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:51:35 GMT
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2011, at 4:28 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
>> <> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 09:16:43AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>> There was a large effort to handle the redirector to the different
>>>>>> are not translations of the homepage are different communities in
>>>>>> Something that was governance with the NLC and other structures.
>>> N-L Projects had Project Leads
>>> You can read some rules in
>>> Basically, N-L Projects were managed by Project Leads.
>>> IMO fortunately in The Apache Way there is no place for Project Leads
>>> anymore.
>> We are a single project.  But someone can still volunteer to "take the
>> lead" on something.  So Dave Fisher took the lead in getting the OOo
>> website moved over to Apache.  We all acknowledge his enthusiasm and
>> skill in this area, the generosity of his time. No one appointed him
>> "Webmaster" or "Lead" for that effort.  But he is the de facto lead
>> for that effort because he demonstrated leadership and volunteered to
>> lead that effort.  But next week it could be someone else doing the
>> same task.  It is very fluid.
> Thanks for this. I've documented the process both in the svn archive and on the website.
I am very willing to share. Changes are welcome.
> For the website I'll give others credit for starting to move the NL projects:
> - Raphael Bircher did the DE port from kenai and provided the svn address for Kenai.
> - Marcus worked in the DE site and with Downloads.
> - Kay is the one who did most of the initial migrations of the NL sites. There was trouble
and I am filling from behind.
> - Alexandro has made a couple of tweaks to the ES site.
> I hope I haven't forgotten anyone.
>> I think OOo was more vertical and hierarchical in how the project was
>> structured, with formal roles and leads that defined domains of
>> exclusive control.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Most
>> corporations are like that.  Apache projects are more horizontal.
>> There are no predefined roles.  But we naturally have different
>> interests and skills and our efforts naturally sort themselves
>> according to those preferences.  And these interests might change over
>> time.  But there are no formal appointed leads.  It is more about
>> coordination than control.
> Whether or not we continue NL sites when the switchover occurs is a decision for the
> Whether or not translations occur in each NL site or as translations of key pages in
www & the rest depends on whether or not there are individuals who are committed to doing
and maintaining the translations - or the NL sites.
> The experience of migrating the NL sites is leading me towards the translation approach.

We could also take a mixed approach:

1) NL versions of the main public welcome site ( are
translations of the main page.  We try to maintain
this in a coordinated fashion.  So a common look & feel, common
branding placement, common content, a way for the PPMC to push out
timely notices across the NL sites, etc.

2) But each NL site has a panel for NL-specific notices and updates.
This could include links to pages with additional specific content
targeted to that NL.  For example, the Arabic and Hebrew sites might
have a special page on how bidirectional text is supported in
OpenOffice.  The Japanese website could have specific FAQs on things
like support of IME's, etc.  Local AOOo-related events could also be

With an approach like that we get the best of both worlds:  a
consistent message for our users, as well as flexibility for relevant
NL-specific content.

If we wanted to get really fancy, we could notice that language is but
one dimension by which we could personalize the site's user
experience.  Someone, when they first visit, might say that they are a
student, or an engineer, or a home user, or a corporate user, etc.,
and we could feature content recommended for them based on their
profile, e.g., new templates, plugins, FAQ's, etc.  This could be done
manually, e.g., someone tags a message as appropriate for "all
english-speaking students" and it shows up when they visit.  Or it
could be automated via the various collaborative filtering algorithms.
 E-commerce sites like use this all over.  But the
techniques are equally applicable to us and our users.

Someday.  First we stand, then walk, then run.  We're starting to
stand up now.  But I think having a high level vision for website
personalization would help guide us toward future possibilities.  And
a template-like approach of fixed content which is translated, and
then zones (panels, <div>'s, whatever) of content that can be inserted
on a targeted basis, would give us a lot of flexibility.

> OTH - Communities have built sites and they have an interest in the results.
> If we decide to change to a translation approach it will still be good to have the existing
OOo in a tag in the ooo-site tree. That way it can be recovered.
>> That's my view of how it works.  Others may be a different view of
>> this.  That is expected.  No one has exclusive control over saying
>> what the Apache Way means.
> My purpose is to enable the community. If I overstep then pull my leash (gently please)
> Best Regards,
> Dave
>> -Rob
>>>>>> NL like
>>>>>> ES, FR and JA are structurally different to the EN homepage.
>>>>>> There was a whole body of work so that it was easy for people to
>>>>>> their NLC. Might be a good idea to see how much this change from
>>>>>> ooo-site and the openofficeorg tree.
>>>>> I've found that each NL site has very much their own main page.
>>>>> ES is especially different.
>>>>> I don't have a favorite, each has a certain charm and style.
>>> [...]
>>>>> The concern I have about other language versions within the podling
>>>>> site that they will diverge. Someone will change the en version and
>>>>> won't be able to change the zh, ja, or de versions. The maintainer of
>>>>> a version may move on.
>>>>> The existing NL sites are proof of this divergence. The DE site is
>>>>> very large and also quite out of date. I think that community moved
>>>>> onto the wiki some time ago.
>>>> or the maintainer moved to LibreOffice. Anyway as i mentioned before
>>>> i would prefer to have translated pages with the same content only.
>>>> It makes things much easier.
>>> +1
>>> as you said before, NL project will be better o the wiki, and let the
>>> $ be just a translation of, with
>>> the same look and feel as the main site.
>>> Regards
>>> --
>>> Ariel Constenla-Haile
>>> La Plata, Argentina

View raw message