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: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Date Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:41:42 GMT
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Stefan Taxhet <stx123@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 17.11.2011 02:23, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>> This topic sounds important, so I'm moving it to its own thread.
>
> OK, let's talk about a maintenance release first; but at some point we could
> broaden the scope to releases of Apache OpenOffice too.
>

We have an entire list to discuss AOO ;-)  So the broader discussion
is occurring here every day,

>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Martin Hollmichel
>> <martin.hollmichel@googlemail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> removal of the Oracle branding is the easy part. As said before, having a
>>> joint messaging with ASF about this release and the future releases is
>>> some
>>> work to do. Adopting references from old OpenOffice.org instances
>>> (forums,
>>> mailing lists, issue tracking) to the new ones in the ReadMe File is
>>> another
>>> issue we are still working on.
>>>
>>
>> It is hard to think about a joint message when we know almost nothing
>> about what you are doing.  What we're doing here at Apache is clear --
>> you see our mailing lists, wiki, SVN repository, etc.  It is all very
>> open and transparent.
>>
>> Do you have a mailing list or something that we can subscribe to?
>> Could you say a little about what your short term and longer term
>> goals are?
>
> Martin and others mentioned that there is a need to show a sign of life to
> OpenOffice.org users.

Do you see this as a communications problem or a technical problem?
What is a "sign of life"?  Microsoft Office has a new release only
every 3 years, with a service pack every year.   But no one seems to
have a problem with that,

> For us short term goals are to (re)gain confidence in OpenOffice.org
> and support for the existing user base. We think this requires a release
> rather soon; and we don't see a conflict but a complement with work going on
> in the project here.
>

I think we'll have an Apache 3.4 release early in 2012, maybe January
or February.  That would be approximately a year since 3.3, right?
That is the same pace the industry is familiar with from MS Office
release schedule.

I understand that some individual users like to see shiny new features
on a more regular basis.  But maybe the best way to do that is to show
them more new extensions, additional templates, etc.  Show them new
stuff that does not require frequent updates to the core.

I know that enterprises do not like frequent updates.  Updates are
expensive to deploy.  They would rather have carefully tested, high
quality releases.

But it is fair to say that there are some users who would agree with
you, that they want to see more frequent updates.  Making those users
happy, while also making enterprise users happy, is the challenge.

> Long term we want to further sustainable development work. This will result
> in a reliable product that is improved and delivered at regular intervals.
> We see such a product as the basis for ongoing business.
>

I don't think anyone would disagree with those sentiments.

If you are able to form a business model around supporting, enhancing
or customizing AOO, then that is great.  I want you to succeed with
that.  That is good for you and your colleagues, and also helps drive
further interest and investment into the ecosystem.  If IBM can
customize the software and distribute Symphony, then so can you, or
anyone else.

However, we're taking the OpenOffice.org trademark issue very
seriously.  Using the trademark without permission is a problem, and
we need to resolve that before we can have much more constructive
conversations.

I can think of two easy ways to resolve this:

1) Don't use the name OpenOffice.org, OpenOffice, or any other name
that will be confused for OpenOffice.org, for your release, or in
fundraising materials.

or

2) Ask Apache for permission to use the trademark in conjunction with
your release.   Personally, I'd support a limited request, with some
reasonable conditions.  But it needs to start with a request.  If you
prefer the request to be private, you could send the request to
ooo-private@incubator.apache.org.

That is the short term issue.  I think it will be easier to discuss
the long term ideas after that is resolved.

> We are comfortable about continuing the talk here on this list. I
> would appreciate if we come to a picture that satisfies users, the project
> and the participants.
>

Thanks,

-Rob

> Greetings
> Stefan
>
>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>> The coding work we've done in the 3.3.1 is about some security and
>>> bugfixing
>>> issues,
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message