incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
Date Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:05:35 GMT
Hi Kay,

I have some concerns that the buildbot broke recently. Also, somehow my checkout of ooo-site
was busted with a lock. I am currently doing a re-checkout.

On Nov 23, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

> 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.

Excellent, having all the projects there is excellent. Let's take advantage of this.

> 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.

If you set the group ownership correctly all other committers should be able to access your
account in Let's assume I am correct for now without double checking.

I was planning to check in every N-L site, tag each and then delete the N-L from ooo-site.
If your archive is available to all committers then this is a better archive location than
svn. Fewer steps and less impact to the ASF infrastructure.

> 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.

Yes and I would avoid doing anymore N-L projects.

Since Khirano is willing to do a translation of the new main site. If Pedro and the other
Italians and MArcus and the other Germans. Plus Alexandro and the Spanish are in Consensus
to do translations of the new main (Am I missing any other "active" N-L projects?) then I
am for removing all N-L now.

I am back over the weekend and we can start focusing on the final push.


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

View raw message