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 dennis.hamilton@acm.org
 designates 75.98.160.130 as permitted sender)
Reply-To: <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
To: <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
References: <002e01ccabcd$dd89c220$989d4660$@acm.org>
 <40B858A4-12A1-4C1B-8846-ABFF0295F6EA@webmink.com>
 <4399440724880726487@unknownmsgid>
 <1BF9C9E4-3630-4F47-8DB8-8A1EAC823E6F@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <1BF9C9E4-3630-4F47-8DB8-8A1EAC823E6F@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: OO.o 3.3.1 Maintenance Release Consideration
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:38:03 -0800
Organization: NuovoDoc
Message-ID: <005801ccac62$26f9f670$74ede350$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQI4hClZgepGTjq7xDTa15lKdtDLpwMb/UB1AbuLJooB/PhGQJSxC3Xw
Content-Language: en-us

Um, perhaps you could have asked Dennis?

Not to appear unduly humorless (since I don't always decode what Simon =
says very well), I need to say I was not seeing a Team OO.o 3.3.1 as the =
same as an OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 Novell Edition, since 3.3.1 it is not =
intended to be a parallel line, but a maintenance edition on the =
existing line.  (I see the humor for making an Apache OpenOffice edition =
of LO 3.x.  It is not possible of course and Simon did wink.)
=20
My point was that the Novell approach apparently caused no damage to the =
brand and another edition with added functionality was provided.  =
However, it was clearly an OpenOffice.org release with supplemental =
provisions and never a fork. =20

So how the Team OO.o could be acknowledged for its significant part in =
making the 3.3.1 release happen might be done with similar modifications =
in the appearance of the distribution and installer along the lines of =
what Novell did, or even how Sun acknowledged itself for being the =
producer of a distribution on the installer and splash screens.  Oracle =
followed suit, even though these were Open Source distributions.  (I =
trust 3.3.1 will not hawk Java, browser toolbars, or anything like that, =
however.)  I suspect Apache OpenOffice binary releases will be clothed =
in a similar manner.  I do not suggest that 3.3.1 be downloaded from =
anywhere but the same place that OO.o 3.3.0 comes from.

The concluding point was at the end of my message.  I suggest restraints =
so that 3.3.1 remains locked into OpenOffice.org 3.3 lineage:  =
OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 could be presented gently as a Team OO.org =
contributed update of 3.3.0 but firmly in the OO.o 3.3 stream and =
distributed and supported entirely as if the OO.o project is its origin: =
registration is with OpenOffice.org, all live links concerning support, =
on-line help, downloading, etc., are OpenOffice.org.  The identification =
of Team OO.o would not direct users to that site although there would be =
some provision for finding out more about Team OO.o including providing =
its (non-clickable?) URL.

There are technical conditions on how OO.o 3.3.1 is developed such that =
Apache OpenOffice and the ASF can contemplate accepting it as an update =
of OpenOffice.org.  That also has to be worked out.  I have my eye on =
the end game: how does this reach users and what will it appear as to =
them?  I suspect that Team OO.o has their attention on that aspect as =
well.

This was also a clumsy effort to move a conversation about this to the =
broad ooo-dev forum.  I'm not clear what success there is beside =
confirming that I and some others are humorless [;<).

 - Dennis=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net]=20
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 07:53
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OO.o 3.3.1 Maintenance Release Consideration

Hi Rob,

I really didn't know what to think about Dennis's email. It seems =
peripheral to the issue.

On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com> wrote:
>=20
>> It's not at all obvious to me why one couldn't just take a =
LibreOffice release such as 3.4, created from the same source outside =
the Apache community, and apply the same logic
>=20
> No official response has been given to this proposal. Any "logic" you
> see is individual opinion on a discussion aimed at achieving
> consensus.

I think Dennis really jumped ahead with his comments.

>> to it as is being applied to this 3.3.1 proposal. With the added =
bonus that no-one much has to do any work apart from change the splash =
screen.
>>=20
>> S.
>>=20
>> [for the humour-impaired, while this is making a serious point, it is =
not a serious suggestion]
>>=20
> If TDF wishes to make a serious proposal they are welcome to do so.

Oh, more humor :-)

Best Regards,
Dave

>=20
>>=20
>> On 25 Nov 2011, at 23:56, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
[ ... ]
>>> I would expect the OpenOffice.org site to be the user-centered =
support location, with the Apache OpenOffice bugzilla used for bug =
reports just as it continues to be used for OpenOffice 3.x bug reports.  =
I would expect registration, if done at all, to be done the same way as =
for continuing downloads and installs of OpenOffice 3.3.0, though there =
is a problem with where that goes now.
>>>=20
>>> If the Team OpenOffice.org contribution of a maintenance release =
goes forward, I think there should be strong acknowledgment and a way =
for individuals to learn more at the Team OO.o site.  But for it to be =
in the OpenOffice.org development line, it needs to operate as if it was =
produced in the same manner and produced in the same way as 3.3.0 with =
adjustment for the current realities.
>>>=20
>>=20