incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: What if any responsibility will Apache OpenOffice have with regards to legacy software
Date Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:51:47 GMT

On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:31 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:18 AM, drew <drew@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I own a couple of HP computers, one of which a Mini 110 includes a HP
>>>> specific Linux distro (Mi) which came pre-installed.
>>>> 
>>>> The other day the system performed an update from the Mi reposotories,
>>>> including a new version of OpenOffice.org - an update to version 2.4...
>>>> 
>>>> So, back to my subject line.
>>>> 
>>>> Just a general question.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Responsibility in what sense?  Anyone is welcome to ask questions on
>>> the user list and support forums for questions related to OOo and
>>> related products.  This is a free service, provided by the community,
>>> not a "responsibility".
>>> 
>>> There is no warranty provided with OOo or AOO releases, unless that
>>> warranty comes from some company.  If so, that company may have
>>> responsibilities with regards to legacy OOo releases.  But that is not
>>> our concern.
>>> 
>>> From a community perspective, not a contractual one, I think we "owe
>>> it to the community" to provide an upgrade path for as many legacy
>>> users as possible.  This probably includes a clean upgrade path for
>>> 2.4 users as well.
>> 
>> I don't see any reason that we would drop access to legacy releases on openoffice.org
and we have been allowed to put legacy distros into archives.apache.org.
>> 
>> I don't think we update www.openoffice.org to full Apache OpenOffice branding until
we either have a long term plan or we have an AOO 3.4 release.
>> 
> 
> Is that then why we have nonsensical statements on the website, like:
> 
> 'Apache "OpenOffice.org" is an effort undergoing incubation at The
> Apache Software Foundation (ASF)'

This language is required Apache branding.

> 
> Whether we have had a release or not, or regardless of whether you
> personally think we have a plan or not, I don't what we have now on
> the website makes any sense.  If you look at every other podling at
> Apache, they are encouraged to have and maintain a consistent branding
> from day 1.  It is not predicated on a release or a "long term plan".
> 
> Why should we be different?

Where I am going with the CMS is towards convergence on the layout.

By "long term plan" I mean when the project thinks we should make branding changes to the
OpenOffice.org logo. We need to have a clear consensus on changing the logo. We may need oversight
from the IPMC and trademarks. Once we do then changes are trivial.

So, changing the logo on openoffice.org is something that I am not willing to JFDI nor am
I willing to CTR. In this case we need to RTC - review then commit.

It's my opinion that the general community will interpret this logo change and the project
message should be clear about the change if and when it occurs.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -Rob
> 
>> REgards,
>> DAve
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> -Rob
>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> 
>>>> //drew
>>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message