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 18:21:45 GMT

On Jan 2, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> I believe you are misinterpreting the Podling branding page [1]
> 
> When it says 'Apache "Podling-Name" is currently undergoing Incubation
> at the Apache Software Foundation' is puts "Polding-Name" in double
> quotes merely as notation to indicate that you substitute the real
> podling name there.  You see this used purely as a notation on the
> next bullet item where it says:
> 
> Inclusion of the http://incubator.apache.org/"podling-name"
> 
> Obviously they are not saying that we put the podling name in quotes in the URL.
> 
> Also, if you look a paragraph later to the example disclaimer you see
> that you do not actually include the quotes in the disclaimer.
> 
> So I think we're out-of-policy with the way the disclaimer currently reads.
> 
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
> 
> We voted to adopt the name Apache OpenOffice.  I think necessary steps
> to implement the agreed upon rebranding can be done on a CTR basis.
> But I'd agree that the exact logo we adopt should be RTC.  However,
> there are other aspects of branding, noncontroversial and reversible,
> that are candidates for JFDI.

Fine with me. Should anyone JFDI on ooo-site's skeleton.html keep in mind that it will take
up to two hours to make it into production. Last night's changes were larger and took perhaps
three hours - not sure I fell asleep.

Regards,
Dave

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


Mime
View raw message