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 19:26:58 GMT

On Jan 2, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:

> 
> 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.

FYI - I found a problem with the search box on FF. The fix is being committed now along with
a rephrase of the footer from Apache "OpenOffice.org" to Apache OpenOffice.

Regards,
Dave

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


Mime
View raw message