incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: What if any responsibility will Apache OpenOffice have with regards to legacy software
Date Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:02:40 GMT
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.

-Rob

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

Mime
View raw message