incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [user guides] Use of AOO logo on cover of ODFAuthors user guide?
Date Sat, 28 Apr 2012 18:54:05 GMT
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:41 AM, Jean Weber <> wrote:
> On 26/04/2012, at 12:31, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Jean Weber <> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 21:27, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>>>> Main thing is to avoid having the user be confused about the source of
>>>> the documentation.  It is from ODFAuthors, not AOO.  So when we host
>>>> the files on the wiki, we should make sure it is clear to the user
>>>> where to report errors,where they can go to volunteer, who they can
>>>> thank, etc.
>>> Regarding hosting the files on the wiki, I assume you mean on a page
>>> linked from this one (which needs a major overhaul, probably by me, if
>>> we're going to keep it):
>>>  I have not
>>> been paying close attention to this list, so I am not up to date about
>>> what is planned for the wiki.
>>> I was under the impression that new ODFAuthors books might not be
>>> allowed on the wiki, but rather the wiki would have only a pointer to
>>> somewhere else that they might be stored. The last time I paid
>>> attention (some time ago), several suggestions (with precedents) had
>>> been made. Has that been decided one way or the other?
>> Do you have a preference?  If you host the guides externally, then
>> you can drive traffic to the ODFAuthors site and maybe get more
>> volunteers or even donations.
> Everything we have produced to date is stored on the beneficiaries'
> wikis (OOo and LO). Our strong preference is to continue this
> arrangement. We do NOT want to drive traffic to the ODFAuthors
> website. Experience suggests that we do not get quality volunteers
> that way, and the site is not set up to be user-friendly to the
> general public.
> IMO it would be highly preferable for all concerned if any potential
> volunteer techwriters were steered towards towards the AOO project,
> not ODFAuthors, if those people are interested in working on AOO docs.
> AOO really needs to have its own user docs team producing materials
> under the Apache license.
>> From policy perspective, having the guides on the wiki is debatable.
>> I could see it either way.
>> In favor of it, I'd say:
>> 1) It is a community wiki where content is welcome from anyone
>> 2) We're currently hosting the OOo 3.3 guides there.
>> Opposing would be:
>> 1) We should not be distributing large files via the website
>> (including the wiki).   This is a bandwidth issue.
> What is a "large file"? The individual chapters are in the 500KB - 2MB
> range; the full books are rarely over 10MB.
> I have no idea how many copies of these files are downloaded per day,
> month, year.

The important number is really size * # of downloads.  10MB is larger
than the releases for many Apache projects, and these downloads are
all done through the mirror network, to preserve bandwidth.  As I
understand it, the ASF is using donated bandwidth, and it needs to be
conserved.  So large/frequent downloads go to the mirror network
rather than the websites.

I wonder whether one solution is to serve up the documentation
downloads via MirrorBrain and then have the wiki just link to those?

>> 2) We should not be distributing large files in general outside of a
>> release.   A community wiki as a wiki is fine.  But using it as a a
>> 3rd party distribution mechanism is more problematic.  That's why we
>> have things like the extensions and templates repositories.
> If the size of the files, or the volume of downloads, or the general
> policy of distributing the docs through the wiki, is a problem, then
> let's look at setting up a repository for third-party documentation...
> which btw consists of more than just the docs produced by the
> ODFAuthors group. IMO that would be the best longer-term arrangement
> for all concerned.
> --Jean

View raw message