incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <...@shanecurcuru.org>
Subject Re: [WWW] What to do with OOo related domains?
Date Sat, 26 May 2012 15:10:04 GMT


On 2012-05-25 9:37 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
> On 2012-05-25, at 20:34 , Albino Biasutti Neto wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> 2012/5/25 Louis Suárez-Potts<luispo@gmail.com>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2012-05-23, at 12:21 , Andrew Rist wrote:
>>>
>>>> As part of the transfer of the web properties of OOo to the ASF, the set
>>> of related domains has also been offered to ASF.
>>>> We (PPMC) need to decide what we want to do with the related domains.
>>> There are three obvious options available to us:
>>>>
>>>> * Ignore and let the domains expire
>>>> * Continue to register to block squatting, but do no more
>>>> * Continue to register and forward to oo.o
>>>
>>>
>>> As I have mentioned more than once, I seem to own openoffice.ca and would
>>> be willing to contribute it (or whatever one does) to AOO. In general,
>>> historically we have approached the owners of such sites and asked them to
>>> work with the community.
>>>
>>>

If the PPMC is interested in keeping that domain, then please do work 
with infra to get it transferred.  That would be great.

>> +1
>>
>> The better option.
>>
>> There are many alternatives. I don't like very much and confuse me.
>

> Likewise. I prefer very simple and when possible friendly solutions.
Only if the rose of friendship is crushed should we show our thorns. But
in general what I would rather have is that for all similar to AOO
domains a) pointing to AOO proper, and if needed, the NL projects, and
b) hosting, as mirrors, code, binaries, documents, if that is desired.
>
> There is a third point. One reason I tacitly enabled and even
> silently
promoted the development of these satellites was to promote the global
ecosystems that implicitly support OO by providing support, etc. Thus,
I'd be in favour of proposing a model where a domain that reflects
"openoffice" and is used in behalf of the wider community, be promoted.
The only things to stipulate would be, I imagine, that any binaries or
code offered as representing or identical to AOO *be* such; and that any
representations of or on behalf of AOO be in keeping with Apache's
ethos. That said, should it be the case then, that there is no need for
such satellites and that they only serve to confuse, then, of course, we
simply say, no—to this proposal, to the satellites, unless there is a
good reason for them.


Yes - a robust ecosystem is important for the long-term health and 
growth of AOO or any Apache project.  However we need to be clear on 
branding guidelines, and ensure that there's a clear separation between 
anyone representing themselves as "official" AOO things, versus everyone 
else.

*Only* PPMC-controlled sites or activities should be using our full 
branding and call themselves "official" or other similar wording. 
Everyone else is welcome to talk about our brands and products, and 
indeed talk about how amazing/awesome/whatever support/addons/whatever 
they make on top of our products.  But these other domains and groups 
should *not* be presenting themselves as part of the AOO project or part 
of the ASF in any way.

In the end, I think a lot of these initiatives can continue in a 
productive way - although some of the subtleties of how they brand 
themselves may need to change compared to how Sun allowed them to operate.

- Shane

>
> But I think as long as the freedom described above is not confusing
and does not lead to deception, that it will only actually help the
expansion of the communities.
>
> We do need robust ecosystems.
> Louis
>
>
>>
>> Albino
>

Mime
View raw message