incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Keith N. McKenna" <keith.mcke...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user documentation or AOO
Date Sun, 23 Sep 2012 19:03:38 GMT
Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
> Disclaimer: I am tired, I don't feel well, and I did not follow the
> precursors in detail, so this is the tired faulty memories of me.
>
> On 09/22/2012 05:17 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <orcmid@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I am not clear what the lazy consensus is about.
>>>
>>> Clearly, there is no restriction on anyone contributing to User
>>> Guides for Apache OpenOffice on ODFAUthors, beyond the
>>> terms/conventions/what-ever that apply to contributions there.
>>>
>>> So I suppose what is being asked for is consensus that there will
>>> not, at this time, be any separate effort inside of the Apache
>>> OpenOffice project and the project will look to relying on the
>>> ODFAuthors site for emergence of updated User Guides.  Contributions
>>> should be made there.
>>>
>> In other words, that a non-existent effort in the project not be
>> started to compete with the non-existent effort at ODFAuthors?  IMHO
>> this not the ideal use of lazy consensus.  You should seek lazy
>> consensus for what you want to do, not what you want someone else not
>> to do.   In the end, if someone came to the project with documentation
>> to contribute, I think we would be happy accept it under ALv2 and not
>> turn them away and tell them to go elsewhere.  Or are you suggesting
>> that we would reject such contributions?
>
> This is my understanding, which may be completely wrong:
>
> 1. I thought that ODF Authors operated independently of Libre (LO) or
> Apache (AOO).
>
> 2. ODF Authors was creating documentation for both LO and AOO.
>
> 3. Not many people were contributing to the documentation from the AOO
> camp.
>
> 4. A request was made for help (probably from Jean).
>
> 5. There were no positive responses and some that sounded a bit negative
> (this is where my memory is really fuzzy). I think it was something
> like.... not on our radar yet, focusing on other stuff, find your own
> people to do it. (was it Rob that said that??)
>
> 6. Primary ODF lead stopped working on AOO documentation.
>
> I assumed that Scenario 2 likely kept the resulting documentation at ODF
> Authors. It would be difficult to move it without some level of approval
> for them to license it with something that Apache would allow (although
> I vaguely remember seeing that perhaps this has been done).
>
@Andrew;

My reading of the lists archives gives much the same rendering of the 
history as yours does. Not on the radar, lack of response for review, 
etc. This has been an attempt to restart the documentation effort. It 
appeared to me that t least or the short term the best way to do that 
was though the ODFA.

>>> In other words, there won't be any forking of ODFAuthors work into
>>> the project.  I assume that means avoidance of duplicate effort as well.
>>>
>>> I'm aligned with that direction.
>>>
>>>   - Dennis
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mckenna@comcast.net]
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 07:47
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user
>>> documentation or AOO
>>>
>>> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>> Greetings All;
>>>>
>>>> In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have
>>>> added
>>>> the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
>>>>
>>>> It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we
>>>> can
>>>> no longer put this issue aside.
>>>>
>>>> Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and on
>>>> this
>>>> list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Keith N. McKenna
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it appears
>>> for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At this point
>>> I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors site and the
>>> 3.4 documents already there to create and publish updated documentation.
>>> I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at 05:45 UTC.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Keith N. McKenna
> I am not sufficiently aware of how much (if any) code sharing occurs
> between AOO and LO. I expect that if there is no code sharing, then the
> two products will diverge, and there will be no ability to remotely keep
> the documentation related. I expect the differences to start small with
> things such as what charts are supported, what happens when you try to
> search (LO uses a Firefox type search in the status bar, AOO does not),
> etc.
>
> I do remember that someone said something that implied to me that either
> code sharing was occurring, or that it was plausible to do. In my tired
> stupor, I would guess that it might have Juergen Schmidt, but that is a
> real reach (so I should probably just apologize to Juergen now and offer
> to buy him a beer).
>
>
I also remember some discussion of the possibility of some one way code 
sharing in that LO had at one point re-based on the Aoo code.

Regards
Keith



Mime
View raw message