openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From drew <>
Subject Re: [www] Any Drupal guru's lurking? ( was : Ext / Temp repository stability ( was Extensions and templates site down ))
Date Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:26:20 GMT
On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 16:36 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:14 PM, drew <> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 16:02 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Joe Schaefer <>
> >> > It just needs to be cleared by legal/board.
> >> > While hosting non-OSS plugins is probably out,
> >> > I don't see why we can't host OSS ones here
> >> > especially if we don't change the dns from
> >> > to
> >> >
> >> > We already host which provides
> >> > a similar service for httpd modules.  One essential
> >> > implementation difference is that the downloads aren't
> >> > served by us, we just point users at the offsite
> >> > sources and only host metadata.  Technically that's
> >> > probably what I'd like to see happen to the ooo
> >> > extensions site as well before bringing it in house.
> >> >
> >>
> >> We had talked on another thread about a longer-term approach where we
> >> would host a registry of externally-hosted extensions.  That kind of
> >> solutions has a lot of attractive qualities.
> >>
> >> Do you know anything about the http modules registry, e.g., where the
> >> code is?  That might be something we could use to jump-start an
> >> extensions registry.  It has the basics.
> >
> >
> > Alright - If I may just ask a couple of question.
> >
> > There is a current site, not on ASF or Oracle hardware, that site needs
> > work, now then:
> >
> > Is there some reason why the current OSUOSL site can not be used going
> > forward?
> >
> Permission wise?  If it is not on Apache Infrastructure, then it is
> not an Apache server, and I don't think Apache would care much.
> The "gotcha" here is the trademark and the domain name.  Namely, our
> website points to the extension site via an URL
> ( and the extension site
> uses the trademark.
> So if we treat it like an external website, not controlled by Apache,
> then we need to get the trademark use into conformance with Apache
> policy.  The experts can correct me, but the following steps might be
> appropriate:
> 1) Links from Apache-controlled websites the extensions site should
> come with a disclaimer saying something along the lines of:
> "The Apache project does not officially endorse or
> maintain the extensions hosted at XXX.  If there are any problems with
> or questions about the extensions please go XXX"
> 2) The PPMC, in conjunction with Apache Branding, could review and
> approve the use of the trademark and logo by the
> extension website, provided it carries a prominent disclaimer along
> the lines of the above.
> 3)  We could redirect to the OSUOSL
> for a period of time, but they should start using and promoting a new
> URL, perhaps even a new domain name for the extensions.
> Personally, I'd like to see us move to a distributed registry
> approach, as was discussed earlier in the thread [1].  But that does
> nothing to help with the immediate need for increased availability of
> the site.
> [1]

Right - sorry for being slow on the uptake, I am like that often.

Here is what I think I know:

Oracle will at some point like us to remove their logo from the sites, including extensions.s.oo.o.

Jurgen, You and others are making progress on the git to svn migration.

Dave is plowing along with a migration plan for, and execution of,
moving the main site into the Apache infrastructure.

Kay looks to be ready to start moving part of the stie, project pages
IIRC, also.

Terry has the wiki and forums up on staging servers, in the Apache

The other srevices, pootle, bugxilla, eis2, etc I don't know about,
havent tried to keep up. (but I did read Rapheal's page on Bugzilla).

On the extensions/templates service - I know There are millions of users that link to this URL and will be for at least some
goodly number of months into the future.

It seems to me that the user facing web infrastructure is going to be
ready for the move fairly soon now, with code and tools sections,
likely, lagging a bit, but I would expect Oracle would like all the
stuff moved/rebranded ASAP.

- how long do you think we can go with the current arrangement?
- and here I may be, being, slow again. It sound like you are saying
that on day one, after the web sites are rebranded, then this disclaomer
is needed at the current extensiions.s.oo.o, since it has un-savory
items. Am I correct on that? IF so and if the disclaimer is to say that
the site is not run by the PPMC, then by who (or is that whom)? Are you
saying that OSUUSL would be the responsible party?



> > I just have not heard that states as such.
> >
> > //drew
> >
> >

View raw message