openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Is there an org chart of the previous OOo governance(s)?
Date Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:15:14 GMT
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Shane Curcuru <> wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 8:01 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> ...snip...
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Shane Curcuru<>
>>  wrote:
>>> I'm just trying to understand what some of the other previous
>>> expectations
>>> around OOo governance and the brand were, so we can better explain what
>>> the
>>> new governance structure is (i.e., this PPMC and the Apache Way) and how
>>> we
>>> (and others) should refer to the OOo brand now.
>> I think the old structures were universally derided and caused much
>> discontent, leading in part to the Novell fork and then to
>> LibreOffice.  I see no benefit to dredging this up again.  No one is
>> advocating replicating the former project structures.
> Er, no, I have no interest in replicating former project structures either.
>  But I would like to understand what they were - especially (briefly) who
> was on them and what specific names and brands they used - so that we can
> understand what the rest of the world might still be thinking about the term
> "OpenOffice".

That's fine, but just understand that you are touching on topics that
will be painful to some and could lead this list down paths I don't
think we want to go right now.  I really think we want to avoid a
discussion of legacy OOo governance.


> This is not about us changing how we work internally.  I'm thinking (in this
> thread) about how to better explain to the world what's happened, what
> things are now gone (like the CC and ESC and a whole bunch of OOo project
> organizations), and what cool new things we're going to be building (from
> this PPMC and a forthcoming Apache OOo product).
> Especially because the more I think about it, we're really not doing a very
> good job at all explaining who we are and what we're doing.  At least not in
> the ways I'd hope to see it explained in terms that the *rest* of the world
> understands.
> - Shane, starting to appreciate the scope of expectations for OOo

View raw message