openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Date Fri, 02 Sep 2016 16:05:29 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 05:14
> To: private@openoffice.apache.org; orcmid@apache.org
> Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> Dennis, thanks for opening up this conversation.
> 
> As noted over the last few months, it has become obvious to the
> board that AOO has not been a healthy project for some time.
> Again, there are many, many reasons for this, and it doesn't
> help to go into them here and now. The simple fact is that we are at
> this point now, so what should be done?
> 
[ ... ]
> ... [H]here are my thoughts on retirement. I
> have previously shared these but am doing so again.
> 
> What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present
> time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
> being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be consumed
> by actual end-user implementations.
> 
[ ... ]

> Secondly, part and parcel with this "pivot" is that we rename the
> project
> to something more accurate to what our new function would be and we use
> the AOO landing page to reference and redirect to the various OO
> implementations out there. In fact, I would even suggest us considering
> going further and redirecting AOO traffic to LO, so that people
> considering
> "OpenOffice" get routed to the LO site (either automatically or via some
> click/OK interface).
> 
> With these 2 changes, as obvious olive branches, I think we will
> see all players in the OO development eco-system be willing contributors
> to the new project. And this will give the new project a new lease
> on life.
> 
[ ... ]
[orcmid] 

I have expressed my concern that the suggested pivot is retirement in all but name only, and
I won't dwell on it again.  Others have made the same observation.

A couple of different observations:

>    2.4 The mechanism for announcing updates to installed versions of OpenOffice binaries
is adjusted to indicate that (a) particular versions are no longer supported.  (b) For the
latest distribution(s), there may be advice to users about investigating still-supported alternatives.
 
>

I was careful, there, not to indicate an automatic preference to another comparable software
product.  Rather, I would prefer users be given a page that identifies alternatives for them
to consider, whatever their license, whatever their commercial nature.  By the time that retirement
would get to that point, I think there would be ample discussion and public knowledge of alternatives
as well.

I support the idea of renaming any pivot toward becoming a framework.  I also think it would
be good to allow AOO retirement, in that case, and have the framework effort go through incubation.
 The AOO code base would remain to be cherry-picked and morphed, and probably undertaken in
Git.  I also think that could be an opportunity to revitalize the ODF Toolkit podling effort
and even meld the pivot into it.  The POI folk might have suggestions along those lines too.
 

Just thoughts.  


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message