openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Date Tue, 06 Sep 2016 21:51:44 GMT
A public statement may slow the flood of FUD, protecting our end users, while a new release
in November will
give a clear signal that the project did not choose retirement, ss will all subsequent releases.

--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com

> 6. sep. 2016 kl. 22.25 skrev Jörg Schmidt <joesch@j-m-schmidt.de>:
> 
> The task of AOO is not the formulation of their own death message, but the further development
of the project, *even* in difficult times. 
> 
> There was the proposal to publish a new release in November (during ApacheCon), that
is imho a right step.
> 
> 
> Jörg
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Høydahl [mailto:jan.asf@cominvent.com] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 10:00 PM
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement 
>> Involve? (long)
>> 
>> A well written Press Release from the AOO PMC could be a 
>> timely move now?
>> It could be published on the Apache blog as well as sent to 
>> various editors.
>> The PR should be short, to the point and suitable for 
>> copy/paste into news articles.
>> It should paint the broader picture, the state of the 
>> project, the current push for
>> more developers etc. It could also explain ASF's focus on 
>> healthy communities,
>> as an explanation for the [DISCUSS] thread, and the fact that 
>> an Apache project 
>> not longer able to produce releases *may* end up being retired.
>> 
>> Could we get writing help from Apache public relations staff?
>> 
>> --
>> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
>> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>> 
>>> 6. sep. 2016 kl. 20.13 skrev Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>:
>>> 
>>> Not sure how this will come across... I am certain I will not
>>> be fully understood about this, anyway, this question deserves an
>>> answer.
>>> 
>>> What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads 
>> in various
>>> places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much
>>> "damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to 
>> have done.
>>> I guess the best way to state it is that he was a very "polarizing"
>>> person...
>>> 
>>> Now a lot of the ill-will (and even worse, the hate) 
>> directed towards
>>> AOO is not due to anything we personally did, but is simply 
>> redirected
>>> venom, mostly due to how LO felt abused and used by Oracle and that
>>> somehow we were complicit in it (this fallacy, of course, 
>> was maintained
>>> by people who had a not-so-hidden-agenda to create and reinforce the
>>> division between AOO and LO). There was really very, very 
>> little rational
>>> cause for TDF/LO hating Apache and AOO so much... or, at 
>> least, developers
>>> on that side being so antagonist towards Apache (I am 
>> ignoring, for the
>>> present, those extreme copyleft proponents who have issue 
>> w/ permissive
>>> licensing for anything). What I'm basically saying is that we did
>>> nothing really to deserve the hate...
>>> 
>>> ... except for maybe some of the "over zealous" statements by Rob.
>>> 
>>> What is kinda clear is that there is still a lot of sting there.
>>> 
>>> Now I did somewhat try to "explain" how such 
>> over-zealousness shouldn't
>>> be so surprising, considering what he was fighting against 
>> (this explanation
>>> was in the LWN thread), but rationalization isn't excuse.
>>> 
>>> No, I am not saying we focus on the past... but while we are
>>> here for the present and future, we shouldn't "ignore" the past
>>> but rather acknowledge it, and then bury it.
>>> 
>>> After all, aren't we asking TDF/LO to do the same??
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Marcus <marcus.mail@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Am 09/06/2016 05:22 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>>>>> +1
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm here for the present and the future, not the past.
>>>> 
>>>> I also don't know what a single person - which has left 
>> the project long ago - has to do with a "what-if-or-if-not" 
>> thinking game.
>>>> 
>>>> Marcus
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 9/6/2016 8:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt <joesch@j-m-schmidt.de>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example, 
>> Rob Weir)
>>>>>>> were insulted by TDF representatives.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's important, in all of this conversation, to keep the 
>> interests of
>>>>>> the *users* first. This project is about producing 
>> software for the
>>>>>> public good, not about winning some contest, or nursing our hurt
>>>>>> feelings. We owe it to the users to forgive and forget actual and
>>>>>> perceived insults, and move on with our lives. 
>> Otherwise, what the
>>>>>> heck are we doing here?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> 


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message