On 1/11/13 10:20 AM, Shenfeng Liu wrote: > 2013/1/11 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> > >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> Rob Weir wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects ... I >>>> >>>> can certainly sympathize with leaders of communities that can only be >>>> held together by irrational fears. It is not easy to maintain that >>>> peak level of paranoia. >>> >>> >>> Your personal opinions on the people involved (I admit I have very little >>> context, I only had the time to read the discussion here but nothing >> else so >>> far) are best kept separated from the important fact, that is that >>> apparently incorrect information is being circulated about the benefits >> that >>> the Symphony donation is bringing to OpenOffice and to the >> free/open-source >>> software world in general. >>> >>> >>>> Anyone who cares to look can >>>> see that we've actually integrated quite a but of Symphony code into >>>> the AOO trunk already. For example, the following 167 bug fixes >>> >>> >>> People don't care to look, unfortunately... But I definitely agree that >> this >>> listing is impressive, as it is this page: >>> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341 >>> >>> If you manage to co-author a blog post with Shenfeng Liu (or someone else >>> from the former Symphony team) about the integrated fixes/features, this >>> will be an important service to the OpenOffice users. But please, let's >> do >>> it because it's important in itself and because it's clearly overdue >> (aside >>> from a brief mention in the "top 10 questions" posts), not because >> someone >>> feels the need to address some particular wrong or misleading claim. >>> >> >> Clarifying the facts where misinformation is being spread is part of >> the necessary communications that any project needs to engage in. We >> saw that as a podling, when the ASF itself addressed misinformation >> regarding this project. Now this is our responsibility. >> >> Of course, misinformation about insubstantial matters is best ignored. >> But where misinformation is propagated about substantial project >> operations, then that is sufficient motivation for the contents and >> timing of a post to correct such misinformation. >> >> In any case, pointing out the lie on this list already gives 90% of >> the benefit, since such FUD cannot survive the light of day. A blog >> post is unnecessary. >> > > IMHO, we can consider a blog post about our progress on the 4.0 release, > including the contents we are working on, e.g. fidelity, > performance&reliability, accessibility, usability, enhanced platform > support... Symphony's contribution is part of this story. > If we decided to post it, I'd like to be the co-author. > Thanks! >
In general we can improve our communication to the public. We can more often talk about what we are doing, or can collect on a regular base the fixes we have made. Herbert prepared a nice script that we can use. New and bigger things can we highlight separately as we partly did already. We can simply do more in this area. The key point here is that people take responsibility, for example using Herbert's script and convert the output in the wiki to document it. We can play with different styles how to present such info best and where. Juergen
