On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:52 AM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> On 11 June 2013 16:01, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > > We used to have the old Distribution project that for the most part has >>> > > been revised to a very minimal presence... >>> > > http://www.openoffice.org/distribution/ >>> > > >>> > > Recently, there seems to be a renewed interest in posting information >>> > > about new and former Apache OpenOffice distribution outlets -- notably >>> > > CD/DVD sets. And old page containing CD/DVD vendors still exists but >>> is >>> > > not linked in any place. Since /distribution/cdrom/sellers.html is >>> > > redirected because of changes to this area, you can see and download >>> the >>> > > old page from svn: >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/distribution/cdrom/sellers.html?view=log >>> > > >>> > > Are we interested in reviving this listing, or something similar to it? >>> > > Pros...Cons, etc. >>> > > >>> > >>> > Looking at queries on the mailing list, forums, etc., we don't get a >>> > lot of people asking for CDs. Maybe 15 or 20 in the last year, yes? >>> > Compare that to over 50 million downloads. So I don't think this is >>> > critical, but no objections to having such a list. >>> > >>> > On the other hand, unless the page is very prominently linked, like >>> > from our home page, I doubt the casual user will find it. And if >>> > someone wants to buy a CD it is easy to just type "buy openoffice cd" >>> > into a search engine and see places where you can buy a CD, including >>> > Amazon, etc. In some sense Google and Bing are better at helping >>> > users find information than we are, even when that information is on >>> > our own website! >>> > >>> >>> +1 to make a prominent third party site in different languages, linked >>> directly from our top pages, that way google spider will catch the third >>> party product hotter than otherwise. >>> >>> >>> > >>> > > A new listing would not have to be by region as this old one is. Given >>> > > update issues in the past, if we provided a new listing page, we would >>> > > likely need disclaimers regarding: accuracy, support, relation to >>> Apache >>> > > OpenOffice(this project), etc. >>> > > >>> > > As with all our web pages, we could accept additions though the CMS >>> from >>> > > non-commtters. >>> > > >>> > >>> > Levels in which we might do things: >>> > >>> > Level 1 -- Do nothing but watch for abuses. If someone wants to sell >>> > a CD, then they are free to do it, per the license. They can >>> > advertise on eBay, their website, etc., but they have no permission to >>> > use the trademarks. Nothing special on our website. >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >>> > Level 2 -- We allow a listing on our website (or wiki) of those who >>> > offer CDs. But we make no attempt to verify anything. It is all >>> > "caveat emptor". We put in disclaimers on the page so users know that >>> > we have not vetted anything. >>> > >>> > Level 3 -- We review requests for listing and approve them only if >>> > they meet our qualifications, which might include proper use of >>> > trademarks, a link back to our website, etc. This is similar to what >>> > we did with consultants. >>> > >>> > Level 4 -- Like Level 3, but for those distributors who meet our >>> > qualifications we offer a special logo they can use, something like a >>> > "Community Distributor". >>> > >>> > Personally, I think Level 1 is fine. But Level 2 doesn't really help >>> > our users. We'd be offering placement on our website to vendors >>> > without really getting anything in return. So I think we want >>> > something like Level 3 or Level 4, where we promote the public good by >>> > reviewing and approving the listings that meeting reasonable criteria. >>> > >>> I think we should aim at 3), and while we are getting a new logo consider >>> 4), which I think is the best. >>> >>> rgds >>> jan I. >>> >> >> I know we don't get MANY requests for CDs but we seem to get enough from >> frustrated users to warrant attention to this in my opinion. And, it would >> encourage entities that might want to engage in this form of assistance. >> >> Level 2 is certainly an easy implementation but I don't know how well this >> would play out. >> >> I think we should make Level 3 a goal, as we did with the consultants. I >> would be happy to start on this path if we have enough agreement here. >> Right now, I don't think we would have many entries, but having this would >> help. It would probably not be feasible to review all contents but >> certainly trademark issues. >> > > In particular it is not really feasible for us to review the actual > CD, which is probably the most important thing. > > However, instead of a review we could simply ask distributors to agree > to self-certify to some best practices, and get them to publicly agree > to these guidelines. That way we can put a disclaimer like: > > "Apache OpenOffice is always available for download free from our > website (link), but as a service to users who may require a physical > CD we provide this of independent vendors who offer Apache OpenOffice > on CD. These vendors are not endorsed by or affiliated with the > Apache OpenOffice project, but each vendor has agreed to follow our > Best Practices for OpenOffice CD Vendors (link)." >
Just thinking ahead a little. If there is consensus that we want something like "Level 3", then next steps might be: 1) Draft a "Best Practices for OpenOffice CD Vendors" on the wiki 2) Draft an example of a few listings to show how they would look 3) Blog post, a "Call for Comments" on this program. It would be good to get feedback from CD distributors as well as users, to confirm the approach. 4) Go live. This should not take too long I can help with some of this. The goal should be (I'll suggest) to have this ready for AOO 4.0 release, so CD vendors can start distributing shortly after release. In other words, we don't want a backlog of vendors asking for listing at the time we release. -Rob > Regards, > > -Rob > > >> I definitely like the idea of translations for the other language areas -- >> I would assume we would take entries from one area -- English -- but the >> contents of the results page would be translated? Something to work on down >> the road. >> >> Level 4 is a great idea as well. >> >> >> >>> > >>> > Criteria might include (and this has been discussed in some older >>> threads): >>> > >>> > 1) Proper acknowledgements of trademarks >>> > >>> > 2) Link back to www.openoffice.org >>> > >>> > 3) Distributes the most-recent version of AOO (within some time period >>> > after a new release) >>> > >>> > 4) Makes it clear that any charge is for the media and convenience, >>> > not for the underlying AOO software >>> > >>> > Stuff like that. This could be in the form of an agreement that the >>> > distributor signs off on. >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > >>> > -Rob >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > MzK >>> > > >>> > > "You can't believe one thing and do another. >>> > > What you believe and what you do are the same thing." >>> > > -- Leonard Peltier >>> > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> MzK >> >> "You can't believe one thing and do another. >> What you believe and what you do are the same thing." >> -- Leonard Peltier --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
