Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Alexandro Colorado <j...@openoffice.org> > wrote: >> >> Sorry for jumping in but it seems there is an missunderstading between Rob >> and the ODFAuthor project. I think the ODFAuthor was in the position of many >> quasi-independent groups like the OOo NGOs and others. >> > > It is possible that I an confused, but I think I am mainly concerned > about fragmenting the project into many "quasi-independent" groups. > I'm not absolutist in this, but I can see clear risks. > > Let me give you an extreme example. Suppose we decided to stop > writing word processor text alignment code, Instead we relied on > group A, which owned and developed left alignment code, group B which > did all the center alignment work and group C did the right alignment > code. > > (OK, the example is ridiculous technically, but bear with me please) > > Because, in this fanciful example, the Apache project had other groups > own essential portions of the project, this means that anyone who > tries to put together an actual product based on Apache OOo would need > to access the three alignment libraries produced by groups A, B and C. > This is true whether one was making an open source release, or a > proprietary release. Whoever tries to release a version of OOo > binaries, if they wished to have a viable product (from a user > perspective) would need to negotiate with groups A, B and C, in terms > of functionality, schedule, support, localization support, etc., as > well as license. > > Compare that to a situation where the core alignment code is all in > the Apache OpenOffice project, under the Apache 2.0 license. That > gives downstream users of our releases, open source and commercial, > the maximum flexibility to repackage the release. They can add code, > subtract code, do whatever they want. But we don't send them to track > down dozens of 3rd party dependencies owned by other organizations. > > Another example, with translations. Suppose the translation files for > OOo were owned by a bunch of different groups and were not part of the > Apache project, under the Apache license. Then, if someone wanted to > take the AOOo sources and make a special version, say a Portable Apps > version, or a special educational version, or whatever, then they > would need to negotiate access with external groups for their > translation files. > > I think we need to be careful about this kind of fragmentation since > they prevent downstream consumers of our releases from making > effective use of our releases. It hurts the downstream ecosystem. > > I think we should have a clear idea of what the essential, core > OpenOffice product is, and ensure that those parts of it are developed > in the AOOo project, under the Apache 2.0 license, and under PMC > oversight. > > Of course, there may be parts that are not essential, core release > components, and those could be done anywhere. In fact, we should > encourage extensions, additional documentation, plugins, etc., as part > of the overall eco system. That is a good thing. But we need to have > a clear idea of what the core is as well, and ensure that the core is > developed in one place. >
So we start up a subproject to deal with user documentation and start from scratch. Trying to build up a group of people that have no interest in learning a new, less efficient, process. Or have infra build a system that works for the contributors. Andy
