Responding to some other points in this note On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:53, Pedro F. Giffuni <giffu...@tutopia.com> wrote: > > I recall someone (maybe you) had said that the > ODFAuthors wanted to keep independent. If they > want to join the podling they are welcome.
Sure. Each person can choose whether to join AOOo or not. > > There are some things which I think we should consider: > > 1) Many things are about to change, in particular when > the new UI from Symphony is adopted, so we will have > to do a lot of updating and new documentation anyways. > Obviously all new documentation must be in a license > acceptable to the Apache Foundation. No argument there, though I believe CC-BY is acceptable, just not as part of the docs that are shipped with the product. > > 2) infra@ is not complaining, but the fact the person > doing the MW migration will leave is an issue. We should > be considerate with the limited resources: is there a > technical reason for not using confluence for all new > documentation? That's a different issue, whether docs should be in wiki format or in ODT/PDF format that can be downloaded from the wiki or whatever. The existing, most up to date user guides are in ODT/PDF, not wiki format. The wiki is only a delivery mechanism. The docs could just as well be delivered through the confluence wiki. But see another thread about preserving the MediaWiki wiki and not the confluence wiki. > > 3) The license issue is really important. under all > circumstances documentation without an acceptable > copyright must be contained. In particular, the > confluence wiki must be kept clean. > > I think the logical plan would be to either find a new > home for the MW documentation or migrate what we can > into a new project. Yes, there is the possibility of apache-extras for the user guides, at least for the short term. >> >> That would be only a few scattered chapters, because so >> many people have worked on the docs over the years. And >> it only takes one person to say no, I don't agree to >> changing the license, and the chapter is >> contaminated. >> > > I am afraid we must still do this. Perhaps it's easier > to find the people that oppose .. Can we legally make > a call to everyone that opposes the change to speak up > before a certain deadline? I don't know if that would be legal, but even if it is, I think it would be very difficult to do that in a fair way. Where are you going to make this call? On a mailing list that many early contributors no longer subscribe to? On a website that they don't visit any more? > > We would probably have to deprecate the documentation > that we can't assimilate anyways (yes resistance is > futile). Sure, that is to be expected. Or it can be on apache-extras. --Jean
