On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/18/2011 01:29 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: > >> On 18 October 2011 03:55, Andreas S�ger<ville...@t-online.de> wrote: >> >> >> Am 18.10.2011 01:35, Carl Marcum wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Since we already need to do some re-branding for adding Apache, I think >>>> we should drop the .org which I believe was only there because >>>> OpenOffice was already trademarked. >>>> >>>> >>> And still is: http://www.openoffice.nl/ >>> >>> But then Apache OpenOffice(TM) would get round that. One possibility >>> would >>> >> be to Trademark Apache OpenOffice alongside OpenOffice.org and publicly >> declare they are referring to the same thing. Gradually replace as many >> instances of OOo with AOO as is practically possible while the first code >> release is in preparation. Design logos ready (they don't have to be >> released immediately but designing them and deciding which to use takes >> time >> and we don't want to be rushed into that at the last minute). On the first >> code release announce the official consolidation to Apache Open Office. >> Putting things off is not going to help in making a smooth transition and >> will detract from the impact of that initial release when it happens. It >> is >> a marketing event that has to be planned because it is a one off >> opportunity. >> >> John said that everyone now knows that OpenOffice.org is an Apache >> product. >> I very much doubt that is true. Most end-users I have talked to have no >> idea >> what LibreOffice is, the Document Foundation or Apache. We have to think >> in >> terms of consumers with AOO/OOo. Most are not geeks, most don't even know >> there was a product called Star Office or that Sun was bought by Oracle. >> This is why marketing is a very different game to developing code. >> >> I accept that it might take a while to sort out the best timing to make >> any >> trademark changes but we do need to make a decision in principle so >> everyone >> can refer consistently to one agreed set of terminology even if it is only >> for internal use to start with. >> > > OH boy. Well the discussion is getting complicated. > > Consider this-- > > We ahd agreed to keep the "user facing" web site for Apache OpenOffice.org > > as www.openoffice.org > > its current DNS name > > -- and, as Dennis pointed out, despite the common use of OpenOffice in > speech, openoffice.org is THE recognizable entity and reference in all > printed communication. In previous discussion, it's been repeatedly pointed > out, that in terms of what's already been developed for "the brand" -- see > the Marketing Project materials at http://marketing.openoffice.org/ > > a change is HUGE headache. > > Couple that with recent information about the Apache podling -- > OpenOffice.org -- and I truly feel that a re-branding/trademarking *at this > stage of development* would not be good, and could potentially be harmful in > terms of identification. > > Shane has suggested the PPMC should deal with this -- fine. And Rob has > suggested the new marketing head (team) should deal with it -- maybe also > fine. Maybe a nice compromise would let the "marketing area" suggest > something to the PPMC. +1 > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > MzK > > "There is no such thing as coincidence." > -- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39 > -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
