On 6 January 2012 15:35, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Ross Gardler
... >> As an IPMC member I would be concerned about a promise of breaking the >> Sourceforge stranglehold on the extensions site for the reasons I >> express above (ASF cannot benefit one organisation over another). >> However, I am only a single member of the IPMC and others may not have >> the same concerns. >> > > "Stranglehold"? I think that inflammatory term is not apt. There > are other catalogs of OpenOffice extensions and templates. I agree my language is too strong. Even without considering the fact that there are other catalogues as you point out. >> That being said, I had assumed that shipped AOO code would point to a >> single, or even default site. Although the financial gain is not the >> same I see this as being comparable to Firefox shipping with Google as >> the default search engine. Mozilla can do this because of their legal >> structure, the ASF cannot. >> > > I believe we're talking about the website, not the product. I seem to have been misunderstanding something about how the extensions manager works. My fault for making assumptions. I imagined it listing all available extensions within the application, However, having actually looked at it, I see I am actually presented with a single link to the extensions site. Sorry, I should have looked earlier, would have saved us some time. If that link were pointing at SF then I would be concerned me (remember we are talking about at the point of graduation). If it links to a website with multiple catalogues listed, or if there are multiple links within the product my concern is no longer valid. Such a modification is easy to make, even for 3.3. Thanks for putting me straight. > When we talked in the past about enabling the product to point to an > extension website, I think the thought was that we'd point to an > Apache catalog that contained only officially released extensions, > e.g., ALv2, QA'ed, voted on by PMC, etc. That would be the safe thing > to do. With a public, open extension repository we cannot really even > vouch for them being entirely free of malware. It is really "as-is" > with a big disclaimer. So it would probably not be appropriate for us > to point to them by default in the product. (That was Dennis's > concern, as I understand it);. Yes, this is the long term strategy we've been discussing and I think it is a healthy goal. But does the AOO podling really want to limit it to ALv2? Ross
