Thanks for the comments so far. On 13 Mar 2012, at 16:36, drew wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 16:25 +0000, Simon Phipps wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I >> have been getting an increasing number of enquiries about the status of >> Apache OpenOffice from a variety of sources. I'm attempting, in good faith, >> to maintain an objective status summary the Apache OpenOffice incubator >> project to report to these enquiries. >> >> I've had a commentator assert that the statements below are uninformed and >> made-up. I believe based on my observations all of the following statements >> to be true about the Apache project; can you let me know if they are not, >> please, so I can present a factual status of the project when asked? >> The Apache OpenOffice project will be releasing a new binary under the new >> name "Apache OpenOffice" at some point soon, which will probably be numbered >> v3.4. >> The release is being developed by a subset of the original developers >> augmented by others. >> There have been no updates to OpenOffice.org binaries released for users >> since Oracle stopped development. >> There will be no new versions of a binary program called OpenOffice.org >> released. >> No downloads of OpenOffice.org containing bug fixes or security updates have >> been made available for end users since Oracle stopped development. >> The Apache OpenOffice project now controls the original OpenOffice.org >> domain (via the ASF) and plans to use it for future promotion of the Apache >> OpenOffice project. >> The Apache OpenOffice project is still in incubation and has not yet >> requested graduation to a TLP. >> Thanks for your help with this. >> >> S. >> > > hi > > Maybe it would be best to direct those with questions to the project and > not to try and answer for questions about it at all. The clients who have approached me have in fact read the list and found it to be very difficult to digest. The statements above reflect their core interests, and I believe are factual. I am doing exactly what you propose and coming to the list to check their factual basis. My apologies if you feel this is inappropriate but having been challenged on the subject I felt it was better to ask an open question. On 13 Mar 2012, at 16:38, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > You still say it in a way that I can't support and I think you simply don't > want to accept the reality. Apache OpenOffice is OpenOffice. If you don't > accept this fact I am really asking what your intention is? My comments above make no statement on that subject. The naming of the project has proved slightly confusing for my clients so it's been necessary to distinguish between the work conducted before and after Apache was involved. If you can think of a better way of making this distinction I'd be interested in it. Thanks S.
