On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 11:06 -0400, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: > On 2012-05-31, at 10:09 , drew wrote: > > > On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 09:20 -0400, drew wrote: > >> On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 20:53 +0800, bjcheny wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> When I go through some links from Office OpenXML, I find this: > >>> http://www.oooninja.com/ > >>> It's aimed to bring news/tips/howtos for openoffice.org. And it was ever > >>> maintained by Andrew Ziem > >>> <az...@openoffice.org?subject=www.OOoNinja.com> ( > >>> az...@openoffice.org). > >>> I guess it's close with our community, and is there any story? Maybe we > >>> can > >>> take it back, and post our news/articles there. > >> > >> It was not, maintained by, Andrew it is Andrew's personal blog, there is > >> nothing to take back. There is a story why it has gone silent, not > >> appropriate for, or related to, here. > >> > >> Andrew also worked with Fridrich on http://libwps.sourceforge.net/ BTW. > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > As a project (OO.o) there was some precedent for handing off private > > resources from one member to another - such happened twice that I can > > think of. > > At least. Actually, "precedent' is a glorification of series of mistakes and > oopses, but in the end, the conclusion, which I think antedated the formation > of the Community Council, I and a few others came to was*: > > || private sites voluntarily donated and maintained unless publicly backed by > policy and institution representatives (i.e., the OOo community council, at > the time; now, the PMC), are always more vulnerable than those arranged for > by contract, simply because the latter works to secure the future and > eliminate the uncertainty of the market, at least in theory, if not always in > practice, of course. > > || any donated site (whatever that means), must comply with the policy (or > come up with a better one that the governing body can adopt), and part of > that policy really ought to have provisions for hand-over. > > * [We—mostly Sun/Hamburg--never implemented these points in full b/c of > corporate resistance and never really scripted them; they existed more as > conversations, and that's a pity. The consequences of that failure of policy > writing can be seen here and there. ] > > My take is that little is lost by having policy guidelines and if those > guidelines need amendment or outright expunging, fine: do it. No policy ought > to be thought of as cut into stone—that's what makes it a policy and not a > law or even commandment. > > Of course, any policy pertaining to something like the Ninja site or any > other promotional site personally maintained ought to be, logically, > consistent with any mirrors site or any other public site representing OOo, > yes?
Hi Louis, IMO - the individual supporter sites were and are a very real asset. The examples I mentioned where example of an open community working. Someone did something good, they wanted to discontinue and came to the mailing list, at the project and asked if there was anyone interested in continuing. There was and they do. In both cases if you, as an individual, think they could have newer and or better content then help make some - they both take contributions from anyone interested. In some other cases sites may have come and gone but even contracting (whatever that really means beyond a rather informal nod) do the same also. Sure I completely agree that a supporter site must track the projects desires with regards to branding, in these cases they were certainly recognized as acceptable by the community. There is also nothing stopping others from offering sites with overlapping services - the user base is sizable and certainly benefits, IMO, from a more networked info/support environment, with providers of all sorts. Where the project can improve is in how it presents to users what is available in that universe. //drew
