Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
Disclaimer: I am tired, I don't feel well, and I did not follow the
precursors in detail, so this is the tired faulty memories of me.
On 09/22/2012 05:17 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<orc...@apache.org> wrote:
I am not clear what the lazy consensus is about.
Clearly, there is no restriction on anyone contributing to User
Guides for Apache OpenOffice on ODFAUthors, beyond the
terms/conventions/what-ever that apply to contributions there.
So I suppose what is being asked for is consensus that there will
not, at this time, be any separate effort inside of the Apache
OpenOffice project and the project will look to relying on the
ODFAuthors site for emergence of updated User Guides. Contributions
should be made there.
In other words, that a non-existent effort in the project not be
started to compete with the non-existent effort at ODFAuthors? IMHO
this not the ideal use of lazy consensus. You should seek lazy
consensus for what you want to do, not what you want someone else not
to do. In the end, if someone came to the project with documentation
to contribute, I think we would be happy accept it under ALv2 and not
turn them away and tell them to go elsewhere. Or are you suggesting
that we would reject such contributions?
This is my understanding, which may be completely wrong:
1. I thought that ODF Authors operated independently of Libre (LO) or
Apache (AOO).
2. ODF Authors was creating documentation for both LO and AOO.
3. Not many people were contributing to the documentation from the AOO
camp.
4. A request was made for help (probably from Jean).
5. There were no positive responses and some that sounded a bit negative
(this is where my memory is really fuzzy). I think it was something
like.... not on our radar yet, focusing on other stuff, find your own
people to do it. (was it Rob that said that??)
6. Primary ODF lead stopped working on AOO documentation.
I assumed that Scenario 2 likely kept the resulting documentation at ODF
Authors. It would be difficult to move it without some level of approval
for them to license it with something that Apache would allow (although
I vaguely remember seeing that perhaps this has been done).
@Andrew;
My reading of the lists archives gives much the same rendering of the
history as yours does. Not on the radar, lack of response for review,
etc. This has been an attempt to restart the documentation effort. It
appeared to me that t least or the short term the best way to do that
was though the ODFA.
In other words, there won't be any forking of ODFAuthors work into
the project. I assume that means avoidance of duplicate effort as well.
I'm aligned with that direction.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 07:47
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user
documentation or AOO
Keith N. McKenna wrote:
Greetings All;
In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have
added
the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that we
can
no longer put this issue aside.
Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and on
this
list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
Regards
Keith N. McKenna
Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it appears
for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At this point
I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors site and the
3.4 documents already there to create and publish updated documentation.
I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at 05:45 UTC.
Regards
Keith N. McKenna
I am not sufficiently aware of how much (if any) code sharing occurs
between AOO and LO. I expect that if there is no code sharing, then the
two products will diverge, and there will be no ability to remotely keep
the documentation related. I expect the differences to start small with
things such as what charts are supported, what happens when you try to
search (LO uses a Firefox type search in the status bar, AOO does not),
etc.
I do remember that someone said something that implied to me that either
code sharing was occurring, or that it was plausible to do. In my tired
stupor, I would guess that it might have Juergen Schmidt, but that is a
real reach (so I should probably just apologize to Juergen now and offer
to buy him a beer).
I also remember some discussion of the possibility of some one way code
sharing in that LO had at one point re-based on the Aoo code.
Regards
Keith
