On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Kay Schenk <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote:
. . . > >> > This reminds me...do we want to add "rollapp" to the porting page? >> > >> > https://www.rollapp.com/OpenOffice >> > >> >> Maybe "on request"? I think we'll drive ourselves crazy if we try to >> track down every book on OpenOffice, ever OpenOffice consultant or >> even every software extensions or derivative of OpenOffice. I tried >> to do this once, and look what it did to me: >> >> http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/11/the-legacy-of-openoffice-org.html >> > > It seems to have made you a graphic historian! :) Not so bad actually. > > >> >> But if we set up an "on request" policy, then we just need to write up >> a page with some instructions on how companies can submit such >> listings. > > > OK. Take a look at: > > http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ > > What would you say about the "Ports and distributions available now" column? > Should either of these have been "by request"? > IMHO, these are all good. We're bootstrapping. But we might be able to reduce the future maintenance if we add a note to that page, before the listings, saying: "The following list of 3rd party ports and distributions is made available as a service to the community. The Apache OpenOffice project does not officially endorse or maintain these packages. If you have a port or distribution that you want to be listed here please send the details to our mailing list at: [email protected]" This also has the benefit of publicly affirming that we're open to adding other listings. Of course, we always have been open to that. But it is good to state so explicitly, like we do with books and consultants. -Rob > > This will be easier to maintain than us trying to pull such >> information in. >>
