RE: Out of Commision Awile

[Dennis Hamilton]

That should not be a problem, Keith.  GitHub for Desktop only assigns text 
editors, not editors for binary files.  But if you have Writer as the default 
for *.odt files, just open them directly in the File Explorer view of the 
repository clone.  GitHub will detect that the files you edit are changed and 
you can commit them using the GitHub for Desktop.  

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Keith N. McKenna  
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 14:21
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Out of Commision Awile

When I downloaded the latest Version of GitHub Desktop after a System Restore, 
I found that you can no longer set Writer as the default editor. I have had to 
download GitforWindows and have never used it before so will will have to take 
a crash course with the Pro Git Handbook to get started with interfacing with 
it.

I will try to make it as quick as I can getting up to snuff and back working.

Regards
Keith


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Ping Francis

[Dennis Hamilton]

Keith,

Did you use the GitHub client on your computer?  It's very handy.  You might 
need to install Git of course, Git4Windows is recommended if you're running 
Windows.

Also, do you have a GitHub account along with your access under the Apache 
GitHub tree?  

You should be able to log back into GitHub, install the GitHub desktop client 
if you want it, and either way clone the AOO docs repository back to your 
computer.  You should already be recognized as having commit authority there. 

I'm certain Francis can talk you through anything you need to get setup again.

 - Dennis 

PS: I don't use GitLab so have nothing constructive to say about that.

-Original Message-
From: F Campos Costero  
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 08:09
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Ping Francis

Keith,
Have you been able to clone the repository or otherwise recover your files?
Is there something you need from me?
Francis

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 4:33 PM Keith N. McKenna 
wrote:

> dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
> > Keith,
> >
> > If you made the mess using GitHub, you can revert git changes.  You
> might have
> > to do several, but there should be some way to get back to a clean point.
> >
> Actually, no I cannot. I had to areset my system, therebye losing all 
> my applications except what came installed on the system.
>
> That is how I noticed the problem in the first place. Because of that, 
> I can no longer revert the changes from GitHub.
>
> Regards
> Keith
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

A side note

[Dennis Hamilton]

I thought of you folks, and others, when I saw this today:
.

-Original Message-
From: Keith N. McKenna  
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 10:05
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: AOO41WG2 Ready for Review

3rd review of AOO41WG2 is needed. Whomever does it please close the open issue 
when done.

Regards
Keith


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [GitHub] [openoffice-docs] knmc commented on issue #91: Table of Contents for AOO41GS.odt Cannot be used to go directly to a location in the Document

[Dennis Hamilton]

Dave, the usability of Tables of Contents and the ability to navigate around 
certainly has different UX depending on the product.  Users may be happy with 
the mileage they get with their particular productivity software and how it may 
or may not have evolved over time.

However, if the goal is to produce stable PDFs for AOO documentation, one needs 
to have the linking that will work for exports to PDF (along with forward and 
back navigation in the PDF viewer, assuming users know how to turn it on).  It 
seems to me that should be the target UX here.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dave  
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 01:28
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [GitHub] [openoffice-docs] knmc commented on issue #91: Table of 
Contents for AOO41GS.odt Cannot be used to go directly to a location in the 
Document

This is not a bug, in fact this is an advantage. The Table of Contents
(TOC) is a passive reflection of the chapter structure and does NOT get updated 
automatically. To update it is Tools > Update. If you want to jump to a 
particular chapter, use the the Navigator (key F5 or menu View). The Navigator 
not only allows you to jump to chapters, it allows you to move them up or down 
etc. Openoffice's way of going about this is far superior to Word's.

On Thu 20. Oct 2022 at 21:08, GitBox  wrote:

>
> knmc commented on issue #91:
> URL:
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith
> ub.com%2Fapache%2Fopenoffice-docs%2Fissues%2F91%23issuecomment-1286014
> 273&data=05%7C01%7C%7C5f1b13863e134450b77d08dab33e2932%7C84df9e7fe
> 9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638019376802023000%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb
> GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0
> %3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9aUPQH3eUWFLgZWSUyYTHABzEhfUbcLsIYB1mS2%
> 2FSUM%3D&reserved=0
>
>Closed TOC is now working.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Help with Creating New ODM File for Getting Started

[Dennis Hamilton]

Correction: I think you need to satisfy yourself with something that works now.

-Original Message-
From: Dennis Hamilton  
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 08:51
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: RE: Help with Creating New ODM File for Getting Started

I think you need to satisfy yourself with something that works no.  Finding a 
developer who understands this part of ODF and the ODM implementation and who 
also has time to contribute to it for Apache OpenOffice seems pretty chancy.   
I presume you can check with the AOO PMC about what the priority efforts are.



I notice that the ODF specifications, some  of which are hefty, are produced in 
ODT alone and from there to PDT and HTML.  (The 4-part ODF 1.3 specifications 
were produced using LibreOffice 6.4.5.2 but still not ODM 😊.)  They handle 
cross-referencing among the different parts by linking to and among the HTML 
versions on the OASIS Open web site.



That ambitious use of ODF is probably useful guidance.  I haven't looked at the 
documentation effort of LibreOffice for some time.  Jean Weber can speak to how 
that production is organized.



- Dennis



-Original Message-
From: Keith N. McKenna 
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 07:56
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Help with Creating New ODM File for Getting Started



[orcmid] [ ... ]



It is not so much that I have given up on ODM's, but that I am frustrated that 
they are not working properly.



They should be the easiest way to compile multi-chapter books, yet with bugs 
like this they are useless. I found an open bug that addresses the problem and 
submitted a tripped down version of the Getting Started guide and will also up 
the priority on it to hopefully get it fixed.



Regards

Keith







-

To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org<mailto:doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org>

For additional commands, e-mail: 
doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org<mailto:doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org>



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Help with Creating New ODM File for Getting Started

[Dennis Hamilton]

I think you need to satisfy yourself with something that works no.  Finding a 
developer who understands this part of ODF and the ODM implementation and who 
also has time to contribute to it for Apache OpenOffice seems pretty chancy.   
I presume you can check with the AOO PMC about what the priority efforts are.



I notice that the ODF specifications, some  of which are hefty, are produced in 
ODT alone and from there to PDT and HTML.  (The 4-part ODF 1.3 specifications 
were produced using LibreOffice 6.4.5.2 but still not ODM 😊.)  They handle 
cross-referencing among the different parts by linking to and among the HTML 
versions on the OASIS Open web site.



That ambitious use of ODF is probably useful guidance.  I haven't looked at the 
documentation effort of LibreOffice for some time.  Jean Weber can speak to how 
that production is organized.



- Dennis



-Original Message-
From: Keith N. McKenna 
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 07:56
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Help with Creating New ODM File for Getting Started



[orcmid] [ ... ]



It is not so much that I have given up on ODM's, but that I am frustrated that 
they are not working properly.



They should be the easiest way to compile multi-chapter books, yet with bugs 
like this they are useless. I found an open bug that addresses the problem and 
submitted a tripped down version of the Getting Started guide and will also up 
the priority on it to hopefully get it fixed.



Regards

Keith







-

To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org

For additional commands, e-mail: 
doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Print copies of Getting Started Guide?

[Dennis Hamilton]

Keith, I suggest asking legal about this (with approval of the PMC as well). 
Get permission for the ASF logo as well.

Considering that *anyone* can publish those books, with appropriate 
acknowledgment and indication of where the free digital ones can be found, it 
is unclear to me why such a thing, with proceeds to the ASF, would cross a line.

That's way better than what people have done with the AOO distros on eBay and 
Amazon themselves.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Keith N. McKenna  
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 14:44
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Print copies of Getting Started Guide?

Jean;

The problem I see with being able to do this is the owner of the account. 
Because ASF is a US 501(C)(3)Tax Exempt charity, neither it nor AOO can be the 
owner of the account as it would likely violate the terms of that status.


Jean Weber wrote:
[orcmid] [ .. ]
> So, the first things to decide are:
> 1) Do you want to sell through Amazon and other online retailers? Or 
> would Lulu Bookstore be enough?
> 2) Who will be the account holder with whatever service is selected?
> 
> Once an account is set up, one can publish a book.
> 3) Who will prepare the files for uploading?
> 4) Who will create the cover art?
> 5) Who will do the various publishing steps? These involve uploading a 
> PDF for interior pages, creating and uploading a separate PDF for the 
> cover, inputting other information and making various selections about 
> paper type, black-and-white vs color interiors, pricing, etc.!
> 
> But first!
> Do you want to print the book full-page-size (A4) or reduce the page 
> size to something like 6x9-inch, which is a common trade paperback 
> size. The cost of printing full size is much higher than printing 
> smaller pages, but involves an extra step and software that not 
> everyone has.
> 
> I'm sure there's more that escapes me at the moment.
> 
> Jean

RE: Print copies of Getting Started Guide?

[Dennis Hamilton]

That's a great account Jean, useful for many purposes

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Jean Weber  
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 22:34
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Print copies of Getting Started Guide?

Keith,
POD (print on demand) is perfect for a group publishing project, because there 
is no inventory and no one has to take orders or fulfill sales, mail out books, 
etc. Once the book is uploaded to the POD service, that service takes orders, 
processes payments, prints and mails out the book, and (at specified intervals) 
sends any profit to the account holder. There is no upfront cost for using the 
service; the service provider takes a cut of sales.

[orcmid] [ ... ]

But first!
Do you want to print the book full-page-size (A4) or reduce the page size to 
something like 6x9-inch, which is a common trade paperback size. The cost of 
printing full size is much higher than printing smaller pages, but involves an 
extra step and software that not everyone has.

I'm sure there's more that escapes me at the moment.

Jean


[ ... ]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Thoughts for moving forward

[Dennis Hamilton]

Here's my recommendation.

 1.  Do not wait for 4.2.  Use the available energy  and volunteer power to 
advance the Guides for 4.1.

 2. Do not ever tie yourself to a speculative schedule not under your control.  
Not ever.

3. When 4.2 ships or is ready for/in beta, ship a supplement.  There are not 
supposed to be breaking changes.  Probably will though.  Just make a quick 
supplement that can be used in the interim before new 4.2 documents are 
available.  The supplement will also earn feedback for things that people 
notice that are not covered or need to be covered better, and that will lead to 
supplement updates and also improved 4.2 documents.

Regards,

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Keith N. McKenna  
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 12:25
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Thoughts for moving forward

With the Getting Started Guide done, and the Writer and Calc Guides ready for 
review; it is time to consider how we want to move ahead.

I see 2 paths forward.
Each has advantages and disadvantages that should be discussed

1) continue working on the rest of the Guides for 4.1
Advantage is it gets a full set of up to date guides available
Disadvantage is it cuts down time for preparing the changes for
4.2

2) Get the Writer and Calc Guides finished and start working on the 
   guides for 4.2.
Advantage is it gives the Team more time to prepare the changes
for 4.2, which could be extensive
Disadvantage is that the road-map for a 4.2 release is still
very fluid with no clear end in sight.

Please respond with your thoughts on the best way forward.

Regards
Keith



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Layered Contributions to Microsoft Docs

[Dennis Hamilton]

I have two additions to this, for whatever interest there might be.

 1. There is a complete set of tools and existing documents that one can 
explore and perhaps adapt.  Texts that I see are licensed CC-By 4.0 and any 
code is licensed under an MIT license.  This is typical of Microsoft Projects 
in the open.  The arrangements support internationalization and contributors 
can work in their language (!).  Accessibility is also handled although I have 
not checked on that.

 2. Beside documents, this technology is also used by Microsoft Learn, in 
provision of on-line tutorials, surveys, and other interactive web approaches, 
and that extends somehow into webinars that are hosted on Learn TV. I only got 
a glimpse of that today while watching a webcast about accessibility that 
included demonstration of screen narration on iOS and Android via Xamarin 
Forms.  I have not gone deep in any of that, although I am interested in the 
subject.  It was the apparent reliance on the machinery of docs.microsoft.com 
that caught my eye.  I don't know how much of the authoring of these cases can 
be found and applied.  I am definitely curious though.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dennis Hamilton 
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 19:43
To: 'doc@openoffice.apache.org' 
Subject: Layered Contributions to Microsoft Docs

I had mentioned the docs.microsoft.com effort and I happened to look more 
closely to how much it has been documented and the production approach 
performed in the open (and partly because a friend's team worked on it).   

This page is remarkable
<https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/contribute/>
This is all about documentation on the web (although I see a PDF button on  the 
bottom of many of these pages).  What is remarkable is how much is introduced 
to allow non-technical users to contribute to the docs via the Quick Edits 
provisions.  And then there is the GitHub origin of the authored forms for 
those who want to go deeper.  And all of the tooling to accomplish that is 
documented in setting up to work locally using freely-available fixtures. 

This is far off from a model that revolves around editing of ODT documents or 
other ODF versions as implemented with Apache OpenOffice.  On the other hand, 
it would be interesting to see how some means of memorializing and onboarding 
and sustaining of the current AOO effort might find inspiration In the 
substantial effort to have docs.microsoft.com produced in the open.

Cheers,

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dennis Hamilton 
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 11:27
To: 'doc@openoffice.apache.org' 
Subject: Using GitHub as a platform for creating documentation and publications

Something that might be helpful to consider is the fact that Microsoft is 
moving all of its on-line developer documentation (that is, for developers and 
IT administrators as users) to GitHub: <https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs>.  
This is a gigantic project.

Although MicrosoftDocs usage is specific to Microsoft and there seems to be 
some custom tooling, there is also some attention to on-ramping: 
<https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/microsoft-365-community/wiki/Getting-Started>.
  (This takes advantage of GitHub having wikis available for every project.)

Note that the MicrosoftDocs customized use of GitHub is for production of 
on-line documentation.  I am not urging their model, just pointing that there 
may be information that is adaptable for Apache/openoffice-docs on GitHub.

I have been thinking of Document Engineering as a methodology around production 
of digital publications, web content, etc.  I've started a project on that 
subject at <https://github.com/orcmid/docEng>.  This will focus on 
writing-in-the-open on collaborative document-engineering with GitHub as the 
platform.  This is completely separate from the openoffice-docs efforts and I 
will say no more about it here.  It is not about producing AOO docs, but some 
of the tutorial materials may be helpful to those who want to author, edit, or 
review openoffice-docs contributions.

 - Dennis

[orcmid] [ ... ]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Layered Contributions to Microsoft Docs

[Dennis Hamilton]

I had mentioned the docs.microsoft.com effort and I happened to look more 
closely to how much it has been documented and the production approach 
performed in the open (and partly because a friend's team worked on it).   

This page is remarkable
<https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/contribute/>
This is all about documentation on the web (although I see a PDF button on  the 
bottom of many of these pages).  What is remarkable is how much is introduced 
to allow non-technical users to contribute to the docs via the Quick Edits 
provisions.  And then there is the GitHub origin of the authored forms for 
those who want to go deeper.  And all of the tooling to accomplish that is 
documented in setting up to work locally using freely-available fixtures. 

This is far off from a model that revolves around editing of ODT documents or 
other ODF versions as implemented with Apache OpenOffice.  On the other hand, 
it would be interesting to see how some means of memorializing and onboarding 
and sustaining of the current AOO effort might find inspiration In the 
substantial effort to have docs.microsoft.com produced in the open.

Cheers,

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dennis Hamilton 
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 11:27
To: 'doc@openoffice.apache.org' 
Subject: Using GitHub as a platform for creating documentation and publications

Something that might be helpful to consider is the fact that Microsoft is 
moving all of its on-line developer documentation (that is, for developers and 
IT administrators as users) to GitHub: <https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs>.  
This is a gigantic project.

Although MicrosoftDocs usage is specific to Microsoft and there seems to be 
some custom tooling, there is also some attention to on-ramping: 
<https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/microsoft-365-community/wiki/Getting-Started>.
  (This takes advantage of GitHub having wikis available for every project.)

Note that the MicrosoftDocs customized use of GitHub is for production of 
on-line documentation.  I am not urging their model, just pointing that there 
may be information that is adaptable for Apache/openoffice-docs on GitHub.

I have been thinking of Document Engineering as a methodology around production 
of digital publications, web content, etc.  I've started a project on that 
subject at <https://github.com/orcmid/docEng>.  This will focus on 
writing-in-the-open on collaborative document-engineering with GitHub as the 
platform.  This is completely separate from the openoffice-docs efforts and I 
will say no more about it here.  It is not about producing AOO docs, but some 
of the tutorial materials may be helpful to those who want to author, edit, or 
review openoffice-docs contributions.

 - Dennis

[orcmid] [ ... ]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Understanding Git and GitHub

[Dennis Hamilton]

<https://www.udemy.com/course/git-smart-learn-git-the-fun-way-with-unity-games/>

I reviewed the syllabus for this and thinks it should be appropriate, although 
customization is needed for oooDocs on GitHub.  This is designed to help gamers 
who are collaborating on the use of the Unity game engine.  That seems possible 
to ignore.

I am going to audit this class just to see how easily it fits for adaptation to 
a documentation project. 

There is also a 30-day money-back promise for this and other Udemy courses.  It 
is $9.99 USD (plus taxes) through Easter Weekend (US Dates/times).

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dennis Hamilton 
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 08:09
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: RE: GNU Linux install guide - 6 pages

Marcia, I agree that the governance, workflow, and review requirements for the 
AOOdocs effort need to be established and made clear.  I also agree that making 
onboarding simple and establishing how to work with GitHub as a place for a 
documentation project is challenging.

[ ... ]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Using GitHub as a platform for creating documentation and publications

[Dennis Hamilton]

Something that might be helpful to consider is the fact that Microsoft is 
moving all of its on-line developer documentation (that is, for developers and 
IT administrators as users) to GitHub: <https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs>.  
This is a gigantic project.

Although MicrosoftDocs usage is specific to Microsoft and there seems to be 
some custom tooling, there is also some attention to on-ramping: 
<https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/microsoft-365-community/wiki/Getting-Started>.
  (This takes advantage of GitHub having wikis available for every project.)

Note that the MicrosoftDocs customized use of GitHub is for production of 
on-line documentation.  I am not urging their model, just pointing that there 
may be information that is adaptable for Apache/openoffice-docs on GitHub.

I have been thinking of Document Engineering as a methodology around production 
of digital publications, web content, etc.  I've started a project on that 
subject at <https://github.com/orcmid/docEng>.  This will focus on 
writing-in-the-open on collaborative document-engineering with GitHub as the 
platform.  This is completely separate from the openoffice-docs efforts and I 
will say no more about it here.  It is not about producing AOO docs, but some 
of the tutorial materials may be helpful to those who want to author, edit, or 
review openoffice-docs contributions.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dennis Hamilton 
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 08:09
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: RE: GNU Linux install guide - 6 pages

Marcia, I agree that the governance, workflow, and review requirements for the 
AOOdocs effort need to be established and made clear.  I also agree that making 
onboarding simple and establishing how to work with GitHub as a place for a 
documentation project is challenging.

I also must point out, in-line below, that openoffice-uni.org has nothing to do 
with openoffice.org and, in particular, the Apache OpenOffice project.  

Marcia, I am unclear where you provided the GNU Linux install guide.  Is it 
available for download?

"PEER REVIEW" OR NOT

Although there are mechanisms with regard to Apache project source code and the 
development of releases, these are known mainly by the developers. The software 
development approach does provide for *authorized* committers to commit 
materials and changes first, having "peer review" review second (where peers 
are mainly *authorized* committers).  But moving to a "release" state takes 
more than that, including public review periods.  

A relevant example with regard to apache/openoffice-docs is that GitHub user 
DiGro has been granted contributor rights, as you can see on the 
openoffice-docs home page: https://github.com/apache/openoffice-docs .  
Previously, I think this was for FJCC.  So there is now an issue about 
anonymity.  You can see from 
https://github.com/apache/openoffice-docs/tree/Getting-Sarted-Guide/Review that 
FJCC was able to commit changes directly.  The second column in that list 
identifies what the "commit message" was for the latest (sometimes only) action 
with regard to those files.  The last column indicates how ling it has been 
since that occurred.

For openoffice-docs, Keith is essentially lead developer, at least until 
governance and on-boarding are smoothed out.  I have no idea about the 
appearance of DiGro as a contributor in the place of FJCC who we knew to be 
Francis.  

 - Dennis


-Original Message-
From: marcia wilbur 
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 19:18
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: d...@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: GNU Linux install guide - 6 pages

Hi. 

I realize I did prematurely create a simple installation guide for GNU Linux 
users without realizing the licensure. 
This could be fixed. 
However, I received an email off this list from Keith stating the guide was not 
peer reviewed. 

I wonder, were these guides?
[orcmid about USAGE OF APACHE AND AOO MARKS AND TRADEMARKS] 
http://openoffice-uni.org/ [end orcmid] this was also posted online. 
[orcmid]
Openoffice-uni.org is not part of either openoffice.org or the Apache 
OpenOffice Project.
Note this statement buried at the bottom of the page: "This website is not 
affiliated with the Apache Software Foundation."
I do not know whether this site is in conformance with Apache Software 
Foundation trademark requirements.  That is a matter for the Apache OpenOffice 
Project Management Committee (PMC) to determine.  I have no insight into any 
deliberations the PMC may have had about this site.

The question about peer-reviewing of documents provided via openoffice-uni.org 
is not relevant to the AOOdocs effort.
Marcia, if you want to self-publish documents, you are free to do so.  Just do 
not imply that those are products of the Apache OpenOffice project and do not 
use marks of the Apache Software Foundation and Apache OpenOffice that imply 
an

RE: [GitHub] [openoffice-docs] knmc opened a new issue #7: Complete README.md

[Dennis Hamilton]

I'm having a little difficulty playing along at home.  The interesting thing 
about Issue #7 is its addition to "To Do".  This shows up under 
apache/openoffice-docs Projects here
 .

You can see how that project sheet tracks To Do, In progress, and Done tasks 
using a "Kanban board" layout of little cards that are moved through the 
categories..

Since I am following the project *at* GitHub, getting GitBox mail that 
duplicates what I get from GitHub directly was confusing at first.  I agree 
that it provides a kind of record on doc @ openoffice.apache.org, so I will not 
complain.  I don't want to unsubscribe from doc @ oo.a.o, so I will filter out 
those GitBox forwardings.  I hope others will find some way of dealing with 
this firehose without unsubscribing.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: GitBox  
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 13:55
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: [GitHub] [openoffice-docs] knmc opened a new issue #7: Complete 
README.md 


knmc opened a new issue #7:
[orcmid] 
[orcmid] 
[orcmid] 
   complete the readme.md for branch Getting-Started-Guide



This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go 
to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: GNU Linux install guide - 6 pages....

[Dennis Hamilton]

Marcia, I agree that the governance, workflow, and review requirements for the 
AOOdocs effort need to be established and made clear.  I also agree that making 
onboarding simple and establishing how to work with GitHub as a place for a 
documentation project is challenging.

I also must point out, in-line below, that openoffice-uni.org has nothing to do 
with openoffice.org and, in particular, the Apache OpenOffice project.  

Marcia, I am unclear where you provided the GNU Linux install guide.  Is it 
available for download?

"PEER REVIEW" OR NOT

Although there are mechanisms with regard to Apache project source code and the 
development of releases, these are known mainly by the developers. The software 
development approach does provide for *authorized* committers to commit 
materials and changes first, having "peer review" review second (where peers 
are mainly *authorized* committers).  But moving to a "release" state takes 
more than that, including public review periods.  

A relevant example with regard to apache/openoffice-docs is that GitHub user 
DiGro has been granted contributor rights, as you can see on the 
openoffice-docs home page: https://github.com/apache/openoffice-docs .  
Previously, I think this was for FJCC.  So there is now an issue about 
anonymity.  You can see from 
https://github.com/apache/openoffice-docs/tree/Getting-Sarted-Guide/Review that 
FJCC was able to commit changes directly.  The second column in that list 
identifies what the "commit message" was for the latest (sometimes only) action 
with regard to those files.  The last column indicates how ling it has been 
since that occurred.

For openoffice-docs, Keith is essentially lead developer, at least until 
governance and on-boarding are smoothed out.  I have no idea about the 
appearance of DiGro as a contributor in the place of FJCC who we knew to be 
Francis.  

 - Dennis


-Original Message-
From: marcia wilbur  
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 19:18
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: d...@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: GNU Linux install guide - 6 pages

Hi. 

I realize I did prematurely create a simple installation guide for GNU Linux 
users without realizing the licensure. 
This could be fixed. 
However, I received an email off this list from Keith stating the guide was not 
peer reviewed. 

I wonder, were these guides?
[orcmid about USAGE OF APACHE AND AOO MARKS AND TRADEMARKS] 
http://openoffice-uni.org/
[end orcmid] 
this was also posted online. 
[orcmid] 
Openoffice-uni.org is not part of either openoffice.org or the Apache 
OpenOffice Project.
Note this statement buried at the bottom of the page: "This website is not 
affiliated with the Apache Software Foundation."
I do not know whether this site is in conformance with Apache Software 
Foundation trademark requirements.  That is a matter for the Apache OpenOffice 
Project Management Committee (PMC) to determine.  I have no insight into any 
deliberations the PMC may have had about this site.

The question about peer-reviewing of documents provided via openoffice-uni.org 
is not relevant to the AOOdocs effort.
Marcia, if you want to self-publish documents, you are free to do so.  Just do 
not imply that those are products of the Apache OpenOffice project and do not 
use marks of the Apache Software Foundation and Apache OpenOffice that imply 
any association.

This is not a comment on the worthiness of the openoffice-uni.org to provide 
materials for students.  It is about the appearance of association with the 
Apache OpenOffice Project.  Disclaimers in the "fine print" to not compensate 
for that, in my opinion.
[end orcmid]

One recommendation - please make the onboarding simple and straightforward for 
those volunteering in this effort for documentation.

I was just trying to be a positive force and influence for this project, but 
really and am disappointed by the docs team - well, particularly and the 
continued push to use the old docs, mix method of documentation and as I heard 
during fosdem = the idea... this project cannot move forward as a current 
offering - like a corporation

I do encourage the docs team to move forward with current useful documentation 
for the project, working with developers in an effort to drive innovation.

I hope you can move forward with these attitudes in a positive manner.

Keith, all future communication should be made here.

Thank you.



 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [apache/openoffice-docs] Test Issue (#2)

[Dennis Hamilton]

Changed in-line

From: Dennis E. Hamilton 
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 08:57
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: RE: [apache/openoffice-docs] Test Issue (#2)

I confirm that Apache/open-office-docs Issues and Project are operating.

TAKE-AWAY

Users who want to track the details of the GitHub activity, including Issues 
and Project, should "watch" Apache/open-office-docs on GitHub.  This will 
provide email notices to the email used to register on GitHub.  The one I 
received is below.

You can see in this screen shot
[orcmid]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xG4Kb1aBq9tVSP3B3PMnmxKbfJKH_mZl/view?usp=sharing
that I am watching (the "watch" label is changed to "unwatch") and the 
pull-down shows I choose to watch all activity.

It is heartening to know that 15 people are watching.  It is important to know 
that there is nothing one has to register for to watch and/or contribute to 
Issues, Discussions, and GitHub project Projects.  A single GitHub registration 
is sufficient for all of these optional activities.  These provisions do not 
depend on being an Apache Committer or ASF Member.

You can also watch any of the forks that interest you.  At the moment, 
FJCC/openoffice-docs has been setup similarly so you can watch and also see 
Issues and Projects that the FJCC fork might have while Frances has work in the 
open that is not ready to be submitted to the full project.  You can find the 
forks by clicking on the number of Forks on the Apache/openoffice-docs GitHub 
dashboard (visible in the attached screen selection).

There are other observations about how this effort is smoothing out to be made 
separately.


  *   Dennis
  *
PS: My fork, orcmid/orcmid-oooDocs is there for testing and demonstrating some 
things about GitHub operation.  I am not working on anything that I would 
submit to oooDocs itself.  Perhaps more about that later also.

From: Keith N. McKenna 
mailto:notificati...@github.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 19:43
To: apache/openoffice-docs 
mailto:openoffice-d...@noreply.github.com>>
Cc: Subscribed 
mailto:subscri...@noreply.github.com>>
Subject: [apache/openoffice-docs] Test Issue (#2)


Testing of issues and projects

-
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on 
GitHub,
 or 
unsubscribe.

RE: Update of 4 docs from Getting Started branch

[Dennis Hamilton]

The screen capture can be accessed here:
< 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RfJio7kwN5GO3Ekf8ex9b_7HSzge4peu/view?usp=sharing>

-Original Message-
From: Dennis Hamilton 
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 15:25
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: RE: Update of 4 docs from Getting Started branch

That's great Francis,

I confirm that you have Issues and Discussion on your GitHub dashboard now.  
I've enclosed a screen capture of how it is looking just now.

I don't think Excel implemented Calc formulas until ODF Calc formulas were 
specified in ODF 1.2 OpenFormula.  I don't follow current discussions on 
interoperability although I believe there are still some glitches between Excel 
and Calc.

-Original Message-
From: F Campos Costero 
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 13:43
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Update of 4 docs from Getting Started branch

Dennis,
Thanks for the advice! I did intend for people to look at the fork and I even 
had the link on my clipboard. I had a little domestic crisis this morning and 
my brain was not fully engaged, I guess.

 I turned on Issues and Discussion in my fork, I think. If you have a moment to 
check, it would be nice to confirm that and for me to see what it looks like on 
my end. We will have to have Git primer for docs volunteers but I have to learn 
these things myself. Before now, I have only used the command line to work with 
repositories on  systems I control, so all this fancy GUI collaboration is new.

I have long wondered how well MS Office supports the Open Document format since 
document exchange is a persistent topic on the forum. Back when ods support 
first came to Excel, I learned that saving an ods file would result in all of 
the formulas being silently dropped. That scarred me. I'm sure they have 
improved since then.

Francis

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 2:06 PM Dennis Hamilton  wrote:

> Without a pull request, I am unclear how you expect anyone to see this 
> unless you mean for us to look at your fork?
>
> That is, at the FJCC/openoffice-docs Getting-Started branch?
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith
> ub.com%2FFJCC%2Fopenoffice-docs%2Ftree%2FGetting-Sarted-Guide&data
> =04%7C01%7C%7C0c36cc4e0ba34a25f84c08d8ce0ced84%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435a
> aaa%7C1%7C0%7C637485902200737423%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWI
> joiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&a
> mp;sdata=4xAxiaNqcq5bOSkcmaIGOeuuwCfyv%2Bs0quEPSgeZPk4%3D&reserved
> =0>
>
> There I see your 4-document updates earlier today in the Review folder 
> there.
>
> Francis, if you enable Issues and Discussions on your fork, others can 
> comment on the changes you have there before you ask for them to be 
> pulled to Apache/openoffice-docs.
>
> There I could have told you that where you made the change in 
> AOOO41GS1.odt, it should be "The subscription is needed ... "
>
>  - Dennis
>
> PS: Odd side note.  Apparently my default for .odt is Microsoft Word.  
> It opened the Preface just fine, and showed me the comments from Jean 
> and you also.  I then re-opened in Writer.  There is nor visible 
> difference in the document that is presented.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: F Campos Costero 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:20
> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Update of 4 docs from Getting Started branch
>
> I just pushed my first revision of the first four sub documents of the 
> Getting Started Guide (AOO41GS1 - AOO41GS4). I have not made a pull 
> request yet. Since this is a new process for everyone, I thought 
> Keith, Marcia or someone else might want an early look. I only turned 
> on Record Changes for
> GS3 and GS4. Sorry! The biggest change was incorporation of the 
> Sidebar in
> AOO41GS2 and Jean did almost all of that.
> All comments welcome!
> Francis
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Update of 4 docs from Getting Started branch

[Dennis Hamilton]

That's great Francis,

I confirm that you have Issues and Discussion on your GitHub dashboard now.  
I've enclosed a screen capture of how it is looking just now.

I don't think Excel implemented Calc formulas until ODF Calc formulas were 
specified in ODF 1.2 OpenFormula.  I don't follow current discussions on 
interoperability although I believe there are still some glitches between Excel 
and Calc.

-Original Message-
From: F Campos Costero  
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 13:43
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Update of 4 docs from Getting Started branch

Dennis,
Thanks for the advice! I did intend for people to look at the fork and I even 
had the link on my clipboard. I had a little domestic crisis this morning and 
my brain was not fully engaged, I guess.

 I turned on Issues and Discussion in my fork, I think. If you have a moment to 
check, it would be nice to confirm that and for me to see what it looks like on 
my end. We will have to have Git primer for docs volunteers but I have to learn 
these things myself. Before now, I have only used the command line to work with 
repositories on  systems I control, so all this fancy GUI collaboration is new.

I have long wondered how well MS Office supports the Open Document format since 
document exchange is a persistent topic on the forum. Back when ods support 
first came to Excel, I learned that saving an ods file would result in all of 
the formulas being silently dropped. That scarred me. I'm sure they have 
improved since then.

Francis

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 2:06 PM Dennis Hamilton  wrote:

> Without a pull request, I am unclear how you expect anyone to see this 
> unless you mean for us to look at your fork?
>
> That is, at the FJCC/openoffice-docs Getting-Started branch?
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith
> ub.com%2FFJCC%2Fopenoffice-docs%2Ftree%2FGetting-Sarted-Guide&data
> =04%7C01%7C%7C0c36cc4e0ba34a25f84c08d8ce0ced84%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435a
> aaa%7C1%7C0%7C637485902200737423%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWI
> joiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&a
> mp;sdata=4xAxiaNqcq5bOSkcmaIGOeuuwCfyv%2Bs0quEPSgeZPk4%3D&reserved
> =0>
>
> There I see your 4-document updates earlier today in the Review folder 
> there.
>
> Francis, if you enable Issues and Discussions on your fork, others can 
> comment on the changes you have there before you ask for them to be 
> pulled to Apache/openoffice-docs.
>
> There I could have told you that where you made the change in 
> AOOO41GS1.odt, it should be "The subscription is needed ... "
>
>  - Dennis
>
> PS: Odd side note.  Apparently my default for .odt is Microsoft Word.  
> It opened the Preface just fine, and showed me the comments from Jean 
> and you also.  I then re-opened in Writer.  There is nor visible 
> difference in the document that is presented.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: F Campos Costero 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:20
> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Update of 4 docs from Getting Started branch
>
> I just pushed my first revision of the first four sub documents of the 
> Getting Started Guide (AOO41GS1 - AOO41GS4). I have not made a pull 
> request yet. Since this is a new process for everyone, I thought 
> Keith, Marcia or someone else might want an early look. I only turned 
> on Record Changes for
> GS3 and GS4. Sorry! The biggest change was incorporation of the 
> Sidebar in
> AOO41GS2 and Jean did almost all of that.
> All comments welcome!
> Francis
>


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Update of 4 docs from Getting Started branch

[Dennis Hamilton]

Without a pull request, I am unclear how you expect anyone to see this unless 
you mean for us to look at your fork?

That is, at the FJCC/openoffice-docs Getting-Started branch?


There I see your 4-document updates earlier today in the Review folder there.

Francis, if you enable Issues and Discussions on your fork, others can comment 
on the changes you have there before you ask for them to be pulled to 
Apache/openoffice-docs.

There I could have told you that where you made the change in AOOO41GS1.odt, it 
should be "The subscription is needed ... "

 - Dennis

PS: Odd side note.  Apparently my default for .odt is Microsoft Word.  It 
opened the Preface just fine, and showed me the comments from Jean and you 
also.  I then re-opened in Writer.  There is nor visible difference in the 
document that is presented.


-Original Message-
From: F Campos Costero  
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:20
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Update of 4 docs from Getting Started branch

I just pushed my first revision of the first four sub documents of the Getting 
Started Guide (AOO41GS1 - AOO41GS4). I have not made a pull request yet. Since 
this is a new process for everyone, I thought Keith, Marcia or someone else 
might want an early look. I only turned on Record Changes for
GS3 and GS4. Sorry! The biggest change was incorporation of the Sidebar in
AOO41GS2 and Jean did almost all of that.
All comments welcome!
Francis

RE: Have the info for Pages and Projects

[Dennis Hamilton]

I think that so long as GitHub is used for the repository and all the other 
aspects of user-guide creation, it is valuable to have these facilities in one 
place for anyone accessing apache/openoffice-docs.  Everything is publicly 
readable using a web browser.  To participate at any more-extensive degree, 
only a single GitHub account is required and it does not need anyone's 
permission.   

I find this to be rather high functionality with low friction to participation 
on projects conducted in the open.  I am also an experienced software developer.

I also concede that using git (and GitHub) can be daunting for contributors who 
are users of AOO without being software developers.  I think it is less 
daunting, overall, than getting into the mix of Apache OpenOffice project 
developer-oriented facilities and the level of curation they require.  

Your mileage may vary.

No matter what, the documentation project needs some documentation, and GitHub 
affords that too.  

There have already been pull requests and setup of a Getting-Started-Guide 
branch with a Review folder.  

Any 4.1.8 and 4.1.9 branches seem to have been removed.  There are also two 
forks although one can also clone (make a synchronized working copy) of 
apache/openoffice-docs directly (but probably not be able to make commits 
without being registered as an Apache Committer).  You can see what the forks 
are and navigate to and from them at the < 
https://github.com/apache/openoffice-docs> page.

A fork (a synchronizable copy as another GitHub repo) can be kept up-to-date 
with the official repository it forks, and changes in the fork can be submitted 
back to the official repo. A clone of the fork, kept in sync with the fork, can 
be used as a local working copy on a contributor's desktop system that has git 
(and on Windows, a GitHub app is handy).  From a fork, one can make some edits 
(synced from a clone usually) and request they be pulled (merged) into the 
apache/openoffice-docs repo.  There is a built-in GitHub review and approval 
process that goes with that.  Keith is being the gatekeeper and appears to be 
the only committer.

You can see the first pull request and the commentary/resolution at 
< https://github.com/apache/openoffice-docs/pull/1>

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Arrigo Marchiori  
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 23:10
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Have the info for Pages and Projects

Hello Keith, All,

On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 07:21:25PM -0500, Keith N. McKenna wrote:

> I have the information to set up Pages and Projects for the repository.
> I will be working on it tomorrow morning. It requires using .asf.yaml 
> and this will be my first experience with it and want to be wide awake 
> when I start. Once it is done we can use them to coordinate who is 
> working on what.

The Wiki is full of to-do tables and similar organizational pages, probably 
from the times of OpenOffice.org. This should demonstrate that it is probably 
``good enough'' for the purpose.

Did you consider using the wiki, instead of setting up (and learning) a new 
instrument?  IMHO it could help to lower entry barriers for contributors.

I hope this helps.

Best regards,
--
Arrigo


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Repository Organization

[Dennis Hamilton]

Oh.  I would have thought the starting base documents would go in there first.  
Under an OOo3.2 or something.

How are Frances and Marcia avoiding collisions and/or duplication ?

-Original Message-
From: Keith N. McKenna  
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 10:30
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Repository Organization

[orcmid] [ ... ]

Both Frances and Marcia are marking up possible changes to Jean's taming aoo 
book and nothing is in the repository yet as it was just created a couple of 
days ago.

Regards
Keith

[ ... ]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Repository Organization

[Dennis Hamilton]

When you go to , can you see the 
settings option on the right end of the menu strip (the one with <> code at the 
top left)?

If so, you can do those things yourself.  

If not, you need infra for such stuff.  Or maybe you can do it in-project.  Or 
be granted some rights.

There may be membership requirements to be in the Apache GitHub group as well.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Keith N. McKenna  
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 15:47
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Repository Organization

[ ... ]
> If you have the rights, you can also enable Issues, Discussion and 
> even Wiki for the openoffice-docs project.  You can then work out 
> matters there in a form that is easier and more organized than using 
> docs @ oo.a.o threads as a coordination mechanism.

I am not sure of these but do warrant a discussion with infra as to the 
possibility of using some.

Regards
Keith


[...] 

RE: Repository Organization - Who's got the Monkey?

[Dennis Hamilton]

When I was in XSoft, a relatively small software division in Palo Alto, the 
project team I was on had one of those tiny wind-up monkey dolls that banged 
cymbals.   The way things worked, if you had the monkey on your desk, you were 
the only one to do commits and run the build and tests.  That would be for your 
changes that were already in the repo and been unit-tested.  

The monkey would be passed around.  This was just to have there be no 
collisions with the pending-release test-build process.

What is happening now to have Francis have the monkey on Taming?  I assume Jean 
has stepped back, but I'd hate to see anything she had in mind to do be 
trampled on.  

Is there any commitment to have change work happen in the open?  I don't see 
any forks of the repo, and it is essentially empty at the moment.  

-Original Message-----
From: Dennis Hamilton  
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 09:32
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: RE: Repository Organization

Keep in mind that branching happens at the project/repository level.  That is, 
a branch is always of the *entire* repository in some (branch) state.  

I think my main point is that repository organization should be by document, 
since there is no way to do all the documents in lockstep with AOO dot 
releases.  There does not seem to be any capacity for the level of effort that 
would require.

The tricky part, since you can't go finer other than by external agreement 
(e.g., naming branches to identify the guide and release they apply to, say), 
is figuring out how to resolve pushes of changes to different guides that are 
collisions at the repo level.  Collisions in the same guide are presumably 
reconcilable, although/because there is no diff for ODF-format files.  It's all 
or nothing or whatever adjustments happen off-line before a change is made to 
the branch in the main repo.

Big projects have organizations structures among editors/captains/committers to 
help manage the review and roll-up of changes.  Git was invented to facilitate 
that with an organized hierarchy for the march of changes into a new release 
(e.g., for Linux itself).

With regard to the work that Francis is doing, is it showing up on the 
repository or are folks reporting what they are doing entirely off-line?

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Keith N. McKenna  
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 16:46
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Repository Organization

[orcmid] [ ... ]

It does certainly make sense. I was thinking more along the lines that Dennis 
outlined and keeping each guide in its own Branch and use tags to specify what 
revision of the software it applies to. That way if it is applicable to another 
version as well we tag it that way and not have to redo the entire guide. Also 
if there are only minor changes we can do errata sheets and not have to redo 
the entire guide.

regards
Keith
[ ... ]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Repository Organization

[Dennis Hamilton]

Keep in mind that branching happens at the project/repository level.  That is, 
a branch is always of the *entire* repository in some (branch) state.  

I think my main point is that repository organization should be by document, 
since there is no way to do all the documents in lockstep with AOO dot 
releases.  There does not seem to be any capacity for the level of effort that 
would require.

The tricky part, since you can't go finer other than by external agreement 
(e.g., naming branches to identify the guide and release they apply to, say), 
is figuring out how to resolve pushes of changes to different guides that are 
collisions at the repo level.  Collisions in the same guide are presumably 
reconcilable, although/because there is no diff for ODF-format files.  It's all 
or nothing or whatever adjustments happen off-line before a change is made to 
the branch in the main repo.

Big projects have organizations structures among editors/captains/committers to 
help manage the review and roll-up of changes.  Git was invented to facilitate 
that with an organized hierarchy for the march of changes into a new release 
(e.g., for Linux itself).

With regard to the work that Francis is doing, is it showing up on the 
repository or are folks reporting what they are doing entirely off-line?

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Keith N. McKenna  
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 16:46
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Repository Organization

[orcmid] [ ... ]

It does certainly make sense. I was thinking more along the lines that Dennis 
outlined and keeping each guide in its own Branch and use tags to specify what 
revision of the software it applies to. That way if it is applicable to another 
version as well we tag it that way and not have to redo the entire guide. Also 
if there are only minor changes we can do errata sheets and not have to redo 
the entire guide.

regards
Keith
[ ... ]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Repository Organization

[Dennis Hamilton]

There is only one project for all of it, so it is not clear how well the 
handling of multiple guides and other publications can be sequenced and 
synchronized.  Unfortunately, a check-out at this level will bring everything 
to a contributor's computer.  I don't know if there is a finer-grained way to 
handle this.  It would be worth investigating.  Most top-level GitHub projects 
provide multiple (sub-) projects so coordination is better.  However, 
github.com/apache/ is that level so such capability is already taken [;<).  

A subdirectory structure that has a folder for each guide or other publication, 
and maybe folders on templates and other materials for authors/editors would be 
helpful.  If these are actually (sub-) projects, working is even easier. There 
could still be subfolders on released, draft, or however you want to do that.  

It is possible to **label** *releases* rather than use branches for that 
purpose.  Also, it is better to branch at the individual document level, so 
maybe the branch name would specify what guide is being worked on in that 
branch.  When a document continues to be applicable to a newer release, one 
could simply tag it for that release as well.  There will need to be ground 
rules about this that are clear enough people don't do pushes against the wrong 
branches, etc.  The value is that you don't have to update all the documents 
for every dot-dot-release and interested parties can look at just the Getting 
Started, or the Writer document or whatever, and know what multiple releases 
the current one applies to.  You may need to have language as part of the 
substructure also, not just platform, however those varieties are to be handled.

Sometimes, when the impact of a release is minor, one might one to provide a 
companion supplement to a full guide, also tagged for that release.

There are many GitHub projects that can be inspected for how this sort of thing 
is done.  < https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs> is one example although I think 
the organization can be more thoughtful when focus is on AOO docs.  Carl Marcum 
must know of some approaches related to work he has done.  

If you have the rights, you can also enable Issues, Discussion and even Wiki 
for the openoffice-docs project.  You can then work out matters there in a form 
that is easier and more organized than using docs @ oo.a.o threads as a 
coordination mechanism.

Happy day-after USA Ground Hog Day.  We have passed to the other side.

 - Dennis

PS: I still think you need to look at and consult Community Forum folk.  There 
is a significant amount of experience there and it is almost all (power-) user 
facing.


-Original Message-
From: Keith N. McKenna  
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 07:20
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Repository has been created

I got word earlier from Carl Marcum that the repository 
https://github.com/apache/openoffice-docs has been created. It is pretty sparse 
at the moment as there is only the README.md file from my repo on GitHub.

The next step is to define the the branches. Do we want a separate branch for 
each release of the the software for example 4.1.9, 4.1.10 or just for the 
major.minor, for example 4.1, 4.2 etc.

The branch for each release has the potential to create more work in that we 
could be creating new documentation that has few if any changes to the previous 
versions.

The major.minor branching creates the reverse possibility. We could
**not** produce documents  when it was warranted.

Please reply with any suggestions for either of the schemes above and if you 
have an idea for something else.

Regards
Keith

Linux AOO Getting Started Guide

[Dennis Hamilton]

Marcia,

Thank you for the license links and your appraisal.

Your choosing GNU Linux to feature will be welcome.  There are also some 
variations to consider, since different desktop Linux distributions may have 
somewhat different application appearance and, in particular, install 
differences when AOO is not furnished by the distribution.  

I don't know if you consider BSD Unix and FreeBSD within your reach or not.  
The CC-By licensing will be favorable there.  Also, some Linux distros might 
provide AOO as an installable option.  I think BSD also did that, in the past.  
I don't know if the practice has been continued.

There is now a Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) as a native subsystem (not 
just under a VM).  I have no idea whether anyone uses AOO for production use in 
that case, but a reviewer might with regard to checking your Getting Started 
drafts.  The installation of WSL improves with each W10 release, and the 
ability to launch Windows apps from the WSL (and vice versa) is improving all 
the time.  <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/install-win10>.

I wish you success in creation of a Getting Started guide that is oriented to 
what Linux users will see and need to know for successful application of Apache 
OpenOffice Linux-targeted release versions.

 - Dennis


-Original Message-
From: marcia wilbur  
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 21:32
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Getting Started Guide (was Proposed Process for Documentation)

Hi. According to CC 3.0 - there must be information regarding changes being 
made in general. "if changes were made" However, I did not see any indication 
of specifics (that might be time consuming but maybe like a changelog for docs) 
Here is the link to cc 3.0 info
[orcmid] 
<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/> and also 
<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/>
[orcmid] 

No additional restrictions - You may not apply legal terms or technological 
measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.


I did not realize the GNU Linux user base was so low... even then.
However, I will continue the effort for the 3% or so - because I'm weird like 
that. I started the Get Started, I'll see it through. Thank you for the 
information.

In this case,  I would say - an effort for the larger user base is important. 

Someone who is willing to take on the Windows content - making this more 
current would be a good idea. 
Are we using gitbox?

I won't touch Windows, I don't have windows... but I can mark up and give 
feedback for that taming or whatever doc using OO and provide 
feedback/recommendations for documentation. However, do not associate me with 
any Windows effort - haha :)

The feedback is for everyone. 

Thanks.




- Original Message -
From: "Dennis Hamilton" 
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 10:29:52 AM
Subject: RE: Getting Started Guide (was Proposed Process for Documentation)

Two things,

 1. It is useful to know the demographics of Apache OpenOffice users.  The 
latest board report does not break out downloads by platforms and languages any 
longer.   In October 2015 this was the breakdown for AOO 4.1.1 downloads at 
that point in time:

   87.7% were for Windows
9.1% were for Macintosh
3.2% were for everything else, including Linux

The prevalent languages have tended to toggle between English and French.

I would be surprised to learn that this pattern has changed in any significant 
way.

The Community Forums activity might also be valuable in this respect, and 
easier to find.

Of course, for documentation, how different platforms are supported is up to 
those willing to develop such documentation.  I have no quarrel, especially for 
Getting Started, with addressing whatever platforms an author wants to 
specialize for to accommodate the readers.

 2. I understand that the contributor of a document under CC-BY specifies how 
attribution is to be made.  I am not aware that there is any requirement to 
specify the changes made.  Normally, one simply provides the attribution and 
source of the document(s) on which the derivative is based.

Marcia, can you point us to where in the CC-BY description that changes must be 
identified?

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: marcia wilbur 
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 02:28
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Getting Started Guide (was Proposed Process for Documentation)

[orcmid] [ ... ]

One thing to mention - is the taming doc is under CC 3.0.
This requires attribution and indication changes were made with a deriv

[ ... ]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsub

RE: Getting Started Guide (was Proposed Process for Documentation)

[Dennis Hamilton]

Two things,

 1. It is useful to know the demographics of Apache OpenOffice users.  The 
latest board report does not break out downloads by platforms and languages any 
longer.   In October 2015 this was the breakdown for AOO 4.1.1 downloads at 
that point in time:

   87.7% were for Windows
9.1% were for Macintosh
3.2% were for everything else, including Linux

The prevalent languages have tended to toggle between English and French.

I would be surprised to learn that this pattern has changed in any significant 
way.

The Community Forums activity might also be valuable in this respect, and 
easier to find.

Of course, for documentation, how different platforms are supported is up to 
those willing to develop such documentation.  I have no quarrel, especially for 
Getting Started, with addressing whatever platforms an author wants to 
specialize for to accommodate the readers.

 2. I understand that the contributor of a document under CC-BY specifies how 
attribution is to be made.  I am not aware that there is any requirement to 
specify the changes made.  Normally, one simply provides the attribution and 
source of the document(s) on which the derivative is based.

Marcia, can you point us to where in the CC-BY description that changes must be 
identified?

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: marcia wilbur  
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 02:28
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Getting Started Guide (was Proposed Process for Documentation)

[orcmid] [ ... ]

One thing to mention - is the taming doc is under CC 3.0.
This requires attribution and indication changes were made with a deriv

[ ... ]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Proposed Process for Documentation

[Dennis Hamilton]

-Original Message-
From: Keith N. McKenna  
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 15:43
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Proposed Process for Documentation

[orcmid] [ ... ]

As there are obviously still conflicting views on how documentation should be 
handled. I have decided to step away from this entirely and concentrate my 
volunteer efforts elsewhere.

Regards
Keith

[orcmid] 
I don't think there are conflicting views.  There have been considerations of a 
few approaches and ways of satisfying ASF sensibilities.   There are some 
concerns about ASF sensibilities with regard to carrying "foreign"-licensed 
materials in ASF repositories.

For example, one option would be going the AOOAuthors route and hosting that 
effort on GitHub.

The alternative Keith favors involves hosting within the AOO project in a 
manner that does not conflict with ASF sensibilities about licenses.  As far as 
I can tell, no one is stopping that being set up and contributors recruited.  

One caveat.  Jean Weber has offered to update her self-published "Getting 
Started" book on AOO to be suitable for AOO 4.1 users (unless 4.2 is imminent, 
I suppose).  It would seem valuable to rely on that, including assisting her, 
rather than have duplicate effort inside the AOO project.   So maybe there 
should be a different focus for the AOO effort, starting with OO 3.2 User 
Guides.

 - Dennis

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

CC License on Externally-Produced Documentation

[Dennis Hamilton]

The TL;DR: Creating an external AOOAuthors GitHub project for deriving 
documentation of current AOO releases is not difficult.  Many of us could do 
that.   It just takes some minimal initial organization and agreement on the 
contributor mechanism, working languages, etc.  

At some point soon, this discussion should move off of doc @ oo.a.o.  It might 
be valuable to have some threads on the AOO Community Forum, 
.  There also needs to be agreement on the 
working language(s) of an AOOAuthors project.  

I am waiting for Keith to say what approach he wants to see.Readers of doc 
@ oo.a.o could also say what they would be willing to work on.  Then we can act 
jointly.

DETAILS

The ASF restriction on CC licensed material has to do with ASF Project 
source-code repositories.  There is an exception for GPL, CC-by, and other 
licenses if reliance on such artifacts is optional and the artifacts are 
fetched and included in the build process, never housed in an ASF Project repo. 
 Note that this is about ASF Project governance.  The ASF has principled 
project requirements beyond those of the Apache License itself.  (The 
preservation of OO.o documentation at 
 Is a variant on this idea.)

In the case of documentation projects and their repositories, the exception is 
not workable.  However, using an off-project repository employed outside of and 
*independent* of the AOO Project accomplishes the same purpose.  The 
independence is important: there should be no accountability of the project to 
the AOO PMC and especially in AOO reports to the ASF Board beyond mentioning 
the existence of such a project.  Note that this already happens with 
extensions and templates where user selects them and they have varied licenses. 
 

The independent-(GitHub-)project avenue, if still being pursued for making AOO 
user documentation, is equivalent to how OooAuthors was external to 
OpenOffice.org and how Jean Weber's User Guide would be external and, in this 
case, a personal project. 

As a fork of OooAuthors documents, an AOOAuthors project need not maintain dual 
licensing of the derivative AOO 4.x documentation.  With appropriate 
notification and attribution of the original OOO documentation the results 
could be offered under CC-BY unported, for example.  That might be more 
palatable for AOO contributors that also become AOOAuthors contributors. 
Whatever the license choice(s), that has to be resolved immediately so that 
contributors know what their license commitment must be.  And for the CC-BY 
case, specific attribution requirements should be in the front manner of the 
derived documents.

There also needs to be enough AOOAuthors documentation of AOOAuthors so that 
people can learn how to follow the effort and how to contribute to it.

 - Dennis


-Original Message-
From: Jean Weber  
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 23:59
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: New Doc Volunteer

AOO does not allow CC licensed material. That's a major part of the problem of 
reuse. However, the body of documentation is also licensed under GPL, which is 
sort-of allowed, with restrictions.

Jean
 [ ... ]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Proposed Process for Documentation

[Dennis Hamilton]

Keith,

My impression is that everyone was waiting for you.  I assume you have bounced 
your ideas off the PMC.

If you set up an off-ASF public GitHub project, there are a number of things 
you need to deal with.   (I am assuming you can't do it on-ASF because it 
violates the rule about non-Apache licensing in a public ASF repository.)

NOTE: You don't have to do this all at once, but there needs to be enough 
foresight in an initial organization being able to evolve.  It would be useful 
to know what was sufficient for ODFAuthors to get work done.   I Also think it 
is sensible to see how LibreOffice organized for successful production of user 
documentation.  And check on the AOO Community Forum for interest and ideas.

 1. There needs to be some degree of a governance structure.  Nothing majestic, 
but enough for ground rules about usage and contribution to be understood.  And 
there is the usual matter of granting commit rights and also how to handle push 
requests or other ways for folks to submit changes/contributions, etc.  Because 
there is no merging with respect to binary content, collisions need a mechanism 
for resolution also.  There might be designated editors.

 2. There needs to be some organization for production.   Probably with release 
tags and also migration to drafts, derivation of candidate versions of 
documents, and the creating of final flavors (the editable, any non-editable 
form such as PDF).  Also, anywhere that web versions will be posted and how 
versioning works there.

 3. An archive of the core base documents would be handy also.   There might 
also be style guides, style sheets (template documents?), etc.  That sort of 
thing might be grown into.  

 4. Jean Weber tends to prefer the ODFAuthors CC-BY and GPL dual licensing, 
although maybe that is mainly about her "Getting Started" book on AOO.   That 
has to be nailed down at the beginning, because contributors need to know what 
licensing they are contributing under.

I am interested in seeing this sort of thing work.  I'm not an AOO committer 
and not interested in AOO dev these days.  Given that, I can help at the 
outset.  I still have an interest in documentation [;<).


 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Keith N. McKenna  
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 13:25
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Proposed Process for Documentation

On 1/15/2021 1:01 AM, F Campos Costero wrote:
> Keith - Have you looked into using Git with the odt file format. I did 
> a quick search and it seems that Git can only handle a plain text 
[orcmid] [ ... ]
> 
> regards,
> Francis
> 

Yes I did. In fact all the revisions of the proposal were done using my GitHub 
account and it worked quite well. It will offer to open the binary file in the 
external application. You are correct that it does not handle a diff, but that 
is not why I was suggesting using it. It was simply as this is the version 
control system that the project has chosen to use and trying to implement 
anything different would require yet another VM for the project and the 
incumbent overhead of finding volunteers with the necessary skills to maintain 
it.

As I am seeing no other comments from the documentation team I am planning on 
writing this attempt off as one more failure on my part.

I will continue on my own to attempt to get a usable 4.1.x and 4.2.x Getting 
Started guide completed. Any help in getting these done will be greatly 
appreciated.

Regards
Keith

> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:26 AM Keith N. McKenna 
> 
> wrote:
> 
>> On 1/13/2021 6:17 PM, Dennis Hamilton wrote:

RE: Timeframe for release of AOOv4.2?

[Dennis Hamilton]

Jean, I just saw that a release candidate for 4.1.9 is being reviewed.   I only 
looked on the dev list for January 2021 😊.



-Original Message-
From: Jean Weber 
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 15:42
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Timeframe for release of AOOv4.2?



I’ve lost track of where to find info on the next AOO release, and I’m not 
motivated to dig through the dev list to try to find the info. Can someone 
point me to it?



Jean

RE: Proposed Process for Documentation

[Dennis Hamilton]

 will not have to deal with a huge team right away.

regards,
Francis

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:26 AM Keith N. McKenna 
wrote:

> On 1/13/2021 6:17 PM, Dennis Hamilton wrote:
> > I don't see an attachment (apart from the digital signature).  Is 
> > there
> a GitHub reposi8tory set up available?
> >
> > Good news though.
> >
> > I am curious how the coordination of edits and the use of GitHub 
> > version
> control will be navigated.  I look forward to seeing how that unfolds.
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
> Sorry about that. I could claim it was a senior moment, but since you 
> have a few years on me that one is not going to work. This time I am 
> attaching it.
>
> Keith
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Keith N. McKenna 
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 13:34
> > To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Proposed Process for Documentation
> >
> > Greetings All;
> > After a discussion on legal@, as long as we do not include them in 
> > an "Official Release" we can use the .odt files for version 3 that 
> > are stored on the mwiki to bring them up to date for version 4.x.x and 
> > above.
> >
> > Attached is a proposed process utilizing a GitHub repository for 
> > version control of the User Guides and other Documentation. It is in 
> > .odt format with changes enabled. Please feel free to edit it and/or 
> > make any comments you feel are needed.
> >
> > Regards
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > 
> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Proposed Process for Documentation

[Dennis Hamilton]

I don't see an attachment (apart from the digital signature).  Is there a 
GitHub reposi8tory set up available?

Good news though.  

I am curious how the coordination of edits and the use of GitHub version 
control will be navigated.  I look forward to seeing how that unfolds.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Keith N. McKenna  
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 13:34
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Proposed Process for Documentation

Greetings All;
After a discussion on legal@, as long as we do not include them in an
"Official Release" we can use the .odt files for version 3 that are
stored on the mwiki to bring them up to date for version 4.x.x and above.

Attached is a proposed process utilizing a GitHub repository for version
control of the User Guides and other Documentation. It is in .odt format
with changes enabled. Please feel free to edit it and/or make any
comments you feel are needed.

Regards
Keith


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort

[Dennis Hamilton]

I think it is clear, from a continuing doc@oo.a.o thread, that there is no 
cheese to be found developing derivative AOO documentation from the original 
OpenOffice.org 3.2 documentation that was produced outside of OpenOffice.org 
itself.

I wonder if a more vibrant and experienced avenue might be found by consulting 
the Apache OpenOffice Community Forum,
.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Keith N. McKenna  
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 14:58
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: d...@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [proposal} Trying to re-generate the Documentation effort

[orcmid] [ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation

[Dennis Hamilton]

must also be the same Apache license.
Jean

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 7:35 PM marcia wilbur  wrote:
>
> FYI - Help content in AOO - these are under apache license 2.0
>
>
> ==
> 
> Guide content for Writer (example)
>
> Found in aooversion/main/helpcontent2/source/text/swriter/guide 
> directory 
> ==
>  Looks like the exact same as Libreoffice. Did not locate the 
> content files in LibreOffice to confirm the license.
>
> Just FYI on the status of the help files.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Dennis Hamilton" 
> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 10:02:50 PM
> Subject: RE: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo 
> documentation
>
> I believe GPL is still category X.
>
> The compatibility claim is not bi-directional.  Apache-licensed code 
> can be incorporated in GPL-licensed software, it is the reverse that 
> is not OK generally.  (A clear-cut example is LibreOffice rebasing 
> their code on AOO in order to incorporate the IBM-donated bits,  but 
> LibreOffice code cannot be backported to AOO.)
>
> The only chance would be with respect to CC-By 3.0+ and there is a 
> restriction with respect to Digital Rights Management that seems to get in 
> the way as far as the Apache Foundation's source codes are concerned.
>
> If that is how the chips fall, the only way to build off of the OpenOffice 
> 3.2 documentation is in a non-ASF project.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jean Weber 
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 16:58
> To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo 
> documentation
>
> I notice the stock reply, "It would be best if the project got permission 
> from the original owners of the content to relicense it under a more friendly 
> license."
>
> As I'm sure Keith knows, that is not going to happen, because (a) 
> several of the original contributors to OOo docs will not agree; and
> (b) we would not be able to contact all of the contributors, because we don't 
> have current contact info or they have died.
>
> The reply also said, "CC-BY 3.0 can't be in a release." However, we 
> could drop the CC-BY and just keep the GPL licensing; the old docs 
> said "You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of
> *either* the GPL or CC." The reply doesn't specifically say GPL is not 
> allowed, says "Apache License, Version 2.0 [is] compatible with version 3 of 
> the GPL."
> IANAL, but that seems to me to say GPL licensing of our docs would be okay.
>
> Jean
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation

[Dennis Hamilton]

I believe GPL is still category X.  

The compatibility claim is not bi-directional.  Apache-licensed code can be 
incorporated in GPL-licensed software, it is the reverse that is not OK 
generally.  (A clear-cut example is LibreOffice rebasing their code on AOO in 
order to incorporate the IBM-donated bits,  but LibreOffice code cannot be 
backported to AOO.)  

The only chance would be with respect to CC-By 3.0+ and there is a restriction 
with respect to Digital Rights Management that seems to get in the way as far 
as the Apache Foundation's source codes are concerned.  

If that is how the chips fall, the only way to build off of the OpenOffice 3.2 
documentation is in a non-ASF project.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Jean Weber  
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 16:58
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Question sent to ASF legal around using the old OOo documentation

I notice the stock reply, "It would be best if the project got permission from 
the original owners of the content to relicense it under a more friendly 
license."

As I'm sure Keith knows, that is not going to happen, because (a) several of 
the original contributors to OOo docs will not agree; and
(b) we would not be able to contact all of the contributors, because we don't 
have current contact info or they have died.

The reply also said, "CC-BY 3.0 can't be in a release." However, we could drop 
the CC-BY and just keep the GPL licensing; the old docs said "You may 
distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of
*either* the GPL or CC." The reply doesn't specifically say GPL is not allowed, 
says "Apache License, Version 2.0 [is] compatible with version 3 of the GPL."
IANAL, but that seems to me to say GPL licensing of our docs would be okay.

Jean


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [PROPOSAL] restructuring build documentation

[Dennis Hamilton]

I am replying to this thread although I do not have skin in this particular 
game, and my receiving these is some glitch in my subscriptions.  This is also 
a topic of interest for me.

The TL;DR:  It is extremely valuable that build details be part of a release 
distribution.  That means under release source control, not some Wiki.  Whether 
there is something less detailed and useful as a guide on the Wiki is a 
different matter.  It would then be good for a Wiki guide to provide 
information on how to rely on a particular release's build details, to be 
clarified asynchronously until there are changes to building that requires 
alignment of the guide.

Rationale below the fold.

-Original Message-
From: Arrigo Marchiori  
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 06:33
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] restructuring build documentation

Hello Keith,

On Sat, Jan 02, 2021 at 12:55:07PM -0500, Keith N. McKenna wrote:

> On 1/2/2021 4:48 AM, Arrigo Marchiori wrote:
[orcmid] [ ... ]
> > The problem, IMHO, is exactly that they are generic.  Because 
> > everything changes, like the linked tools (dmake, EPM), the build 
> > system itself may evolve, and even the source repositories have 
> > changed, it becomes more and more difficult to reproduce the _exact_ 
> > build of a past release.
> > 
> > I expect such builds to become useful for hunting regression bugs.
> > 
> Hi rigio;
> I understand what you are saying,but those detailed instructions are 
> already in the per OS section and seem to me to be superfluous in the 
> basic setup section. Also there is already a procedure defined in 
> Section 9 on how to build older versions specifically aimed at 
> regression testing.We never release from trunk. It is only used by the 
> build bots  for our nightly and weekly builds. We *only* Release from 
> the current branch.
> 
> I hope this makes my position more understandable. Even though I do 
> not currently build  the software, I could setup a build environment 
> and build without the per branch instructions

[orcmid] [ ... ]

As an example: the release builds are IMHO the most interesting ones, and I am 
going to rerrange the chapters into the step-by-step building guide to list 
them before other platforms and experimental setups.

[orcmid] [ ... ]

[orcmid] RATIONALE:
  * Reproducibility is Important.  And an easy to way replicate a specific 
build is important, although limited by tools that do not provide bit-for-bit 
reproducibility of operation.  This must be easy to do once the dependencies 
can be satisfied.
  * Customization is important.  That is a matter of indicating what should 
change to provide a different (possibly "branded") build that is not to be 
confused with the one provided by the main development team.  This says 
something about how builds, and their origins, are made visible to end-users.  
Code signing of distributions figures in here.
 * Auditability is Important.  Dependencies on tools and components can be very 
important, especially when verifying whether or not a security vulnerability or 
plain defect is involved.  In the past there were version-control systems that 
addressed this, although they seem to have fallen by the wayside with the rise 
of open-source tooling.
 * Training and learning, onboarding of new developers, is also a factor that 
is supported by such documentation, including the release-level details and 
also a good Guide.

[orcmid] LIMITATIONS:
 * Architecture is Required.  Addressing these matter seems to require that 
such concerns be addressed from the very beginning.  The build, test, 
customize, and deployment structures need to be designed for this from the 
beginning.  Retrofitting of a large code base with an incredible variety of 
options seems doomed because of 
 * Developer Discipline.  This is probably at least as difficult as strong 
attention to threat models and countering discovery of vulnerabilities.  In a 
self-selected open-source undertaking where scratching an itch is far different 
than a commitment to non-developer users, heroic efforts tend to have little 
traction and do not impact the development culture much.  That includes quality 
on-boarding information for developers.
 * Continuous Integration may be problematic.  Also, not providing updates and 
requiring complete replacements is easier but a way to ship and install patches 
would make it easier for end-users to stay current and safe.  This might or 
might not make it easier for platform-specific forking and how that is 
documented somehow, at least from a single team's platform targets.

 - end of brain dump

 - Dennis E. Hamilton




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: How We Implement the new Documentation Process

[Dennis Hamilton]

Jean Weber knows all the gory details.  It was a triumph of policy over 
practice and the experienced, actually-contributing writers were driven away.  

Jean has already mentioned where the writing is done now, even though this page 
 still links to the ODF 
Authors site, which redirects back to 
.

I just looked at the LibreOffice Calc Guide 7.0 at 

 
and this is the copyright notice:

   This document is Copyright © 2020 by the LibreOffice Documentation Team. 
Contributors are
   listed below. You may distribute it and/or modify it under the terms of 
either the GNU General
   Public License (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), version 3 or later, 
or the Creative
   Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), 
version 4.0 or later.
   All trademarks within this guide belong to their legitimate owners.

We know that GPL is toxic for an Apache Software Foundation Project.  Whether 
CC-by-4.0+ is acceptable for forking  to an ASF Project document falls back on 
the previous resolution.

I presume the licensing is identical for the documents from which the 
LibreOffice Documentation PDFs are produced.

Using a non-ASF repository to work around this still raises issues with regard 
to using ASF Project committers.  And managing it under the AOO project seems 
pretty sketchy.

However, if the OO.o 3.3 documentation was covered by the OASIS grant to the 
ASF, then that's a different matter.  If that is the case, working from the 
OO.o 3.3 documents is completely workable and avoids the feature-drift of 
LibreOffice away from Apache OpenOffice (and hence anything derived from OO.o 
3.3/3.4 at Apache).  

My suspicion is in agreement with Keith's that the documentation of interest 
was produced outside of Sun/Oracle and Oracle did not have ownership.  So the 
ASF has no license distinct from what notices on the documents assert.  This 
seems to be affirmed by the Copyright notices on OpenOffice.org 3.3 
documentation carried at the openoffice.org domain name.  The Calc Guide is 
listed as copyright by the 42 contributors, including Jean Hollis Weber.  
That's essentially a poison pill and that copyright has to be honored, even in 
a derivative work.

These matters can be checked by accessing the relevant materials.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Keith N. McKenna  
Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2020 13:57
To: doc@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: How We Implament the new Documentation Process

On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 14:51:59 +0100, Arrigo Marchiori wrote:

> Hello Keith, All,
> 
> I don't have any proposals at the moment, but one question:
> 
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 12:27:20AM -, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> 
[orcmid] [ ... ]
>> 2. Start with the already published 3.3 odt documents and upgrade 
>> those to version 4. This could require the work being done outside of 
>> the project made up of the people on doc@ do to the 3.3 docs being 
>> under what is considered a catagory X license and may not be able to 
>> be stored in an Apache repository.
>> 
>> If we want to go with #2 there is a way around the possible 
>> repository problem.
> 
> I understand from your words that there are some issues with licensing 
> but I cannot fully understand what is the problem. Could you please 
> make it more explicit?

The old OpenOffice.org (ooo) documentation was duel licensed under either the 
GNU General Public License or the Creative Commons Attribution License, version 
3.0 or later. Both are considered  Catagory X licenses as defined at: 
https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x. I believe that this would 
mean that we can not have them in the projects repository although I need to 
verify that.

[orcmid] [ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: doc-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: doc-h...@openoffice.apache.org