Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Dave Fisher]

On Jul 12, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

> On 12/07/2011 Simon Phipps wrote:
>> TDF are just about to launch a full version of their extensions &
>> templates system and they would be perfectly happy for AOOo to redirect the
>> URL that OpenOffice.org is using to access the repository so that it uses
>> the system TDF are hosting for LibreOffice.
> 
> While I believe cooperation would be nice and I've written for months
> that I don't support the idea to host OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice
> extensions on separate sites, we should get facts straight on this.
> 
> The LibreOffice extensions site is being developed for two reasons:
> 1) the Document Foundation doesn't want to depend on *.openoffice.org
>   sites (and in this case it cannot, since on the launch day it
>   promised to only offer free software extensions).
> 2) http://extensions.services.openoffice.org was unreachable at times.
> Now, reason 1 does not exactly go in the direction of a shared resource,
> while reason 2 is now obsolete: the site is now fixed and the problems
> were in the caching server, NOT in the OOo extensions site.
> 
> If we are to use a common resource, then let's go for the best one,
> which is (don't consider the URL!) the one currently living at
> http://extensions.services.openoffice.org . Reasons: mature, tested,
> nicer, flexible, populated with hundreds of extensions.
> 
> With a bit (quite a bit) of customization it could even be tweaked so
> that is is accessible, say, both as http://extensions.openoffice.org and
> http://extensions.libreoffice.org and that it shows different branding
> depending on the URL; it could even be set up so that non-free
> extensions are hidden when browsing it in "LibreOffice mode".

That can certainly be done.

> 
> This would be a really shared resource, where anybody can submit
> extensions that anybody can download and use regardless of the software
> he is using, and where all identities are respected. It could of course
> be extended to other derivatives and it would be a remarkable example of
> something useful to the whole community.

+1 and the key is not so much the site in front as it is the repository behind 
it.

Maybe we should have a shared repository somewhere with agreed upon metadata 
and files all stored in a repository. A bunch of mirrors and alternative 
front-ends are possible.

Each project (OpenOffice.org, LibreOffice, Lotus Symphony, RedOffice, ) 
would then be responsible for validating the extension vs. product versions. In 
addition the license could be reviewed and be marked for compatibility with 
either ASF, FSF, dual license commercial, etc.

Having a repository with credentials etc. would be a good separation of 
concerns. UIs like extensions.services.openoffice.org and 
http://extensions.libreoffice.org become read-only front-ends. Contributors of 
extensions and templates would request a directory within the repository and 
then get direct access to use which ever front end they prefer to maintain 
their repository.

Projects can query for new extensions and templates to test and then indicate 
the revisions that are "tested" for each version.

Please feel free to start a migration plan for extensions and templates on the 
Community Wiki at 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Extensions+and+templates

Please continue this thread.

Regards,
Dave

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Andrea Pescetti]

Raphael Bircher wrote:
> The site has a verry hight number of visitors. I think a CMS like Drupal 
> is not a good choice for a site like thise. We need same thing self 
> programmed only for this page.

This is not really a problem; again, the bottleneck was not Drupal. See
Thorsten Bosbach's presentation about this at OOoCon 2010
http://www.ooocon.org/index.php/ooocon/2010/paper/view/209 (video might
be online somewhere too; we had a nice long discussion worth watching).

The figures Dave Fisher wanted (by the way, thanks for getting the OOo
extensions site running again!) were given as around 120.000 page views
per day on each site, see above link. And the sites functioned smoothly.

After that, I know that Thorsten was porting both sites to Drupal 6 and
cleaning the Drupal 5 tweaks; as far as I know, work was done for both
sites, but only one production site (Templates) has been updated.

Whoever submitted an extension/template will have seen that the backend
was really customized to fit the use case, Thorsten did a nice job with
this; it would be nice to get the code of the Drupal 6 port as part of
the Oracle grant, it is really valuable.

Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[André Schnabel]

Hi,

Am 13.07.2011 00:37, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:


While this is understandable, it is not good enough. We will have to 
find an
alternative repository and link to it from Apache's website. This is 
something

that can wait though.



You might think different, when you was an actual user or author of an 
extension.


E.g., the extensions I published at the ooo extension site are listed in 
other software repositories as well, but just as a link. E.g. Heise.de 
does so. Within the last weeks I got several notifications that my 
extensions would be de-registered, as it is not available anymore.


Seems, stil many here did not yet realize that apache has taken a 
project *and product* with dozends of millions active users.


But - good to know, that (according to Andrew) there is work on this 
here (as well as at TDF).


André

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 12/07/2011 Rob Weir wrote:
> > 1) The new extensions.openoffice.org site hosts no code or binaries.
> > It is simply a directory of 3rd party extensions and links to outside
> > sites for the actual files.

This would really be suboptimal since the OpenOffice.org community
really expects to use the extensions site both for downloading and
uploading extensions: unaffiliated members involved with extensions
development used to outnumber unaffiliated members working on core.

> > 2) Optionally, in conjunction with #1, host the extension source and
> > distributions at http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/ .
> ... 3) Have OOo extensions hosted by a 3rd party website and we link to
> that site.  It is done that way essentially now with OSL.  But I think
> we'll want to be more explicit about such links

OK, then it's probably time to decide on a DNS zone corresponding to
what used to be *.services.openoffice.org and dedicated to community
resources, since the Apache Extras option does not seems practical
seeing the dozens of sites needed. Maybe "*.services.openoffice.org" is
not explicit enough: would "*.community.openoffice.org" be better?
Shorter options?

Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 12/07/2011 Simon Phipps wrote:
> TDF are just about to launch a full version of their extensions &
> templates system and they would be perfectly happy for AOOo to redirect the
> URL that OpenOffice.org is using to access the repository so that it uses
> the system TDF are hosting for LibreOffice.

While I believe cooperation would be nice and I've written for months
that I don't support the idea to host OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice
extensions on separate sites, we should get facts straight on this.

The LibreOffice extensions site is being developed for two reasons:
1) the Document Foundation doesn't want to depend on *.openoffice.org
   sites (and in this case it cannot, since on the launch day it
   promised to only offer free software extensions).
2) http://extensions.services.openoffice.org was unreachable at times.
Now, reason 1 does not exactly go in the direction of a shared resource,
while reason 2 is now obsolete: the site is now fixed and the problems
were in the caching server, NOT in the OOo extensions site.

If we are to use a common resource, then let's go for the best one,
which is (don't consider the URL!) the one currently living at
http://extensions.services.openoffice.org . Reasons: mature, tested,
nicer, flexible, populated with hundreds of extensions.

With a bit (quite a bit) of customization it could even be tweaked so
that is is accessible, say, both as http://extensions.openoffice.org and
http://extensions.libreoffice.org and that it shows different branding
depending on the URL; it could even be set up so that non-free
extensions are hidden when browsing it in "LibreOffice mode".

This would be a really shared resource, where anybody can submit
extensions that anybody can download and use regardless of the software
he is using, and where all identities are respected. It could of course
be extended to other derivatives and it would be a remarkable example of
something useful to the whole community.

Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: ooo blog (was: RE: ooo-dev list subscriber stats?)

[Shane Curcuru]

Reminder: you will need some folks with the appropriate Admin role to 
moderate (or screen out) comments on your blog.  I imagine once you 
start posting you may get a number of readers.


Folks may also be interested in following Planet Apache:
  http://planet.apache.org/

- Shane

On 7/8/2011 5:16 PM, Gavin McDonald wrote:




-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2011 6:06 AM
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: ooo-dev list subscriber stats?

+1:

"- introduce an AOOo blog so that the Community can follow our progress."


Ok, so nobody has approached Infra yet, I'll be proactive and create it, then we
need a list of people who will be admins and those that will be publishers.

Let's start with the name of blog, unlike other things, the blog name should be
permanent and reflect the name that the project will have upon graduation
to a TLP. (Migrating/renaming blogs is a royal pita so we don't do it.)

Apache openoffice.org should be the name of the Blog ?

Gav...





-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 09:44
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: ooo-dev list subscriber stats?

Hi Manfred,


did you check all the other (not US/UK) user ML as well?


No, I did it mostly out of curiosity. Although I speak multiple computer
languages, my human language skills are English with a little high school
German over 30 years ago.

If others know 


IMHO we need a statement for all the current subscribers on the actual
user MLs. You can hardly regain customers you lost.


Agreed. Someone should write an announcement for use to disseminate.

An announcement should probably include:

- introduce AOOo (incubating)
- a promise that all bugs, user forums, and mailing lists will be migrated
carefully and people can continue as now.
- a call for developers (code and documentation) to join us on ooo-dev w/ a
mention and link to the Apache Way.

- introduce an AOOo blog so that the Community can follow our progress.

Regards,
Dave



## Manfred - (android) mobil - please excuse typos Am 08.07.2011 15:53
schrieb "Dave Fisher":


On Jul 8, 2011, at 6:41 AM, Rob Weir wrote:


Is there a way for list moderators to get a tally of list subscribers?
Or is this an admin permission?


On another thread and list I saw this:

"Email ooo-dev-help@ from your moderator address for more

information."



I'm interesting in knowing how many people are currently subscribed,
especially a sense of the ratio of "lurkers" to active participants,
contributors to users, etc. This could be one indication of whether
we are ready for a ooo-user list now.


I have been lurking on us...@openoffice.org - there have been

approximately 130 emails since June 24. Not a very high volume I
haven't seen anything regarding Apache OOo.


Regards,
Dave

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Shane Curcuru]

On 7/12/2011 10:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:


On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:


Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking
some deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective
interests in one or the other direction.

And in the end, the user rules, not any marketing speech.


While that sounds good, I'm not sure it's the Apache way and I'd
welcome a comment from one of the mentors.

S.



The Apache Way is for the PPMC to hold a [VOTE] to decide.

In an established and healthy project community, typically the results 
of a general discussion on a dev@ list are mirrored by the official 
[VOTE] of a PMC on some issue.  However Apache OOo is still a pretty new 
podling, so I think the ways that we do things are not as obvious or 
clear-cut to all participants.


One key point is that the PPMC makes the final decisions on things like 
releases - and project names (within Apache rules, however).  One 
concept that will be important to understand with this quickly growing 
dev@ community is the difference between binding votes and non-binding 
votes.  Typically, only (P)PMC members have binding votes on major 
issues; all other votes are non-binding. In healthy community, the 
(P)PMC certainly listens to it's dev@ (and user@) communities, but the 
(P)PMC makes the final decisions for the project.


So while we certainly need to understand that users are important - 
because if no-one uses our software, it's not of much value! - I'd 
change around Kai's statement to say that it's the project's active 
community that rules here at Apache.  And that's a crucial thing for 
this community to understand.


- Shane

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Shane Curcuru]

To top post on the top posting, I think the most important thing to 
consider is: this decision does not need to be made today.  Or even this 
week.  Or even this month.


I think it would be far more valuable in the near future to get some 
code in place, and provide better public explanations of the project 
roadmap and ProjectPlanning pages in terms of it's transition to Apache.


It would also be simpler to have this conversation once this community 
has a little more experience at working together here at Apache.  In 
particular, the final decision will be made by the PPMC, within Apache 
Brand requirements - as advised, obviously, by helpful and productive 
commenters here on the dev@ list.


- Shane

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Dave Fisher]

On Jul 12, 2011, at 6:58 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>> 
>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
>> 
>>> To recap...I think this might be a slightly different situation than Apache
>>> has previously experienced and it might be worth having the ASF Trademark
>>> watchdogs and ASF lawyers talk through the pros and cons of what's possible
>>> / advisable to do in this special case.  That conversation could impact /
>>> inform the naming strategy for various parts of the project and I think it
>>> should happen soon.
>> 
>> Yes, please.
> 
> I'll forward the request.
> 
> As a general rule, it is generally best to start discussions such as
> this with one or more specific proposals.  Spending time discussing
> options that will ultimately be rejected by the community serves
> no-one.  My read is that there are people here who are against any
> proposal that includes .org; and that there are people here who are
> against any proposal that does NOT include .org.  This needs to be
> resolved by the PPMC.

How are these for questions:

Are there trademark or brand dilution issues with "Apache™OpenOffice" (project) 
in conjunction with "OpenOffice.org™" (product)?

The two would be tied together with the feather and the seagulls with 
comparatively similar banners and footers.

Are we allowed to call a product "OpenOffice.org™" or must it be "Apache " 
whether or not there is a huge retraining of a huge market to the new name?

> 
>> Should the discussion also include the issue of whether it is permissible to 
>> host extensions and templates with all kinds of licenses on an 
>> http://*.openoffice.org domain? It happens now.
> 
> There are two parts to this.  The first part is whether or not it is
> legal to do so.  The second part is whether or not ASF policy would
> allow such.  To date we have never approved such.  A concrete example
> to illustrate the difference between the two: it would be 100% legal
> for us to host and distribute code licensed under the GPL on ASF
> infrastructure, but to date we have consistently declined to do so.
> 
> The only thing I will note is that your question is subtly different
> than the one I answered.  You asked a question about a domain that
> ultimately will be owned by the ASF.  I answered a question as to what
> could be hosted on ASF infrastructure.  The question as to whether
> those two questions are equivalent fundamentally is a policy question.
> Off the top of my head: solving this will ultimately require at least
> two parts: (1) finding somebody willing to host the extensions and
> templates, and (2) a clear way of distinguishing these portions of the
> site from those portions hosted by the ASF.  Even with these parts
> addressed, there may be liability questions that we need to resolve.
> That portion will definitely require input from ASF Counsel.

(1) An external host like OSUOSL.

(2) A third set of banners and footers distinguishing this third type of sight 
- "the extension site"

Perhaps the TDF would be willing to share an extension and template database 
and then only publish the FSF compatible licenses on their extension/template 
site?

Perhaps this database would have matrices that validate an extension or 
template's compatibility with each of the codebases and versions including 
other downstreams than OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice.

Regards,
Dave 


> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> D
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>>> 
 Yes, exactly!
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 
 On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
 
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Dave Fisher 
 wrote:
>> 
>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 15:38, Dave Fisher wrote:
 
 On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
 
> 
> On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
>> 
>> Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking
 some
>> deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective
 interests in
>> one or the other direction.
>> 
>> And in the end, the user rules, not any marketing speech.
> 
> While that sounds good, I'm not sure it's the Apache way and I'd
 welcome a comment from one of the mentors.
> 
 
 See Daneese Cooper's emails.
>>> 
>>> Did you have a specific one in mind? Naturally I read everything Danese
 writes, but so far I have not seen her comment on the issue of whether and
 how market research over-rides the interests of Apache members.
>> 
>> Sorry, I am out of pocket and this thread is so long. Basically she is
 talking about consulting one of the ASF's attorney's regarding the names 
 and
 brand dilution issues from a legal standpoint.
> 
> You are likely

Re: ooo blog (was: RE: ooo-dev list subscriber stats?)

[Shane Curcuru]

Indeed, the podling will need to conform to the Apache Project Branding 
Requirements before it graduates to TLP:


  http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs

Note that a key requirement is using a project (and product) name in the 
form of "Apache Foo".  What the Foo is is up to the project to decide. 
In this case, I'd imagine the PPMC would work on the specific naming 
later on, after the community gels for a while and has at least one 
release put out.


Note that in this case I imagine the ASF will continue to maintain the 
openoffice.org URL(s), given the large set of pre-existing users and 
software installed that might phone home.  However once the project 
graduates to TLP, I would expect the primary landing URL that we use 
publicly in future collateral to be on an apache.org domain.


- Shane


On 7/8/2011 6:13 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:

AFAIK we have not yet decided if we want to remove the ".org" extension or
keep like it was in the old project.



Right.  "Apache OpenOffice" might be unique enough from a trademark
perspective, if taken as a whole.  I thought there was a query raised
to Apache Branding on this.

Is there a blog title that could be chosen that would not depend on
the resolution of the exact name?


BTW:
What will be the URL name?

So, before a name will be setup we should clarify these things first.

Marcus



Am 07/08/2011 11:16 PM, schrieb Gavin McDonald:


-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2011 6:06 AM
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: ooo-dev list subscriber stats?

+1:

"- introduce an AOOo blog so that the Community can follow our progress."


Ok, so nobody has approached Infra yet, I'll be proactive and create it,
then we
need a list of people who will be admins and those that will be
publishers.

Let's start with the name of blog, unlike other things, the blog name
should be
permanent and reflect the name that the project will have upon graduation
to a TLP. (Migrating/renaming blogs is a royal pita so we don't do it.)

Apache openoffice.org should be the name of the Blog ?

Gav...





-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 09:44
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: ooo-dev list subscriber stats?

Hi Manfred,


did you check all the other (not US/UK) user ML as well?


No, I did it mostly out of curiosity. Although I speak multiple computer
languages, my human language skills are English with a little high school
German over 30 years ago.

If others know 


IMHO we need a statement for all the current subscribers on the actual
user MLs. You can hardly regain customers you lost.


Agreed. Someone should write an announcement for use to disseminate.

An announcement should probably include:

- introduce AOOo (incubating)
- a promise that all bugs, user forums, and mailing lists will be
migrated
carefully and people can continue as now.
- a call for developers (code and documentation) to join us on ooo-dev w/
a
mention and link to the Apache Way.

- introduce an AOOo blog so that the Community can follow our progress.

Regards,
Dave



## Manfred - (android) mobil - please excuse typos Am 08.07.2011 15:53
schrieb "Dave Fisher":


On Jul 8, 2011, at 6:41 AM, Rob Weir wrote:


Is there a way for list moderators to get a tally of list subscribers?
Or is this an admin permission?


On another thread and list I saw this:

"Email ooo-dev-help@ from your moderator address for more


information."



I'm interesting in knowing how many people are currently subscribed,
especially a sense of the ratio of "lurkers" to active participants,
contributors to users, etc. This could be one indication of whether
we are ready for a ooo-user list now.


I have been lurking on us...@openoffice.org - there have been


approximately 130 emails since June 24. Not a very high volume I
haven't seen anything regarding Apache OOo.


Regards,
Dave

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Pedro F. Giffuni]

--- On Tue, 7/12/11, Jomar Silva  wrote:
...
> 
> 
> On 2011/6/12 19:38 Pedro Giffuni wrote: 
> 
> > While this is understandable, it is not good enough.
> > We will have to find an alternative repository and
> > link to it from Apache's website. This is something
> > that can wait though.
> 
> Can you please explain the 'not good enough' and also
> propose an alternative solution ?
>

(keeping politics apart)
The Office Suite market is very competitive and we want
to be commercially friendly if we want to have success.
Furthermore we are providing an API specifically so that
commercial guys use it. Forcing developers to make
available the source in order to be listed is not very
commercial friendly.

I am sure we can find someone else that can host those
files, and if some sort of ad supported service is
provided that's OK too. With time we may even offer
some sort of certification seal if that helps attract
developers and users.

cheers,

Pedro.

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Sam Ruby]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
>
>> To recap...I think this might be a slightly different situation than Apache
>> has previously experienced and it might be worth having the ASF Trademark
>> watchdogs and ASF lawyers talk through the pros and cons of what's possible
>> / advisable to do in this special case.  That conversation could impact /
>> inform the naming strategy for various parts of the project and I think it
>> should happen soon.
>
> Yes, please.

I'll forward the request.

As a general rule, it is generally best to start discussions such as
this with one or more specific proposals.  Spending time discussing
options that will ultimately be rejected by the community serves
no-one.  My read is that there are people here who are against any
proposal that includes .org; and that there are people here who are
against any proposal that does NOT include .org.  This needs to be
resolved by the PPMC.

> Should the discussion also include the issue of whether it is permissible to 
> host extensions and templates with all kinds of licenses on an 
> http://*.openoffice.org domain? It happens now.

There are two parts to this.  The first part is whether or not it is
legal to do so.  The second part is whether or not ASF policy would
allow such.  To date we have never approved such.  A concrete example
to illustrate the difference between the two: it would be 100% legal
for us to host and distribute code licensed under the GPL on ASF
infrastructure, but to date we have consistently declined to do so.

The only thing I will note is that your question is subtly different
than the one I answered.  You asked a question about a domain that
ultimately will be owned by the ASF.  I answered a question as to what
could be hosted on ASF infrastructure.  The question as to whether
those two questions are equivalent fundamentally is a policy question.
 Off the top of my head: solving this will ultimately require at least
two parts: (1) finding somebody willing to host the extensions and
templates, and (2) a clear way of distinguishing these portions of the
site from those portions hosted by the ASF.  Even with these parts
addressed, there may be liability questions that we need to resolve.
That portion will definitely require input from ASF Counsel.

> Best Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> D
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, exactly!
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
>>>
 On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Dave Fisher 
>>> wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>>
>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 15:38, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>

 On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
>
> Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking
>>> some
> deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective
>>> interests in
> one or the other direction.
>
> And in the end, the user rules, not any marketing speech.

 While that sounds good, I'm not sure it's the Apache way and I'd
>>> welcome a comment from one of the mentors.

>>>
>>> See Daneese Cooper's emails.
>>
>> Did you have a specific one in mind? Naturally I read everything Danese
>>> writes, but so far I have not seen her comment on the issue of whether and
>>> how market research over-rides the interests of Apache members.
>
> Sorry, I am out of pocket and this thread is so long. Basically she is
>>> talking about consulting one of the ASF's attorney's regarding the names and
>>> brand dilution issues from a legal standpoint.

 You are likely referring to this post then:

 http://s.apache.org/UxA

> I hadn't gotten to market research. I'm focused on migration and the
>>> websites - all names are possible right now and in the future. I don't want
>>> to tie the branding too tightly in the web design. The Apache CMS will allow
>>> us to isolate these elements.
>
> Regards,
> Dave

 - Sam Ruby
>>>
>
>

Re: SVN tutorial

[Dave Fisher]

On Jul 12, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Carl Marcum wrote:

> I'll sign up for the basic SVN tutorial from Help Wanted if no one has yet.

Great!

BTW - I have a TODO on 
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/website-local.html for how to create 
a patch.

Regards,
Dave

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Raphael Bircher]

Am 13.07.11 03:21, schrieb Dave Fisher:

On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Raphael Bircher wrote:


Am 13.07.11 01:47, schrieb Jomar Silva:

On 2011/6/12 19:38 Pedro Giffuni   wrote:


While this is understandable, it is not good enough. We will have to
find an
alternative repository and link to it from Apache's website. This is
something
that can wait though.

Can you please explain the 'not good enough' and also propose an alternative 
solution ?

You removed the answare. The fact that only Open Source extension are alowed is 
not ideal. Everyone at OOo knows the storry about this topic. The wish to have 
only Open Source extensions come from the FSF. This wish was refused by the CC 
of OpenOffice.org with good reasons. I don't think, this reasons go away only 
because we move to the ASF.

A Extension Repository with only Open Source Extension makes maybe the FSF 
happy, but do not cover our need. So this is one more time more a ideological 
question.

+1 - We should attempt to have the most complete and agnostic registry of all 
extensions and the most open collection of templates possible.

I've asked the contact that I made last night at OSUOSL for two things.

(1) Some statistics about the server.

(2) Contacts at Sun/Oracle who were working on the performance issues - which 
involve scale.

With data we have a better idea of what infrastructure is required.
The site has a verry hight number of visitors. I think a CMS like Drupal 
is not a good choice for a site like thise. We need same thing self 
programmed only for this page. We need not a load of scripts for it. 
It's a big difference if you ave a script with mayby 100 Lines code ore 
you hav a CMS with thousands Line of code. Even Drupal is fast, it's to 
slow for this service.


I'm willing to help there

I think we need to find out from Legal if the ASF actually has an issue with 
hosting differently licensed software on a machine that is not on the internet 
at *.apache.org, but on *.openoffice.org.

Regards,
Dave





--
My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/

SVN tutorial

[Carl Marcum]

I'll sign up for the basic SVN tutorial from Help Wanted if no one has yet.

Best regards,
Carl

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Dave Fisher]

On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:

> To recap...I think this might be a slightly different situation than Apache
> has previously experienced and it might be worth having the ASF Trademark
> watchdogs and ASF lawyers talk through the pros and cons of what's possible
> / advisable to do in this special case.  That conversation could impact /
> inform the naming strategy for various parts of the project and I think it
> should happen soon.

Yes, please.

Should the discussion also include the issue of whether it is permissible to 
host extensions and templates with all kinds of licenses on an 
http://*.openoffice.org domain? It happens now.

Best Regards,
Dave


> 
> D
> 
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
> 
>> Yes, exactly!
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Dave Fisher 
>> wrote:
 
 On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
 
> 
> On 12 Jul 2011, at 15:38, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> 
>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
 
 Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking
>> some
 deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective
>> interests in
 one or the other direction.
 
 And in the end, the user rules, not any marketing speech.
>>> 
>>> While that sounds good, I'm not sure it's the Apache way and I'd
>> welcome a comment from one of the mentors.
>>> 
>> 
>> See Daneese Cooper's emails.
> 
> Did you have a specific one in mind? Naturally I read everything Danese
>> writes, but so far I have not seen her comment on the issue of whether and
>> how market research over-rides the interests of Apache members.
 
 Sorry, I am out of pocket and this thread is so long. Basically she is
>> talking about consulting one of the ASF's attorney's regarding the names and
>> brand dilution issues from a legal standpoint.
>>> 
>>> You are likely referring to this post then:
>>> 
>>> http://s.apache.org/UxA
>>> 
 I hadn't gotten to market research. I'm focused on migration and the
>> websites - all names are possible right now and in the future. I don't want
>> to tie the branding too tightly in the web design. The Apache CMS will allow
>> us to isolate these elements.
 
 Regards,
 Dave
>>> 
>>> - Sam Ruby
>> 

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Dave Fisher]

On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Raphael Bircher wrote:

> Am 13.07.11 01:47, schrieb Jomar Silva:
>> 
>> On 2011/6/12 19:38 Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
>> 
>>> While this is understandable, it is not good enough. We will have to
>>> find an
>>> alternative repository and link to it from Apache's website. This is
>>> something
>>> that can wait though.
>> Can you please explain the 'not good enough' and also propose an alternative 
>> solution ?
> You removed the answare. The fact that only Open Source extension are alowed 
> is not ideal. Everyone at OOo knows the storry about this topic. The wish to 
> have only Open Source extensions come from the FSF. This wish was refused by 
> the CC of OpenOffice.org with good reasons. I don't think, this reasons go 
> away only because we move to the ASF.
> 
> A Extension Repository with only Open Source Extension makes maybe the FSF 
> happy, but do not cover our need. So this is one more time more a ideological 
> question.

+1 - We should attempt to have the most complete and agnostic registry of all 
extensions and the most open collection of templates possible.

I've asked the contact that I made last night at OSUOSL for two things.

(1) Some statistics about the server.

(2) Contacts at Sun/Oracle who were working on the performance issues - which 
involve scale.

With data we have a better idea of what infrastructure is required.

I think we need to find out from Legal if the ASF actually has an issue with 
hosting differently licensed software on a machine that is not on the internet 
at *.apache.org, but on *.openoffice.org.

Regards,
Dave

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Raphael Bircher]

Am 13.07.11 01:47, schrieb Jomar Silva:


On 2011/6/12 19:38 Pedro Giffuni  wrote:


While this is understandable, it is not good enough. We will have to
find an
alternative repository and link to it from Apache's website. This is
something
that can wait though.

Can you please explain the 'not good enough' and also propose an alternative 
solution ?
You removed the answare. The fact that only Open Source extension are 
alowed is not ideal. Everyone at OOo knows the storry about this topic. 
The wish to have only Open Source extensions come from the FSF. This 
wish was refused by the CC of OpenOffice.org with good reasons. I don't 
think, this reasons go away only because we move to the ASF.


A Extension Repository with only Open Source Extension makes maybe the 
FSF happy, but do not cover our need. So this is one more time more a 
ideological question.



--
My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Danese Cooper]

To recap...I think this might be a slightly different situation than Apache
has previously experienced and it might be worth having the ASF Trademark
watchdogs and ASF lawyers talk through the pros and cons of what's possible
/ advisable to do in this special case.  That conversation could impact /
inform the naming strategy for various parts of the project and I think it
should happen soon.

D

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

> Yes, exactly!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 15:38, Dave Fisher wrote:
> 
>  On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> 
> >
> > On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
> >>
> >> Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking
> some
> >> deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective
> interests in
> >> one or the other direction.
> >>
> >> And in the end, the user rules, not any marketing speech.
> >
> > While that sounds good, I'm not sure it's the Apache way and I'd
> welcome a comment from one of the mentors.
> >
> 
>  See Daneese Cooper's emails.
> >>>
> >>> Did you have a specific one in mind? Naturally I read everything Danese
> writes, but so far I have not seen her comment on the issue of whether and
> how market research over-rides the interests of Apache members.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I am out of pocket and this thread is so long. Basically she is
> talking about consulting one of the ASF's attorney's regarding the names and
> brand dilution issues from a legal standpoint.
> >
> > You are likely referring to this post then:
> >
> > http://s.apache.org/UxA
> >
> >> I hadn't gotten to market research. I'm focused on migration and the
> websites - all names are possible right now and in the future. I don't want
> to tie the branding too tightly in the web design. The Apache CMS will allow
> us to isolate these elements.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
>

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Jomar Silva]

On 2011/6/12 19:38 Pedro Giffuni  wrote: 

> While this is understandable, it is not good enough. We will have to 
> find an
> alternative repository and link to it from Apache's website. This is 
> something
> that can wait though.

Can you please explain the 'not good enough' and also propose an alternative 
solution ?

Best,

Jomar

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[luizh...@gmail.com]

Hi,

2011/7/12 Pedro F. Giffuni 

>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/12/11, Graham Lauder  wrote:
> ,,,
> >
> > All this under the OpenOffice.org Brand.  There has
> > been a lot of noise around LibreOffice with those
> > Linux Distributions who used Go-OOo now distributing
> > with LO, but those numbers, compared to OOo across all
> > platforms are miniscule and I believe that will remain the
> > same unless of course this stalling of development, forced
> > on us by Oracle, continues or the brand is modified
> > violently so that we have re-establish our brand right
> > from the beginning.  In our consumer market tacking Apache
> > on the end would do just this.
>
> I don't think anyone will argue against keeping the
> "OpenOffice.org" product name, Apache owns the trademark and
> it has a value we want to preserve.
>
> The discussion is around the Project name:
>
> I strongly lean towards "Apache OpenOffice" because:
>

+1


>
> - Removing the .org is not a violent rebranding: people already
> refer to "OpenOffice.org" simply as "OpenOffice": look for
> OpenOffice on Google and you will find only OpenOffice.org.
> - Apache already has a .org in it's domain name.
> - Apache does add value to the name, even if it's likely to
> be known only by web administrators and developers.
>
> No matter what you decide, I think it's likely the end user will
> drop the .org and the Apache and just say "OpenOffice" to both
> the product and the project.
>
> Here in Brazil went through it. We remove the ".org" leaving only BrOffice
. And we're still living with two names/brands: BrOffice and LibreOffice (
although the same products). Not to mention users of OpenOffice.org.

Rgds,

Luiz

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Andy Brown]

Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:43:10 +0100, Simon Phipps  wrote:
> ...
>>
>>> >
>>> > As it happens I'd already started exploring this one with the Document
>>
>>>
>>> Is the intent to host all of the extensions currently at the OOo site?
>>>  Or a subset?  Or a different set?
>>>
>>
>> They host only extensions that have open source licenses, so the ones
>> at the
>> OOo site that have proprietary licenses are not hosted.
>>
> 
> While this is understandable, it is not good enough. We will have to
> find an
> alternative repository and link to it from Apache's website. This is
> something
> that can wait though.
> 
> Pedro

This is being worked on at this time.

Andy

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Simon Phipps]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >>>
>  Another option that comes to mind:
> 
>  3) Have OOo extensions hosted by a 3rd party website and we link to
>  that site.  It is done that way essentially now with OSL.  But I think
>  we'll want to be more explicit about such links to 3rd party sites
>  going forward, stating that this is not Apache code, etc.
> 
>  Also, if most of the extensions are applicable to LibreOffice and
>  other derived products, as well as OpenOffice, then this might be an
>  opportunity for collaboration with The Document Foundation on a common
>  extension repository.
> 
> >>>
> >>> As it happens I'd already started exploring this one with the Document
> >>> Foundation Steering Committee, and Jomar Silva raised it on the
> >> TDF-Discuss
> >>> list. TDF are just about to launch a full version of their extensions &
> >>> templates system and they would be perfectly happy for AOOo to redirect
> >> the
> >>> URL that OpenOffice.org is using to access the repository so that it
> uses
> >>> the system TDF are hosting for LibreOffice.
> >>
> >> Is the intent to host all of the extensions currently at the OOo site?
> >> Or a subset?  Or a different set?
> >>
> >
> > They host only extensions that have open source licenses, so the ones at
> the
> > OOo site that have proprietary licenses are not hosted.
>
> I'd like to have a central catalog of all extensions, commercial as
> well as open source.  Not necessarily hosting them, but having the
> basic metadata with links to whatever site hosts them. If we have
> something like this then we can escape the need for having a singe
> host site that gates user visibility of extensions based on eclectic
> things like license considerations.   You could even have multiple
> such catalogs. Maybe some which curate only GPL extensions for
> example.
>
> To do something like the above would require agreeing on a metadata
> description file for extension authors.
>

Sounds like a job for the ODF Plugfest (or at least a subset of its
attendees).

Meanwhile, the offer stands as a practical and pragmatic solution to keep
end users running during the transition.

S.

RE: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Good point, Rob.  I am not floating a proposal, more an opportunity for 
discussion.  Here are some questions:

 1. When should we conclude that the Initial Committers that have arrived are 
all that are coming and we should close the door, with all further committers 
being by invitation of the PPMC?

 2. A person is considered eligible to become a committer when there is an 
established pattern of contribution on the project: 
.

  2.1 To what degree should contributions elsewhere -- a prior reputation -- be 
taken into consideration?
  2.2 For how long should we do this, if at all?

 3. What do you expect to see as demonstration that the PPMC is being 
even-handed in the invitation of new committers?  

 4. Is it understood why the ooo-secur...@incubator.apache.org list is being 
created and the safeguards that are intended with regard to the security under 
which matters of security are raised?  

 5. Most important: This is a learning experience for all of us.  What do you 
want cleared up around these growing-pain considerations?

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:rabas...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 14:34
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains

Is this intended as a blog post?  It reads like one. In particular I
don't see any proposals to discuss.

-Rob

On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:30 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton"  wrote:

> We are just one month into being the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling.  It is 
> useful to interesting to take stock of all that is happening and where we are.
>
> The main activity that we are all holding our breath over is the 
> reconstitution of the code base under Apache.  There is also concern for the 
> documentation and web sites and how they fit under an Apache umbrella.
>
> Depending on their interests and specialties, not everyone here is 
> immediately able to contribute much.  We are in the process of organizing and 
> bringing over and IP-scrubbing the initial artifacts for the project that 
> will be the foundation for further work.  There is not much to get our teeth 
> into in terms of actual development until that is sorted out.  (E.g., we 
> don't have a bug tracker yet and the documentation, localization, and 
> user-facing folk, including marketing, are still wondering how our project 
> will accommodate them.)
>
> Meanwhile, there is also how we organize ourselves to operate as an Apache 
> project.
>
> - Dennis
>
>1. BOOTSTRAPPING COMMITTERS AND THE PPMC
>2. HOW LONG IS THE OPEN DOOR OPEN?
>3. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO BE A COMMITTER AS TIME GOES ON?
>4. WHEN BEING MORE PRIVATE THAN PRIVATE IS IMPORTANT
>
>
> 1. BOOTSTRAPPING COMMITTERS AND THE PPMC
>
> The set of Initial Committers is a self-selected group who added their names 
> to the Initial Committers list on the original incubator proposal.  That's 
> how the podling is bootstrapped.  Likewise, ooo-dev participation is fully 
> self-selected, and it will stay that way.
>
> This means that we are a group of people who have not worked together as a 
> single Apache project community before, even though there are a variety of 
> mutual acquaintances and associations in the mix.
>
> Of the Initial Committers, a subset were eager to be on the project and have 
> arrived. That is the overwhelming source of the current 54 committers, 41 
> also being on the PPMC.
>
> 2. HOW LONG IS THE OPEN DOOR OPEN?
>
> There are still about two-dozen Initial Committers who have not yet 
> registered an iCLA. We don't know if they are arriving or not.  One issue is 
> when to close the door on initial committers who have taken no initiative to 
> be here, although reminders have been sent out.
>
> It is also the case that all initial committers are welcome to participate in 
> the PPMC but not all have taken action to do so.  At some point, the PPMC 
> will not grow automatically and that also needs to be resolved.
>
> 3. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO BE A COMMITTER AS TIME GOES ON?
>
> We vote on other committers the same as any [P]PMC.  The addition of two 
> invited committers has already been reported.
>
> One thing that concerns the PPMC (who, for all but two members, walked 
> through an open door) is how and when do we move from consideration of 
> previous reputation and being known to some of us to a situation where 
> contribution on the podling is the determining factor.  We're working our way 
> through that.  The PPMC is also concerned that, although the addition of new 
> committers and new PPMC members is carried out in private, we be transparent 
> about how we are conducting ourselves and that we demonstrate that we are 
> even-handed about it.
>
> It is not clear what the ooo-dev community wants to see and what the 
> understood progression to the normal rules for invitation of committers 
> should be.
>
>
> 4. WHEN BEING MORE PRIVATE THAN PRIVATE IS IMPORTANT
>
> The PPMC is responsi

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Rob Weir]

On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Simon Phipps  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>>
 Another option that comes to mind:

 3) Have OOo extensions hosted by a 3rd party website and we link to
 that site.  It is done that way essentially now with OSL.  But I think
 we'll want to be more explicit about such links to 3rd party sites
 going forward, stating that this is not Apache code, etc.

 Also, if most of the extensions are applicable to LibreOffice and
 other derived products, as well as OpenOffice, then this might be an
 opportunity for collaboration with The Document Foundation on a common
 extension repository.

>>>
>>> As it happens I'd already started exploring this one with the Document
>>> Foundation Steering Committee, and Jomar Silva raised it on the
>> TDF-Discuss
>>> list. TDF are just about to launch a full version of their extensions &
>>> templates system and they would be perfectly happy for AOOo to redirect
>> the
>>> URL that OpenOffice.org is using to access the repository so that it uses
>>> the system TDF are hosting for LibreOffice.
>>
>> Is the intent to host all of the extensions currently at the OOo site?
>> Or a subset?  Or a different set?
>>
>
> They host only extensions that have open source licenses, so the ones at the
> OOo site that have proprietary licenses are not hosted.

I'd like to have a central catalog of all extensions, commercial as
well as open source.  Not necessarily hosting them, but having the
basic metadata with links to whatever site hosts them. If we have
something like this then we can escape the need for having a singe
host site that gates user visibility of extensions based on eclectic
things like license considerations.   You could even have multiple
such catalogs. Maybe some which curate only GPL extensions for
example.

To do something like the above would require agreeing on a metadata
description file for extension authors.

I think this is complementary to TDF's interest in hosting open source
extensions.

> S.

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Pedro Giffuni]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:43:10 +0100, Simon Phipps  
wrote:

...



>
> As it happens I'd already started exploring this one with the 
Document




Is the intent to host all of the extensions currently at the OOo 
site?

 Or a subset?  Or a different set?



They host only extensions that have open source licenses, so the ones 
at the

OOo site that have proprietary licenses are not hosted.



While this is understandable, it is not good enough. We will have to 
find an
alternative repository and link to it from Apache's website. This is 
something

that can wait though.

Pedro

Re: Script to generate mail archive URL from message

[Daniel Shahaf]

If you'd like to propose changes to the list software, approach the
Infrastructure team.  We use ezmlm.

Eike Rathke wrote on Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 22:44:57 +0200:
> Hi,
> 
> Seen that every message to the mailing list can be retrieved from the
> archive using an URL of the form
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/MM.mbox/%3CMessage-ID%3E
> I hacked a script that parses a message from stdin to generate the
> corresponding URL, attached. In Mutt this can be invoked as pipe on
> a message with
> 
> |apache-mail-archive-url.pl
> 
> Using Thunderbird you probably have to save the raw message as file
> first unless there is an add-on to invoke arbitrary commands on
> a message.
> 
> Best of course would be if the mailing list software would insert
> a header X-Archive-URL before distributing the message that could be
> copied to the clipboard.
> 
>   Eike
> 
> -- 
>  PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
>  Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3  9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Simon Phipps]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >
> >> Another option that comes to mind:
> >>
> >> 3) Have OOo extensions hosted by a 3rd party website and we link to
> >> that site.  It is done that way essentially now with OSL.  But I think
> >> we'll want to be more explicit about such links to 3rd party sites
> >> going forward, stating that this is not Apache code, etc.
> >>
> >> Also, if most of the extensions are applicable to LibreOffice and
> >> other derived products, as well as OpenOffice, then this might be an
> >> opportunity for collaboration with The Document Foundation on a common
> >> extension repository.
> >>
> >
> > As it happens I'd already started exploring this one with the Document
> > Foundation Steering Committee, and Jomar Silva raised it on the
> TDF-Discuss
> > list. TDF are just about to launch a full version of their extensions &
> > templates system and they would be perfectly happy for AOOo to redirect
> the
> > URL that OpenOffice.org is using to access the repository so that it uses
> > the system TDF are hosting for LibreOffice.
>
> Is the intent to host all of the extensions currently at the OOo site?
>  Or a subset?  Or a different set?
>

They host only extensions that have open source licenses, so the ones at the
OOo site that have proprietary licenses are not hosted.

S.

Re: Script to generate mail archive URL from message

[Christian Lohmaier]

Hi Eike, *,

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Eike Rathke  wrote:
>
> Seen that every message to the mailing list can be retrieved from the
> archive using an URL of the form
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/MM.mbox/%3CMessage-ID%3E
> I hacked a script that parses a message from stdin to generate the
> corresponding URL, [...]
>
> Best of course would be if the mailing list software would insert
> a header X-Archive-URL before distributing the message that could be
> copied to the clipboard.

Link to the mail-archive.com archives can be created in a similar
manner - hash the id & the list-post address (the libreoffice org
lists (the ones managed by TDF, so not the dev-list that is run by
freedesktop.org make use of that)
sample code to compute the link:
http://www.mail-archive.com/faq.html#listserver

example from your post
msg-id 20110712204457.gc25...@ulungele.erack.de
list-address ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
resulting hash-link:
http://go.mail-archive.com/-hoB_qRELeVC89tPxbrUdp5fd_U=

ciao
Christian

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Rob Weir]

On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Simon Phipps  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
>> Another option that comes to mind:
>>
>> 3) Have OOo extensions hosted by a 3rd party website and we link to
>> that site.  It is done that way essentially now with OSL.  But I think
>> we'll want to be more explicit about such links to 3rd party sites
>> going forward, stating that this is not Apache code, etc.
>>
>> Also, if most of the extensions are applicable to LibreOffice and
>> other derived products, as well as OpenOffice, then this might be an
>> opportunity for collaboration with The Document Foundation on a common
>> extension repository.
>>
>
> As it happens I'd already started exploring this one with the Document
> Foundation Steering Committee, and Jomar Silva raised it on the TDF-Discuss
> list. TDF are just about to launch a full version of their extensions &
> templates system and they would be perfectly happy for AOOo to redirect the
> URL that OpenOffice.org is using to access the repository so that it uses
> the system TDF are hosting for LibreOffice.

Is the intent to host all of the extensions currently at the OOo site?
 Or a subset?  Or a different set?


>
> They are also happy for this arrangement to continue for as long as it makes
> sense, and have no problem with a shared repository indefinitely. Like
> Apache, they are only willing to host open source packages, so if anyone
> wanted a system that also hosted closed packages it would need to be created

> as a downstream of TDF's system
> I'm happy to act as a liaison on this if necessary, as I suspect is Jomar.
>
> S.

Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains

[Rob Weir]

Is this intended as a blog post?  It reads like one. In particular I
don't see any proposals to discuss.

-Rob

On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:30 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton"  wrote:

> We are just one month into being the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling.  It is 
> useful to interesting to take stock of all that is happening and where we are.
>
> The main activity that we are all holding our breath over is the 
> reconstitution of the code base under Apache.  There is also concern for the 
> documentation and web sites and how they fit under an Apache umbrella.
>
> Depending on their interests and specialties, not everyone here is 
> immediately able to contribute much.  We are in the process of organizing and 
> bringing over and IP-scrubbing the initial artifacts for the project that 
> will be the foundation for further work.  There is not much to get our teeth 
> into in terms of actual development until that is sorted out.  (E.g., we 
> don't have a bug tracker yet and the documentation, localization, and 
> user-facing folk, including marketing, are still wondering how our project 
> will accommodate them.)
>
> Meanwhile, there is also how we organize ourselves to operate as an Apache 
> project.
>
> - Dennis
>
>1. BOOTSTRAPPING COMMITTERS AND THE PPMC
>2. HOW LONG IS THE OPEN DOOR OPEN?
>3. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO BE A COMMITTER AS TIME GOES ON?
>4. WHEN BEING MORE PRIVATE THAN PRIVATE IS IMPORTANT
>
>
> 1. BOOTSTRAPPING COMMITTERS AND THE PPMC
>
> The set of Initial Committers is a self-selected group who added their names 
> to the Initial Committers list on the original incubator proposal.  That's 
> how the podling is bootstrapped.  Likewise, ooo-dev participation is fully 
> self-selected, and it will stay that way.
>
> This means that we are a group of people who have not worked together as a 
> single Apache project community before, even though there are a variety of 
> mutual acquaintances and associations in the mix.
>
> Of the Initial Committers, a subset were eager to be on the project and have 
> arrived. That is the overwhelming source of the current 54 committers, 41 
> also being on the PPMC.
>
> 2. HOW LONG IS THE OPEN DOOR OPEN?
>
> There are still about two-dozen Initial Committers who have not yet 
> registered an iCLA. We don't know if they are arriving or not.  One issue is 
> when to close the door on initial committers who have taken no initiative to 
> be here, although reminders have been sent out.
>
> It is also the case that all initial committers are welcome to participate in 
> the PPMC but not all have taken action to do so.  At some point, the PPMC 
> will not grow automatically and that also needs to be resolved.
>
> 3. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO BE A COMMITTER AS TIME GOES ON?
>
> We vote on other committers the same as any [P]PMC.  The addition of two 
> invited committers has already been reported.
>
> One thing that concerns the PPMC (who, for all but two members, walked 
> through an open door) is how and when do we move from consideration of 
> previous reputation and being known to some of us to a situation where 
> contribution on the podling is the determining factor.  We're working our way 
> through that.  The PPMC is also concerned that, although the addition of new 
> committers and new PPMC members is carried out in private, we be transparent 
> about how we are conducting ourselves and that we demonstrate that we are 
> even-handed about it.
>
> It is not clear what the ooo-dev community wants to see and what the 
> understood progression to the normal rules for invitation of committers 
> should be.
>
>
> 4. WHEN BEING MORE PRIVATE THAN PRIVATE IS IMPORTANT
>
> The PPMC is responsible for dealing, quietly and privately, with security 
> matters and their resolution.  The security@ team informs us that because we 
> have so many members who are unknown here and also to each other at this 
> point, a limited ooo-secur...@incubator.apache.org list is essential.  We 
> need to identify those few among us who have appropriate skills and 
> sensibilities around security matters and who can keep their work secret when 
> that is appropriate.
>
> For this, we want to know who has been on the security teams of 
> OpenOffice.org and who happen to be here also.  There will also be 
> cross-communication with other security teams that operate on the same code 
> base, or in some cases, that operate on the same document formats.
>
> We will be going ahead with the creation of the private ooo-security list for 
> that purpose.  What we are waiting for is identification of three moderators 
> who are distributed around the earth's time zones well enough to provide 
> moderation of incoming reports in something approximating 24/7 coverage.
>
> [end]
>

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Jomar Silva]

> As it happens I'd already started exploring this one with the Document
> Foundation Steering Committee, and Jomar Silva raised it on the TDF-Discuss
> list. TDF are just about to launch a full version of their extensions &
> templates system and they would be perfectly happy for AOOo to redirect the
> URL that OpenOffice.org is using to access the repository so that it uses
> the system TDF are hosting for LibreOffice.
>
> They are also happy for this arrangement to continue for as long as it makes
> sense, and have no problem with a shared repository indefinitely. Like
> Apache, they are only willing to host open source packages, so if anyone
> wanted a system that also hosted closed packages it would need to be created
> as a downstream of TDF's system.
>
> I'm happy to act as a liaison on this if necessary, as I suspect is Jomar.
>
> S.
>

I'll be happy too :)

Jomar

Script to generate mail archive URL from message

[Eike Rathke]

Hi,

Seen that every message to the mailing list can be retrieved from the
archive using an URL of the form
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/MM.mbox/%3CMessage-ID%3E
I hacked a script that parses a message from stdin to generate the
corresponding URL, attached. In Mutt this can be invoked as pipe on
a message with

|apache-mail-archive-url.pl

Using Thunderbird you probably have to save the raw message as file
first unless there is an add-on to invoke arbitrary commands on
a message.

Best of course would be if the mailing list software would insert
a header X-Archive-URL before distributing the message that could be
copied to the clipboard.

  Eike

-- 
 PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
 Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3  9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD


apache-mail-archive-url.pl
Description: Perl program


pgpgqD9wXEwAc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Simon Phipps]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:

>  Another option that comes to mind:
>
> 3) Have OOo extensions hosted by a 3rd party website and we link to
> that site.  It is done that way essentially now with OSL.  But I think
> we'll want to be more explicit about such links to 3rd party sites
> going forward, stating that this is not Apache code, etc.
>
> Also, if most of the extensions are applicable to LibreOffice and
> other derived products, as well as OpenOffice, then this might be an
> opportunity for collaboration with The Document Foundation on a common
> extension repository.
>

As it happens I'd already started exploring this one with the Document
Foundation Steering Committee, and Jomar Silva raised it on the TDF-Discuss
list. TDF are just about to launch a full version of their extensions &
templates system and they would be perfectly happy for AOOo to redirect the
URL that OpenOffice.org is using to access the repository so that it uses
the system TDF are hosting for LibreOffice.

They are also happy for this arrangement to continue for as long as it makes
sense, and have no problem with a shared repository indefinitely. Like
Apache, they are only willing to host open source packages, so if anyone
wanted a system that also hosted closed packages it would need to be created
as a downstream of TDF's system.

I'm happy to act as a liaison on this if necessary, as I suspect is Jomar.

S.

[DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

We are just one month into being the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling.  It is 
useful to interesting to take stock of all that is happening and where we are.

The main activity that we are all holding our breath over is the reconstitution 
of the code base under Apache.  There is also concern for the documentation and 
web sites and how they fit under an Apache umbrella.

Depending on their interests and specialties, not everyone here is immediately 
able to contribute much.  We are in the process of organizing and bringing over 
and IP-scrubbing the initial artifacts for the project that will be the 
foundation for further work.  There is not much to get our teeth into in terms 
of actual development until that is sorted out.  (E.g., we don't have a bug 
tracker yet and the documentation, localization, and user-facing folk, 
including marketing, are still wondering how our project will accommodate them.)

Meanwhile, there is also how we organize ourselves to operate as an Apache 
project.

 - Dennis

1. BOOTSTRAPPING COMMITTERS AND THE PPMC
2. HOW LONG IS THE OPEN DOOR OPEN?
3. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO BE A COMMITTER AS TIME GOES ON?
4. WHEN BEING MORE PRIVATE THAN PRIVATE IS IMPORTANT


 1. BOOTSTRAPPING COMMITTERS AND THE PPMC

The set of Initial Committers is a self-selected group who added their names to 
the Initial Committers list on the original incubator proposal.  That's how the 
podling is bootstrapped.  Likewise, ooo-dev participation is fully 
self-selected, and it will stay that way.

This means that we are a group of people who have not worked together as a 
single Apache project community before, even though there are a variety of 
mutual acquaintances and associations in the mix.

Of the Initial Committers, a subset were eager to be on the project and have 
arrived. That is the overwhelming source of the current 54 committers, 41 also 
being on the PPMC.

 2. HOW LONG IS THE OPEN DOOR OPEN?

There are still about two-dozen Initial Committers who have not yet registered 
an iCLA. We don't know if they are arriving or not.  One issue is when to close 
the door on initial committers who have taken no initiative to be here, 
although reminders have been sent out. 

It is also the case that all initial committers are welcome to participate in 
the PPMC but not all have taken action to do so.  At some point, the PPMC will 
not grow automatically and that also needs to be resolved.

 3. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO BE A COMMITTER AS TIME GOES ON?

We vote on other committers the same as any [P]PMC.  The addition of two 
invited committers has already been reported.

One thing that concerns the PPMC (who, for all but two members, walked through 
an open door) is how and when do we move from consideration of previous 
reputation and being known to some of us to a situation where contribution on 
the podling is the determining factor.  We're working our way through that.  
The PPMC is also concerned that, although the addition of new committers and 
new PPMC members is carried out in private, we be transparent about how we are 
conducting ourselves and that we demonstrate that we are even-handed about it.  

It is not clear what the ooo-dev community wants to see and what the understood 
progression to the normal rules for invitation of committers should be.


 4. WHEN BEING MORE PRIVATE THAN PRIVATE IS IMPORTANT

The PPMC is responsible for dealing, quietly and privately, with security 
matters and their resolution.  The security@ team informs us that because we 
have so many members who are unknown here and also to each other at this point, 
a limited ooo-secur...@incubator.apache.org list is essential.  We need to 
identify those few among us who have appropriate skills and sensibilities 
around security matters and who can keep their work secret when that is 
appropriate.  

For this, we want to know who has been on the security teams of OpenOffice.org 
and who happen to be here also.  There will also be cross-communication with 
other security teams that operate on the same code base, or in some cases, that 
operate on the same document formats.

We will be going ahead with the creation of the private ooo-security list for 
that purpose.  What we are waiting for is identification of three moderators 
who are distributed around the earth's time zones well enough to provide 
moderation of incoming reports in something approximating 24/7 coverage.  

[end]

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Rob Weir]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>> I sent an email to supp...@osuosl.org last night and got a response in 30 
>> minutes.
>>
>> OSUOSL admin says:
>>
>>> Looks like varnish died on the machine and I just kicked it. The site(s)
>>> should be back online now.
>>>
>>> The sites have been in an unstable state for quite a while mostly
>>> because neither we (OSL) nor Sun/Oracle had time to fix the performance
>>> issues both of the sites entails. Couple that with the fact that the
>>> machines they power those sites are very underpower considering the load
>>> they take. It's gotten so bad that we've turned off notifications
>>> because they just go off all the time.
>>>
>>> What really needs to happen is to have the sites completely
>>> re-architected from the ground up with scaling in mind. At least one of
>>> the sites is a stock Drupal 5.0 with a very hacked core. I know some
>>> Sun/Oracle engineers had been working on fixing that into a Drupal 6
>>> module but I'm not sure where that left off.
>>>
>>> Anyways, If you would like some more help with how these sites can be
>>> fixed moving forward, please let me know. But we are strectched thin for
>>> resources.
>>
>> It looks like these two sites are going to need attention whether they are 
>> physically moved or the servers transferred to the ASF.
>>
>
> Since the extensions site has 3rd party code that is not under Apache
> 2.0 license, we have two options:
>
> 1) The new extensions.openoffice.org site hosts no code or binaries.
> It is simply a directory of 3rd party extensions and links to outside
> sites for the actual files.
>
> 2) Optionally, in conjunction with #1, host the extension source and
> distributions at http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/ .
>  That is where Apache projects host things like this.
>

Another option that comes to mind:

3) Have OOo extensions hosted by a 3rd party website and we link to
that site.  It is done that way essentially now with OSL.  But I think
we'll want to be more explicit about such links to 3rd party sites
going forward, stating that this is not Apache code, etc.

Also, if most of the extensions are applicable to LibreOffice and
other derived products, as well as OpenOffice, then this might be an
opportunity for collaboration with The Document Foundation on a common
extension repository.


>> Rob says:
>>
>>> Can we make it a priority to migrate these two site to Apache?  We
>>> need volunteers to do this.  Nothing happens by magic here. We need
>>> volunteers to define the technical requirements and work with Apache
>>> Infrastructure to make this happen.  Hopefully we'd make some platform
>>> and technology choices that would be more stable than the current
>>> site.  I'd recommend moving and then asking Oracle to redirect
>>> requests for those two subdomains to Apache.
>>
>> We did get a zone file yesterday, but it was missing these two domains. I 
>> think that the track is to transfer the domain and zone dns to the ASF first 
>> and then we will be able to do what we want.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Reizinger Zoltán  
>>> wrote:
 2011.07.11. 15:41 keltezéssel, TJ Frazier írta:
>
> On 7/11/2011 07:28, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>> Reizinger Zoltán wrote:
>>>
>>> The two sites works sporadically, needs four five web page refresh to
>>> load:
>>> http://templates.services.openoffice.org/
>>> http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/
>>> To help OOo present users, needs to stabilize sites work.
>>> Somebody knows what the cause of this problem.
>>
>> Yes, I posted some more details in this message a few weeks ago:
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201106.mbox/browser
>> and I don't have further updates available.
>>
>> Note that those sites are not part of the Oracle infrastructure.
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Andrea.
>>
> Hi, all,
>
> Andrea Pescetti's helpful message is easier to find here:
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201106.mbox/%3c1308391724.2986.34.camel@localhost.localdomain%3e
>
> since it is titled, "Re: Bugzilla or JIRA? ..." etc.
>
> Oregon State University Open Source Lab hosts the extensions site, and
> some Apache-related things as well. Just for fun, I tried looking up
> OSUOSL's service ticket #18367, but their website was impenetrable to my
> relatively feeble search attempts.
>
> As a systems programmer (retired), I used to read a lot of tickets, and it
> was my job to solve them. I find this protracted trouble curious, to say 
> the
> least. :-/

 It seems to me it is an abandoned site, nobody care for it, it hurt all OOo
 effort if we not find a solution to restart, the users ask every day on
 forum which way t

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog) - Take care of the users!

[Rob Weir]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
> I am going to maintain my neutrality, but I think there is one thing to keep 
> in mind.
>
> Every time a URL changes, you lose people.  Every time you break a (deep) 
> link that someone bookmarked, you risk losing someone.  Every time a way that 
> worked before in finding service or support or software or anything else 
> changes, you lose people.  You also increase the prospect for interlopers to 
> manager their SEO and advertising in a manner that interferes with people 
> finding what they were really looking for.  How many faux services are 
> already offering OpenOffice.org downloads?  I'm afraid to look.
>
> So, disruption disrupts.  It's in the nature of disruption that you don't 
> know how life will be on the other side.
>

The beauty of Apache mod_rewrite is we can rename the project to
"Apache Guano" if we want and still not disrupt users.  Even if we
don't rename the project at all, and stick with "OpenOffice.org",
we're still going to need to define a ton of redirects, just because
of infrastructure changes.

So I've always been assuming the general goal of not disrupting
incoming links, even reasonable deep links.  But mod_rewrite gives a
level of indirection (no pun intended) that enables flexibility with
how we ultimately deploy the assets.  Things can be moved around and
renamed, if it makes more sense for us, and we can avoid disrupting
incoming links.

> This comes down to two questions, it seems to me:
>
>  1. How do we arrange for people to be able to still use what they already 
> know to access and use OpenOffice.org resources?
>
>  2. What do we do to have this still provide what they are expecting to find 
> (which may be the more difficult question)?
>
> This is about how people are served and about how we demonstrate care for 
> that.
>
> I would suggest that no matter what we call things, an over-riding concern is 
> how we provide continuity with all [*.]openoffice.org web locations and how 
> we serve the community that relies on them as well as we are able.  Where we 
> are not able to provide what is already expected, we demonstrate our care for 
> those who arrive there and assist them as well as we can manage.
>
> If we don't accomplish that, protecting the brand becomes irrelevant.  No 
> matter what, people ultimately respond to what we do, not what we say, not 
> what we claim.  Maintaining goodwill requires good deeds.  Brands are 
> perishable.  Customer loyalty has to be earned every day.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 17:57
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
>
> +1
>
> That works for me, conceptually.  I don't have any history with 
> OpenOffice.org, the project, however, so I intend to stay neutral on how this 
> gets thrashed out.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 16:54
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
>
> It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the
> development project and the product brand names exactly the same.
>
> If there are indeed going to to be 2 websites, OpenOffice.org which is
> where end users go to get the product, help, etc. and the
> .apache.org where the development project resides.
>
> I understand the need to maintain the product brand.
>
> +1 to keep OpenOffice.org the product (at least near term).
>
> I think the Apache brand strenthens the project development and that's
> one reason I'm here.
>
> +1 for Apache OpenOffice the project.
>
> Looking at the people listing, it's possible not all members are here
> because of OpenOffice.org the product, but common development of the
> code base.
>
> Best regards,
> Carl
>
>

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Pedro F. Giffuni]

--- On Tue, 7/12/11, Graham Lauder  wrote:
,,,
> 
> All this under the OpenOffice.org Brand.  There has
> been a lot of noise around LibreOffice with those
> Linux Distributions who used Go-OOo now distributing
> with LO, but those numbers, compared to OOo across all
> platforms are miniscule and I believe that will remain the
> same unless of course this stalling of development, forced
> on us by Oracle, continues or the brand is modified
> violently so that we have re-establish our brand right
> from the beginning.  In our consumer market tacking Apache
> on the end would do just this.

I don't think anyone will argue against keeping the
"OpenOffice.org" product name, Apache owns the trademark and
it has a value we want to preserve.

The discussion is around the Project name:

I strongly lean towards "Apache OpenOffice" because:

- Removing the .org is not a violent rebranding: people already
refer to "OpenOffice.org" simply as "OpenOffice": look for
OpenOffice on Google and you will find only OpenOffice.org.
- Apache already has a .org in it's domain name.
- Apache does add value to the name, even if it's likely to
be known only by web administrators and developers.

No matter what you decide, I think it's likely the end user will
drop the .org and the Apache and just say "OpenOffice" to both
the product and the project.

cheers,

Pedro.

RE: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog) - Take care of the users!

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I am going to maintain my neutrality, but I think there is one thing to keep in 
mind.

Every time a URL changes, you lose people.  Every time you break a (deep) link 
that someone bookmarked, you risk losing someone.  Every time a way that worked 
before in finding service or support or software or anything else changes, you 
lose people.  You also increase the prospect for interlopers to manager their 
SEO and advertising in a manner that interferes with people finding what they 
were really looking for.  How many faux services are already offering 
OpenOffice.org downloads?  I'm afraid to look.

So, disruption disrupts.  It's in the nature of disruption that you don't know 
how life will be on the other side.

This comes down to two questions, it seems to me:

 1. How do we arrange for people to be able to still use what they already know 
to access and use OpenOffice.org resources?

 2. What do we do to have this still provide what they are expecting to find 
(which may be the more difficult question)?

This is about how people are served and about how we demonstrate care for that.

I would suggest that no matter what we call things, an over-riding concern is 
how we provide continuity with all [*.]openoffice.org web locations and how we 
serve the community that relies on them as well as we are able.  Where we are 
not able to provide what is already expected, we demonstrate our care for those 
who arrive there and assist them as well as we can manage.

If we don't accomplish that, protecting the brand becomes irrelevant.  No 
matter what, people ultimately respond to what we do, not what we say, not what 
we claim.  Maintaining goodwill requires good deeds.  Brands are perishable.  
Customer loyalty has to be earned every day.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 17:57
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

+1 

That works for me, conceptually.  I don't have any history with OpenOffice.org, 
the project, however, so I intend to stay neutral on how this gets thrashed out.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org] 
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 16:54
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the 
development project and the product brand names exactly the same.

If there are indeed going to to be 2 websites, OpenOffice.org which is 
where end users go to get the product, help, etc. and the 
.apache.org where the development project resides.

I understand the need to maintain the product brand.

+1 to keep OpenOffice.org the product (at least near term).

I think the Apache brand strenthens the project development and that's 
one reason I'm here.

+1 for Apache OpenOffice the project.

Looking at the people listing, it's possible not all members are here 
because of OpenOffice.org the product, but common development of the 
code base.

Best regards,
Carl

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Dave Fisher]

Yes, exactly!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Sam Ruby  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>> 
>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 15:38, Dave Fisher wrote:
 
 On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
 
> 
> On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
>> 
>> Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking some
>> deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective interests in
>> one or the other direction.
>> 
>> And in the end, the user rules, not any marketing speech.
> 
> While that sounds good, I'm not sure it's the Apache way and I'd welcome 
> a comment from one of the mentors.
> 
 
 See Daneese Cooper's emails.
>>> 
>>> Did you have a specific one in mind? Naturally I read everything Danese 
>>> writes, but so far I have not seen her comment on the issue of whether and 
>>> how market research over-rides the interests of Apache members.
>> 
>> Sorry, I am out of pocket and this thread is so long. Basically she is 
>> talking about consulting one of the ASF's attorney's regarding the names and 
>> brand dilution issues from a legal standpoint.
> 
> You are likely referring to this post then:
> 
> http://s.apache.org/UxA
> 
>> I hadn't gotten to market research. I'm focused on migration and the 
>> websites - all names are possible right now and in the future. I don't want 
>> to tie the branding too tightly in the web design. The Apache CMS will allow 
>> us to isolate these elements.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
> 
> - Sam Ruby

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Sam Ruby]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>>
>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 15:38, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>

 On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
>
> Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking some
> deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective interests in
> one or the other direction.
>
> And in the end, the user rules, not any marketing speech.

 While that sounds good, I'm not sure it's the Apache way and I'd welcome a 
 comment from one of the mentors.

>>>
>>> See Daneese Cooper's emails.
>>
>> Did you have a specific one in mind? Naturally I read everything Danese 
>> writes, but so far I have not seen her comment on the issue of whether and 
>> how market research over-rides the interests of Apache members.
>
> Sorry, I am out of pocket and this thread is so long. Basically she is 
> talking about consulting one of the ASF's attorney's regarding the names and 
> brand dilution issues from a legal standpoint.

You are likely referring to this post then:

http://s.apache.org/UxA

> I hadn't gotten to market research. I'm focused on migration and the websites 
> - all names are possible right now and in the future. I don't want to tie the 
> branding too tightly in the web design. The Apache CMS will allow us to 
> isolate these elements.
>
> Regards,
> Dave

- Sam Ruby

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Dave Fisher]

On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:

> 
> On 12 Jul 2011, at 15:38, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> 
>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
 
 Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking some
 deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective interests in
 one or the other direction.
 
 And in the end, the user rules, not any marketing speech.
>>> 
>>> While that sounds good, I'm not sure it's the Apache way and I'd welcome a 
>>> comment from one of the mentors.
>>> 
>> 
>> See Daneese Cooper's emails.
> 
> Did you have a specific one in mind? Naturally I read everything Danese 
> writes, but so far I have not seen her comment on the issue of whether and 
> how market research over-rides the interests of Apache members.

Sorry, I am out of pocket and this thread is so long. Basically she is talking 
about consulting one of the ASF's attorney's regarding the names and brand 
dilution issues from a legal standpoint.

I hadn't gotten to market research. I'm focused on migration and the websites - 
all names are possible right now and in the future. I don't want to tie the 
branding too tightly in the web design. The Apache CMS will allow us to isolate 
these elements.

Regards,
Dave

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Simon Phipps]

On 12 Jul 2011, at 15:38, Dave Fisher wrote:
> 
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
>>> 
>>> Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking some
>>> deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective interests in
>>> one or the other direction.
>>> 
>>> And in the end, the user rules, not any marketing speech.
>> 
>> While that sounds good, I'm not sure it's the Apache way and I'd welcome a 
>> comment from one of the mentors.
>> 
> 
> See Daneese Cooper's emails.

Did you have a specific one in mind? Naturally I read everything Danese writes, 
but so far I have not seen her comment on the issue of whether and how market 
research over-rides the interests of Apache members.

S.

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Sam Ruby]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>>
>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking some
>>> deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective interests in
>>> one or the other direction.
>>>
>>> And in the end, the user rules, not any marketing speech.
>>
>> While that sounds good, I'm not sure it's the Apache way and I'd welcome a 
>> comment from one of the mentors.
>
> I'm taking Kai's statement as stating the obvious: that a branding
> decision is best informed by data on what the target market thinks,
> not what the marketeers think.  The interpretation of the evidence and
> execution of a branding strategy, would be up to the PPMC, in
> conjunction with Apache Branding.

I agree with the concluding sentence in the above (the merits of the
preceding sentence is up to the PPMC and Apache Branding to determine,
not the mentors).  Meanwhile, what near term decision needs to be
made?

I'll note that the incubator page list this project as openofficeorg

I'll note that this list is called ooo-dev.

I'll note that the subversion repository is ooo.

I'll note that the names of the wikis are OOOUSER and OOODEV.

Should any of these change now?  And if so, why?

What future decisions will need to be made, and what are the todos?
Many ASF projects track things like this by the creation of a simple
file named STATUS in svn.  Alternately, this could be placed on a wiki
page.

> -Rob

- Sam Ruby

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Rob Weir]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
> I sent an email to supp...@osuosl.org last night and got a response in 30 
> minutes.
>
> OSUOSL admin says:
>
>> Looks like varnish died on the machine and I just kicked it. The site(s)
>> should be back online now.
>>
>> The sites have been in an unstable state for quite a while mostly
>> because neither we (OSL) nor Sun/Oracle had time to fix the performance
>> issues both of the sites entails. Couple that with the fact that the
>> machines they power those sites are very underpower considering the load
>> they take. It's gotten so bad that we've turned off notifications
>> because they just go off all the time.
>>
>> What really needs to happen is to have the sites completely
>> re-architected from the ground up with scaling in mind. At least one of
>> the sites is a stock Drupal 5.0 with a very hacked core. I know some
>> Sun/Oracle engineers had been working on fixing that into a Drupal 6
>> module but I'm not sure where that left off.
>>
>> Anyways, If you would like some more help with how these sites can be
>> fixed moving forward, please let me know. But we are strectched thin for
>> resources.
>
> It looks like these two sites are going to need attention whether they are 
> physically moved or the servers transferred to the ASF.
>

Since the extensions site has 3rd party code that is not under Apache
2.0 license, we have two options:

1) The new extensions.openoffice.org site hosts no code or binaries.
It is simply a directory of 3rd party extensions and links to outside
sites for the actual files.

2) Optionally, in conjunction with #1, host the extension source and
distributions at http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/ .
 That is where Apache projects host things like this.

> Rob says:
>
>> Can we make it a priority to migrate these two site to Apache?  We
>> need volunteers to do this.  Nothing happens by magic here. We need
>> volunteers to define the technical requirements and work with Apache
>> Infrastructure to make this happen.  Hopefully we'd make some platform
>> and technology choices that would be more stable than the current
>> site.  I'd recommend moving and then asking Oracle to redirect
>> requests for those two subdomains to Apache.
>
> We did get a zone file yesterday, but it was missing these two domains. I 
> think that the track is to transfer the domain and zone dns to the ASF first 
> and then we will be able to do what we want.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Reizinger Zoltán  
>> wrote:
>>> 2011.07.11. 15:41 keltezéssel, TJ Frazier írta:

 On 7/11/2011 07:28, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
> Reizinger Zoltán wrote:
>>
>> The two sites works sporadically, needs four five web page refresh to
>> load:
>> http://templates.services.openoffice.org/
>> http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/
>> To help OOo present users, needs to stabilize sites work.
>> Somebody knows what the cause of this problem.
>
> Yes, I posted some more details in this message a few weeks ago:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201106.mbox/browser
> and I don't have further updates available.
>
> Note that those sites are not part of the Oracle infrastructure.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
 Hi, all,

 Andrea Pescetti's helpful message is easier to find here:


 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201106.mbox/%3c1308391724.2986.34.camel@localhost.localdomain%3e

 since it is titled, "Re: Bugzilla or JIRA? ..." etc.

 Oregon State University Open Source Lab hosts the extensions site, and
 some Apache-related things as well. Just for fun, I tried looking up
 OSUOSL's service ticket #18367, but their website was impenetrable to my
 relatively feeble search attempts.

 As a systems programmer (retired), I used to read a lot of tickets, and it
 was my job to solve them. I find this protracted trouble curious, to say 
 the
 least. :-/
>>>
>>> It seems to me it is an abandoned site, nobody care for it, it hurt all OOo
>>> effort if we not find a solution to restart, the users ask every day on
>>> forum which way they could find specific extensions, and we can not help
>>> them. It is sad thing.
>>> Zoltan
>>>
>
>

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Rob Weir]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>
> On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
>>
>> Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking some
>> deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective interests in
>> one or the other direction.
>>
>> And in the end, the user rules, not any marketing speech.
>
> While that sounds good, I'm not sure it's the Apache way and I'd welcome a 
> comment from one of the mentors.
>

I'm taking Kai's statement as stating the obvious: that a branding
decision is best informed by data on what the target market thinks,
not what the marketeers think.  The interpretation of the evidence and
execution of a branding strategy, would be up to the PPMC, in
conjunction with Apache Branding.

-Rob

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Dave Fisher]

See Daneese Cooper's emails.

On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:

> 
> On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
>> 
>> Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking some
>> deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective interests in
>> one or the other direction.
>> 
>> And in the end, the user rules, not any marketing speech.
> 
> While that sounds good, I'm not sure it's the Apache way and I'd welcome a 
> comment from one of the mentors.
> 
> S.
> 

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Dave Fisher]

I sent an email to supp...@osuosl.org last night and got a response in 30 
minutes.

OSUOSL admin says:

> Looks like varnish died on the machine and I just kicked it. The site(s)
> should be back online now.
> 
> The sites have been in an unstable state for quite a while mostly
> because neither we (OSL) nor Sun/Oracle had time to fix the performance
> issues both of the sites entails. Couple that with the fact that the
> machines they power those sites are very underpower considering the load
> they take. It's gotten so bad that we've turned off notifications
> because they just go off all the time.
> 
> What really needs to happen is to have the sites completely
> re-architected from the ground up with scaling in mind. At least one of
> the sites is a stock Drupal 5.0 with a very hacked core. I know some
> Sun/Oracle engineers had been working on fixing that into a Drupal 6
> module but I'm not sure where that left off.
> 
> Anyways, If you would like some more help with how these sites can be
> fixed moving forward, please let me know. But we are strectched thin for
> resources.

It looks like these two sites are going to need attention whether they are 
physically moved or the servers transferred to the ASF.

Rob says:

> Can we make it a priority to migrate these two site to Apache?  We
> need volunteers to do this.  Nothing happens by magic here. We need
> volunteers to define the technical requirements and work with Apache
> Infrastructure to make this happen.  Hopefully we'd make some platform
> and technology choices that would be more stable than the current
> site.  I'd recommend moving and then asking Oracle to redirect
> requests for those two subdomains to Apache.

We did get a zone file yesterday, but it was missing these two domains. I think 
that the track is to transfer the domain and zone dns to the ASF first and then 
we will be able to do what we want.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -Rob
> 
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Reizinger Zoltán  
> wrote:
>> 2011.07.11. 15:41 keltezéssel, TJ Frazier írta:
>>> 
>>> On 7/11/2011 07:28, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
 
 Reizinger Zoltán wrote:
> 
> The two sites works sporadically, needs four five web page refresh to
> load:
> http://templates.services.openoffice.org/
> http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/
> To help OOo present users, needs to stabilize sites work.
> Somebody knows what the cause of this problem.
 
 Yes, I posted some more details in this message a few weeks ago:
 
 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201106.mbox/browser
 and I don't have further updates available.
 
 Note that those sites are not part of the Oracle infrastructure.
 
 Regards,
   Andrea.
 
>>> Hi, all,
>>> 
>>> Andrea Pescetti's helpful message is easier to find here:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201106.mbox/%3c1308391724.2986.34.camel@localhost.localdomain%3e
>>> 
>>> since it is titled, "Re: Bugzilla or JIRA? ..." etc.
>>> 
>>> Oregon State University Open Source Lab hosts the extensions site, and
>>> some Apache-related things as well. Just for fun, I tried looking up
>>> OSUOSL's service ticket #18367, but their website was impenetrable to my
>>> relatively feeble search attempts.
>>> 
>>> As a systems programmer (retired), I used to read a lot of tickets, and it
>>> was my job to solve them. I find this protracted trouble curious, to say the
>>> least. :-/
>> 
>> It seems to me it is an abandoned site, nobody care for it, it hurt all OOo
>> effort if we not find a solution to restart, the users ask every day on
>> forum which way they could find specific extensions, and we can not help
>> them. It is sad thing.
>> Zoltan
>> 

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Simon Phipps]

On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
> 
> Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking some
> deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective interests in
> one or the other direction.
> 
> And in the end, the user rules, not any marketing speech.

While that sounds good, I'm not sure it's the Apache way and I'd welcome a 
comment from one of the mentors.

S.

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Kai Ahrens]

Am 12.07.2011 14:36, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> Am 07/12/2011 02:28 PM, schrieb Kai Ahrens:
>> Am 12.07.2011 14:18, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
>>> Am 07/12/2011 02:01 PM, schrieb Kai Ahrens:
 Am 12.07.2011 12:30, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> When the users actually do what they want to name the product and/or
> project, IMHO then there is no need to change anything that you cannot
> predict. Then we can stick with the known brand name and also avoid
> any
> legal problems with companies that use also "OpenOffice" as brand.

 I was just talking about using the .org or not. The full product name
>>>
>>> Yes, me too.
>>>
 would be 'Apache Open Office' or 'Apache OpenOffice', of course. There
 won't be any legal issues with this product name as the brand name
 'Oracle Open Office' has shown.

 For myself, I would go with 'Apache Open Office' instead of 'Apache
 OpenOffice', but this would need some more discussion.
>>>
>>> So, when the .org brand name is after 10 years well established why
>>> should it be changed now? After all these mails I don't see a reason for
>>> it.
>>
>> As said, I don't consider 'OpenOffice.org' (the product name) as an well
>> established product name among our user base. The established name
>> people use is 'Open Office'/'OpenOffice' and as such, this is a valid
>> reason for me to change this part of the name to the name we planned to
>> use in the beginning of the 'Open Office' project.
> 
> OK, what was the reason you haven't done it in the beginning? ;-)

It was mentioned a few times already: using 'Open Office' alone
wasn't/isn't (?) legally possible, so that someone had the 'famous' idea
to use the IMO stupid name 'OpenOffice.org' for a product.

We are now talking about using 'Apache Open Office', which is possible
and makes a great product name, or to stay with the stupid
OpenOffice.org product name.

- Kai

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Rob Weir]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:
> Am 07/12/2011 01:41 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Graham Lauder
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 20:21 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:

 Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:43:17 +0700:
>
> If Apache forced this without discussion it would be a bad start for
> the project.

 You're misportraying the facts; it's a preexisting Apache policy that
 predates OOo being proposed as a podling.

 Now, we're generally reasonable people here, and the podling can always
 request an exception (talk to trademarks@).
>>>
>>>
>>>
   But, with my Member hat on,
 this collective "Let's join Apache, but not be called Apache, and not
 work with existing Apache entities" spirit leaves a rather bad taste.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying we the community, should not be called Apache whatever.
>>> Nobody is down on Apache, but I just don't want to dilute the strong
>>> brand of the #product#.  OOo has a very strong market share in the
>>> Office Suite Software Consumer market.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/news/2010/02/05/international-openoffice-market-shares.html
>>>
>>> It is important that we maintain that share and grow it.
>>> There is a large community:  35,000 individuals subscribed to OOo
>>> maillists when I last checked, Louis may have more up-to-date numbers
>>> Around 800 have signed the JCA/SCA
>>> Scores possibly Hundreds of Millions of Users worldwide and growing
>>>
>>> All this under the OpenOffice.org Brand.  There has been a lot of noise
>>
>> Yes, under the Apache brand.  But also under the Obama presidency and
>> under the Chinese Year of the  Rabbit.  We don't know what is
>> coincidence versus a real essential cause and effect relationship.  In
>> other words, we don't know if we'd have the same number of users, or
>> even more, with a different name.
>>
>> These seems like something we could debate endlessly without
>> resolution.  But I wonder if a more definitive answer might come from
>
> Then we should come to a result. I tried to asked this in my mail on the
> 10th.
>
>> a survey of users and other market participants, looking at branding
>> perceptions, trying out a few variations on the name, seeing which
>> ones elicit the most positive responses.  I'd be happy to yield to
>> facts.
>
> -1
>
> I don't think that yet another survey will bring better results than the
> last mails here on the list. ;-)
>

Just to be clear, I mean a survey of the target market, current and
potential users.  I agree that a survey of participants on this list
would not tell us much more.  I hope we all agree that the target
audience of a branding strategy is larger than this list.


> Marcus
>
>
>
>>> around LibreOffice with those Linux Distributions who used Go-OOo now
>>> distributing with LO, but those numbers, compared to OOo across all
>>> platforms are miniscule and I believe that will remain the same unless
>>> of course this stalling of development, forced on us by Oracle,
>>> continues or the brand is modified violently so that we have
>>> re-establish our brand right from the beginning.  In our consumer market
>>> tacking Apache on the end would do just this.  This not a slight on
>>> Apache or lack of appreciation for their efforts thus far, just a
>>> statement of the circumstances.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> GL
>

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Marcus (OOo)]

Am 07/12/2011 02:28 PM, schrieb Kai Ahrens:

Am 12.07.2011 14:18, schrieb Marcus (OOo):

Am 07/12/2011 02:01 PM, schrieb Kai Ahrens:

Am 12.07.2011 12:30, schrieb Marcus (OOo):

When the users actually do what they want to name the product and/or
project, IMHO then there is no need to change anything that you cannot
predict. Then we can stick with the known brand name and also avoid any
legal problems with companies that use also "OpenOffice" as brand.


I was just talking about using the .org or not. The full product name


Yes, me too.


would be 'Apache Open Office' or 'Apache OpenOffice', of course. There
won't be any legal issues with this product name as the brand name
'Oracle Open Office' has shown.

For myself, I would go with 'Apache Open Office' instead of 'Apache
OpenOffice', but this would need some more discussion.


So, when the .org brand name is after 10 years well established why
should it be changed now? After all these mails I don't see a reason for
it.


As said, I don't consider 'OpenOffice.org' (the product name) as an well
established product name among our user base. The established name
people use is 'Open Office'/'OpenOffice' and as such, this is a valid
reason for me to change this part of the name to the name we planned to
use in the beginning of the 'Open Office' project.


OK, what was the reason you haven't done it in the beginning? ;-)

Marcus

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Kai Ahrens]

Am 12.07.2011 14:25, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> Am 07/12/2011 01:41 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Graham
>> Lauder  wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 20:21 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
 Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:43:17 +0700:
> If Apache forced this without discussion it would be a bad start for
> the project.

 You're misportraying the facts; it's a preexisting Apache policy that
 predates OOo being proposed as a podling.

 Now, we're generally reasonable people here, and the podling can always
 request an exception (talk to trademarks@).
>>>
>>>
>>>
But, with my Member hat on,
 this collective "Let's join Apache, but not be called Apache, and not
 work with existing Apache entities" spirit leaves a rather bad taste.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying we the community, should not be called Apache whatever.
>>> Nobody is down on Apache, but I just don't want to dilute the strong
>>> brand of the #product#.  OOo has a very strong market share in the
>>> Office Suite Software Consumer market.
>>>
>>> http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/news/2010/02/05/international-openoffice-market-shares.html
>>>
>>>
>>> It is important that we maintain that share and grow it.
>>> There is a large community:  35,000 individuals subscribed to OOo
>>> maillists when I last checked, Louis may have more up-to-date numbers
>>> Around 800 have signed the JCA/SCA
>>> Scores possibly Hundreds of Millions of Users worldwide and growing
>>>
>>> All this under the OpenOffice.org Brand.  There has been a lot of noise
>>
>> Yes, under the Apache brand.  But also under the Obama presidency and
>> under the Chinese Year of the  Rabbit.  We don't know what is
>> coincidence versus a real essential cause and effect relationship.  In
>> other words, we don't know if we'd have the same number of users, or
>> even more, with a different name.
>>
>> These seems like something we could debate endlessly without
>> resolution.  But I wonder if a more definitive answer might come from
> 
> Then we should come to a result. I tried to asked this in my mail on the
> 10th.
> 
>> a survey of users and other market participants, looking at branding
>> perceptions, trying out a few variations on the name, seeing which
>> ones elicit the most positive responses.  I'd be happy to yield to
>> facts.
> 
> -1
> 
> I don't think that yet another survey will bring better results than the
> last mails here on the list. ;-)

Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking some
deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective interests in
one or the other direction.

And in the end, the user rules, not any marketing speech.

- Kai

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Kai Ahrens]

Am 12.07.2011 14:18, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> Am 07/12/2011 02:01 PM, schrieb Kai Ahrens:
>> Am 12.07.2011 12:30, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
>>> When the users actually do what they want to name the product and/or
>>> project, IMHO then there is no need to change anything that you cannot
>>> predict. Then we can stick with the known brand name and also avoid any
>>> legal problems with companies that use also "OpenOffice" as brand.
>>
>> I was just talking about using the .org or not. The full product name
> 
> Yes, me too.
> 
>> would be 'Apache Open Office' or 'Apache OpenOffice', of course. There
>> won't be any legal issues with this product name as the brand name
>> 'Oracle Open Office' has shown.
>>
>> For myself, I would go with 'Apache Open Office' instead of 'Apache
>> OpenOffice', but this would need some more discussion.
> 
> So, when the .org brand name is after 10 years well established why
> should it be changed now? After all these mails I don't see a reason for
> it.

As said, I don't consider 'OpenOffice.org' (the product name) as an well
established product name among our user base. The established name
people use is 'Open Office'/'OpenOffice' and as such, this is a valid
reason for me to change this part of the name to the name we planned to
use in the beginning of the 'Open Office' project.

- Kai

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Marcus (OOo)]

Am 07/12/2011 01:41 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Graham Lauder  wrote:

On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 20:21 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:

Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:43:17 +0700:

If Apache forced this without discussion it would be a bad start for
the project.


You're misportraying the facts; it's a preexisting Apache policy that
predates OOo being proposed as a podling.

Now, we're generally reasonable people here, and the podling can always
request an exception (talk to trademarks@).





   But, with my Member hat on,
this collective "Let's join Apache, but not be called Apache, and not
work with existing Apache entities" spirit leaves a rather bad taste.


I'm not saying we the community, should not be called Apache whatever.
Nobody is down on Apache, but I just don't want to dilute the strong
brand of the #product#.  OOo has a very strong market share in the
Office Suite Software Consumer market.

http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/news/2010/02/05/international-openoffice-market-shares.html

It is important that we maintain that share and grow it.
There is a large community:  35,000 individuals subscribed to OOo
maillists when I last checked, Louis may have more up-to-date numbers
Around 800 have signed the JCA/SCA
Scores possibly Hundreds of Millions of Users worldwide and growing

All this under the OpenOffice.org Brand.  There has been a lot of noise


Yes, under the Apache brand.  But also under the Obama presidency and
under the Chinese Year of the  Rabbit.  We don't know what is
coincidence versus a real essential cause and effect relationship.  In
other words, we don't know if we'd have the same number of users, or
even more, with a different name.

These seems like something we could debate endlessly without
resolution.  But I wonder if a more definitive answer might come from


Then we should come to a result. I tried to asked this in my mail on the 
10th.



a survey of users and other market participants, looking at branding
perceptions, trying out a few variations on the name, seeing which
ones elicit the most positive responses.  I'd be happy to yield to
facts.


-1

I don't think that yet another survey will bring better results than the 
last mails here on the list. ;-)


Marcus




around LibreOffice with those Linux Distributions who used Go-OOo now
distributing with LO, but those numbers, compared to OOo across all
platforms are miniscule and I believe that will remain the same unless
of course this stalling of development, forced on us by Oracle,
continues or the brand is modified violently so that we have
re-establish our brand right from the beginning.  In our consumer market
tacking Apache on the end would do just this.  This not a slight on
Apache or lack of appreciation for their efforts thus far, just a
statement of the circumstances.

Cheers
GL

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Marcus (OOo)]

Am 07/12/2011 02:01 PM, schrieb Kai Ahrens:

Am 12.07.2011 12:30, schrieb Marcus (OOo):

When the users actually do what they want to name the product and/or
project, IMHO then there is no need to change anything that you cannot
predict. Then we can stick with the known brand name and also avoid any
legal problems with companies that use also "OpenOffice" as brand.


I was just talking about using the .org or not. The full product name


Yes, me too.


would be 'Apache Open Office' or 'Apache OpenOffice', of course. There
won't be any legal issues with this product name as the brand name
'Oracle Open Office' has shown.

For myself, I would go with 'Apache Open Office' instead of 'Apache
OpenOffice', but this would need some more discussion.


So, when the .org brand name is after 10 years well established why 
should it be changed now? After all these mails I don't see a reason for it.


Marcus

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Kai Ahrens]

> These seems like something we could debate endlessly without
> resolution.  But I wonder if a more definitive answer might come from
> a survey of users and other market participants, looking at branding
> perceptions, trying out a few variations on the name, seeing which
> ones elicit the most positive responses.  I'd be happy to yield to
> facts.

+1

Regards
Kai

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Kai Ahrens]

Hi Marcus,

Am 12.07.2011 12:30, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> When the users actually do what they want to name the product and/or
> project, IMHO then there is no need to change anything that you cannot
> predict. Then we can stick with the known brand name and also avoid any
> legal problems with companies that use also "OpenOffice" as brand.

I was just talking about using the .org or not. The full product name
would be 'Apache Open Office' or 'Apache OpenOffice', of course. There
won't be any legal issues with this product name as the brand name
'Oracle Open Office' has shown.

For myself, I would go with 'Apache Open Office' instead of 'Apache
OpenOffice', but this would need some more discussion.

Regards
Kai

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Rob Weir]

Can we make it a priority to migrate these two site to Apache?  We
need volunteers to do this.  Nothing happens by magic here. We need
volunteers to define the technical requirements and work with Apache
Infrastructure to make this happen.  Hopefully we'd make some platform
and technology choices that would be more stable than the current
site.  I'd recommend moving and then asking Oracle to redirect
requests for those two subdomains to Apache.

-Rob

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Reizinger Zoltán  wrote:
> 2011.07.11. 15:41 keltezéssel, TJ Frazier írta:
>>
>> On 7/11/2011 07:28, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>
>>> Reizinger Zoltán wrote:

 The two sites works sporadically, needs four five web page refresh to
 load:
 http://templates.services.openoffice.org/
 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/
 To help OOo present users, needs to stabilize sites work.
 Somebody knows what the cause of this problem.
>>>
>>> Yes, I posted some more details in this message a few weeks ago:
>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201106.mbox/browser
>>> and I don't have further updates available.
>>>
>>> Note that those sites are not part of the Oracle infrastructure.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>   Andrea.
>>>
>> Hi, all,
>>
>> Andrea Pescetti's helpful message is easier to find here:
>>
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201106.mbox/%3c1308391724.2986.34.camel@localhost.localdomain%3e
>>
>> since it is titled, "Re: Bugzilla or JIRA? ..." etc.
>>
>> Oregon State University Open Source Lab hosts the extensions site, and
>> some Apache-related things as well. Just for fun, I tried looking up
>> OSUOSL's service ticket #18367, but their website was impenetrable to my
>> relatively feeble search attempts.
>>
>> As a systems programmer (retired), I used to read a lot of tickets, and it
>> was my job to solve them. I find this protracted trouble curious, to say the
>> least. :-/
>
> It seems to me it is an abandoned site, nobody care for it, it hurt all OOo
> effort if we not find a solution to restart, the users ask every day on
> forum which way they could find specific extensions, and we can not help
> them. It is sad thing.
> Zoltan
>

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Rob Weir]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Graham Lauder  wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 20:21 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:43:17 +0700:
>> > If Apache forced this without discussion it would be a bad start for
>> > the project.
>>
>> You're misportraying the facts; it's a preexisting Apache policy that
>> predates OOo being proposed as a podling.
>>
>> Now, we're generally reasonable people here, and the podling can always
>> request an exception (talk to trademarks@).
>
>
>
>>   But, with my Member hat on,
>> this collective "Let's join Apache, but not be called Apache, and not
>> work with existing Apache entities" spirit leaves a rather bad taste.
>
> I'm not saying we the community, should not be called Apache whatever.
> Nobody is down on Apache, but I just don't want to dilute the strong
> brand of the #product#.  OOo has a very strong market share in the
> Office Suite Software Consumer market.
>
> http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/news/2010/02/05/international-openoffice-market-shares.html
>
> It is important that we maintain that share and grow it.
> There is a large community:  35,000 individuals subscribed to OOo
> maillists when I last checked, Louis may have more up-to-date numbers
> Around 800 have signed the JCA/SCA
> Scores possibly Hundreds of Millions of Users worldwide and growing
>
> All this under the OpenOffice.org Brand.  There has been a lot of noise

Yes, under the Apache brand.  But also under the Obama presidency and
under the Chinese Year of the  Rabbit.  We don't know what is
coincidence versus a real essential cause and effect relationship.  In
other words, we don't know if we'd have the same number of users, or
even more, with a different name.

These seems like something we could debate endlessly without
resolution.  But I wonder if a more definitive answer might come from
a survey of users and other market participants, looking at branding
perceptions, trying out a few variations on the name, seeing which
ones elicit the most positive responses.  I'd be happy to yield to
facts.

> around LibreOffice with those Linux Distributions who used Go-OOo now
> distributing with LO, but those numbers, compared to OOo across all
> platforms are miniscule and I believe that will remain the same unless
> of course this stalling of development, forced on us by Oracle,
> continues or the brand is modified violently so that we have
> re-establish our brand right from the beginning.  In our consumer market
> tacking Apache on the end would do just this.  This not a slight on
> Apache or lack of appreciation for their efforts thus far, just a
> statement of the circumstances.
>
> Cheers
> GL
> --
> Graham Lauder,
> OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ
> http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html
>
> OpenOffice.org Migration and training Consultant.
>
>
>
>

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Marcus (OOo)]

When the users actually do what they want to name the product and/or 
project, IMHO then there is no need to change anything that you cannot 
predict. Then we can stick with the known brand name and also avoid any 
legal problems with companies that use also "OpenOffice" as brand.


Marcus



Am 07/12/2011 12:10 PM, schrieb Kai Ahrens:

Am 12.07.2011 10:59, schrieb Graham Lauder:

http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/news/2010/02/05/international-openoffice-market-shares.html

It is important that we maintain that share and grow it.
There is a large community:  35,000 individuals subscribed to OOo
maillists when I last checked, Louis may have more up-to-date numbers
Around 800 have signed the JCA/SCA
Scores possibly Hundreds of Millions of Users worldwide and growing


And interestingly, the whole site speaks of OpenOffice product wise,
with just one link to the openoffice.org website (!)...

And this is, what people all over the world do: speaking of OpenOffice
and just using OpenOffice.org for very formal reasons. So why stick to
the nerdy OpenOffice.org, when everybody already associates OpenOffice
with the real product. OpenOffice.org doesn't seem to be such a strong
brand name per se to me, does it?

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Kai Ahrens]

Am 12.07.2011 10:59, schrieb Graham Lauder:
> http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/news/2010/02/05/international-openoffice-market-shares.html
> 
> It is important that we maintain that share and grow it.  
> There is a large community:  35,000 individuals subscribed to OOo
> maillists when I last checked, Louis may have more up-to-date numbers 
> Around 800 have signed the JCA/SCA
> Scores possibly Hundreds of Millions of Users worldwide and growing

And interestingly, the whole site speaks of OpenOffice product wise,
with just one link to the openoffice.org website (!)...

And this is, what people all over the world do: speaking of OpenOffice
and just using OpenOffice.org for very formal reasons. So why stick to
the nerdy OpenOffice.org, when everybody already associates OpenOffice
with the real product. OpenOffice.org doesn't seem to be such a strong
brand name per se to me, does it?

Regards
Kai

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Armin Le Grand]

Am 10.07.2011 20:19, schrieb Donald Harbison:

No need to drag the .org into the future, if Apache is prefixed. If no
prefix, yes, we lead with the trademark of record: OpenOffice.org. IMHO.
Let's simply use Apache OpenOffice.


+1

Keep it as simple as possible. For the non-IT centric rest of mankind 
(the majority, please remember) '.org' is just something artificial, IMHO.


Regards,
Armin Le Grand

RE: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Gavin McDonald]

> -Original Message-
> From: acolor...@gmail.com [mailto:acolor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Alexandro Colorado
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 6:46 PM
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; ga...@16degrees.com.au
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
> 
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Gavin McDonald
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: acolor...@gmail.com [mailto:acolor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Alexandro Colorado
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 6:36 PM
> > > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; ga...@16degrees.com.au
> > > Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Gavin McDonald
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > You misunderstood,
> > > >
> > > > the project name becomes the subdomain name associated with the
> > > > website
> > > >
> > > > there is no project called ‘ooo’ so ‘ooo.apache.org’ will not be
> > accepted.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What about http://ofbiz.apache.org/ for Open for business project.
> > > I am sure nobody will call that "Off biz". And if they do, it
> > > wouldnt be
> > that
> > > beneficial marketing wise, sound like out of business.
> >
> > Actually, that is exactly what it is called. The project is officially
> > called 'ofbiz' so that is what the domain name is.
> >
> > They can market their full name but the project name IS 'ofbiz'.
> >
> >
> > > Also, these rules seem a bit archaic, it should be accepted whatever
> > makes
> > > sense. Domain names and brands are not the same thing, because
> > > domains have restrictions on itself... like this one.
> >
> > When a project comes to Apache, they abide by the rules in place. They
> > are there for a reason. That is true of anywhere. There have been
> > exceptional circumstances in the past , it remains to be seen if this
> > will be one of them.
> >
> 
> 
> ok then let it be http://openofficedotorg.apache.org
> happy?

Nope, that really was the whole reason for my bringing it up in 
the first place.


> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Gav...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also, we would not redirect away from the *.apache.org domain, if
> > > > anything, it  would be the other way around.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Apologies for top posting, one of the sins of replying to html email.
> > > >
> > > > Gav…
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: acolor...@gmail.com [mailto:acolor...@gmail.com] On Behalf
> > > > Of Alexandro Colorado
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 5:58 PM
> > > > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; ga...@16degrees.com.au
> > > > Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Gavin McDonald
> > > 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 5:11 PM
> > > > > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Am 07/12/2011 08:55 AM, schrieb Pavel Janík:
> > > > > >> It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > development project and the product brand names exactly the same.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another proposal:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Product name: OpenOffice.org.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Project name: Apache OpenOffice.org.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm strongly against mixing OOo and OO here.
> > > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > Keep it simpe for the users and don't make any possibility for
> > > > > misunderstandings.
> > > > With domain names for ALL Apache projects coming under the pattern
> > > > of $projectname.apache.org how you propose that would work if
> > > > Apache OpenOffice.org is the project name?
> > > >
> > > > (only openofficeorg.apache.org springs to mind if you intend to
> > > > keep org in the project name)
> > > >
> > > > (And a shocking name that becomes imho)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Gav...
> > > >
> > > > Since apache will own the openoffice.org domain you can as easily
> > > > put
> > a
> > > > redirector from http://ooo.apache.org to
> > > > http://apache.openoffice.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Marcus
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Alexandro Colorado
> > > > OpenOffice.org Español
> > > > http://es.openoffice.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Alexandro Colorado*
> > > *OpenOffice.org* Español
> > > http://es.openoffice.org
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> *Alexandro Colorado*
> *OpenOffice.org* Español
> http://es.openoffice.org

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Graham Lauder]

On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 20:21 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:43:17 +0700:
> > If Apache forced this without discussion it would be a bad start for
> > the project.
> 
> You're misportraying the facts; it's a preexisting Apache policy that
> predates OOo being proposed as a podling.
> 
> Now, we're generally reasonable people here, and the podling can always
> request an exception (talk to trademarks@).



>   But, with my Member hat on,
> this collective "Let's join Apache, but not be called Apache, and not
> work with existing Apache entities" spirit leaves a rather bad taste.

I'm not saying we the community, should not be called Apache whatever.
Nobody is down on Apache, but I just don't want to dilute the strong
brand of the #product#.  OOo has a very strong market share in the
Office Suite Software Consumer market.

http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/news/2010/02/05/international-openoffice-market-shares.html

It is important that we maintain that share and grow it.  
There is a large community:  35,000 individuals subscribed to OOo
maillists when I last checked, Louis may have more up-to-date numbers 
Around 800 have signed the JCA/SCA
Scores possibly Hundreds of Millions of Users worldwide and growing

All this under the OpenOffice.org Brand.  There has been a lot of noise
around LibreOffice with those Linux Distributions who used Go-OOo now
distributing with LO, but those numbers, compared to OOo across all
platforms are miniscule and I believe that will remain the same unless
of course this stalling of development, forced on us by Oracle,
continues or the brand is modified violently so that we have
re-establish our brand right from the beginning.  In our consumer market
tacking Apache on the end would do just this.  This not a slight on
Apache or lack of appreciation for their efforts thus far, just a
statement of the circumstances.

Cheers
GL
-- 
Graham Lauder,
OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ
http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html

OpenOffice.org Migration and training Consultant.

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Alexandro Colorado]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Gavin McDonald wrote:

>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: acolor...@gmail.com [mailto:acolor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > Alexandro Colorado
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 6:36 PM
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; ga...@16degrees.com.au
> > Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Gavin McDonald
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You misunderstood,
> > >
> > > the project name becomes the subdomain name associated with the
> > > website
> > >
> > > there is no project called ‘ooo’ so ‘ooo.apache.org’ will not be
> accepted.
> > >
> >
> > What about http://ofbiz.apache.org/ for Open for business project.
> > I am sure nobody will call that "Off biz". And if they do, it wouldnt be
> that
> > beneficial marketing wise, sound like out of business.
>
> Actually, that is exactly what it is called. The project is officially
> called 'ofbiz' so
> that is what the domain name is.
>
> They can market their full name but the project name IS 'ofbiz'.
>
>
> > Also, these rules seem a bit archaic, it should be accepted whatever
> makes
> > sense. Domain names and brands are not the same thing, because domains
> > have restrictions on itself... like this one.
>
> When a project comes to Apache, they abide by the rules in place. They are
> there for a reason. That is true of anywhere. There have been  exceptional
> circumstances in the past , it remains to be seen if this will be one of
> them.
>


ok then let it be http://openofficedotorg.apache.org
happy?



>
> Gav...
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Also, we would not redirect away from the *.apache.org domain, if
> > > anything, it  would be the other way around.
> >
> >
> > > Apologies for top posting, one of the sins of replying to html email.
> > >
> > > Gav…
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: acolor...@gmail.com [mailto:acolor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Alexandro Colorado
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 5:58 PM
> > > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; ga...@16degrees.com.au
> > > Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Gavin McDonald
> > 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 5:11 PM
> > > > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Am 07/12/2011 08:55 AM, schrieb Pavel Janík:
> > > > >> It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the
> > > > development project and the product brand names exactly the same.
> > > > >
> > > > > Another proposal:
> > > > >
> > > > > Product name: OpenOffice.org.
> > > > >
> > > > > Project name: Apache OpenOffice.org.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm strongly against mixing OOo and OO here.
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Keep it simpe for the users and don't make any possibility for
> > > > misunderstandings.
> > > With domain names for ALL Apache projects coming under the
> > > pattern of $projectname.apache.org how you propose that
> > > would work if Apache OpenOffice.org is the project name?
> > >
> > > (only openofficeorg.apache.org springs to mind if you intend to
> > > keep org in the project name)
> > >
> > > (And a shocking name that becomes imho)
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Gav...
> > >
> > > Since apache will own the openoffice.org domain you can as easily put
> a
> > > redirector from http://ooo.apache.org to http://apache.openoffice.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Marcus
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexandro Colorado
> > > OpenOffice.org Español
> > > http://es.openoffice.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Alexandro Colorado*
> > *OpenOffice.org* Español
> > http://es.openoffice.org
>
>


-- 
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org

RE: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Gavin McDonald]

> -Original Message-
> From: acolor...@gmail.com [mailto:acolor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Alexandro Colorado
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 6:36 PM
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; ga...@16degrees.com.au
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
> 
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Gavin McDonald
> wrote:
> 
> > You misunderstood,
> >
> > the project name becomes the subdomain name associated with the
> > website
> >
> > there is no project called ‘ooo’ so ‘ooo.apache.org’ will not be accepted.
> >
> 
> What about http://ofbiz.apache.org/ for Open for business project.
> I am sure nobody will call that "Off biz". And if they do, it wouldnt be that
> beneficial marketing wise, sound like out of business.

Actually, that is exactly what it is called. The project is officially called 
'ofbiz' so
that is what the domain name is.

They can market their full name but the project name IS 'ofbiz'.


> Also, these rules seem a bit archaic, it should be accepted whatever makes
> sense. Domain names and brands are not the same thing, because domains
> have restrictions on itself... like this one.

When a project comes to Apache, they abide by the rules in place. They are
there for a reason. That is true of anywhere. There have been  exceptional
circumstances in the past , it remains to be seen if this will be one of them.

Gav...

> 
> 
> >
> > Also, we would not redirect away from the *.apache.org domain, if
> > anything, it  would be the other way around.
> 
> 
> > Apologies for top posting, one of the sins of replying to html email.
> >
> > Gav…
> >
> >
> >
> > From: acolor...@gmail.com [mailto:acolor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > Alexandro Colorado
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 5:58 PM
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; ga...@16degrees.com.au
> > Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Gavin McDonald
> 
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 5:11 PM
> > > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
> > >
> >
> > > Am 07/12/2011 08:55 AM, schrieb Pavel Janík:
> > > >> It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the
> > > development project and the product brand names exactly the same.
> > > >
> > > > Another proposal:
> > > >
> > > > Product name: OpenOffice.org.
> > > >
> > > > Project name: Apache OpenOffice.org.
> > > >
> > > > I'm strongly against mixing OOo and OO here.
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Keep it simpe for the users and don't make any possibility for
> > > misunderstandings.
> > With domain names for ALL Apache projects coming under the
> > pattern of $projectname.apache.org how you propose that
> > would work if Apache OpenOffice.org is the project name?
> >
> > (only openofficeorg.apache.org springs to mind if you intend to
> > keep org in the project name)
> >
> > (And a shocking name that becomes imho)
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Gav...
> >
> > Since apache will own the openoffice.org domain you can as easily put a
> > redirector from http://ooo.apache.org to http://apache.openoffice.org
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Marcus
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alexandro Colorado
> > OpenOffice.org Español
> > http://es.openoffice.org
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> *Alexandro Colorado*
> *OpenOffice.org* Español
> http://es.openoffice.org

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Alexandro Colorado]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Gavin McDonald wrote:

> You misunderstood,
>
> the project name becomes the subdomain name associated with the website
>
> there is no project called ‘ooo’ so ‘ooo.apache.org’ will not be accepted.
>

What about http://ofbiz.apache.org/ for Open for business project.
I am sure nobody will call that "Off biz". And if they do, it wouldnt be
that beneficial marketing wise, sound like out of business.
Also, these rules seem a bit archaic, it should be accepted whatever makes
sense. Domain names and brands are not the same thing, because domains have
restrictions on itself... like this one.


>
> Also, we would not redirect away from the *.apache.org domain, if
> anything, it
>  would be the other way around.


> Apologies for top posting, one of the sins of replying to html email.
>
> Gav…
>
>
>
> From: acolor...@gmail.com [mailto:acolor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Alexandro Colorado
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 5:58 PM
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; ga...@16degrees.com.au
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Gavin McDonald 
> wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 5:11 PM
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
> >
>
> > Am 07/12/2011 08:55 AM, schrieb Pavel Janík:
> > >> It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the
> > development project and the product brand names exactly the same.
> > >
> > > Another proposal:
> > >
> > > Product name: OpenOffice.org.
> > >
> > > Project name: Apache OpenOffice.org.
> > >
> > > I'm strongly against mixing OOo and OO here.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Keep it simpe for the users and don't make any possibility for
> > misunderstandings.
> With domain names for ALL Apache projects coming under the
> pattern of $projectname.apache.org how you propose that
> would work if Apache OpenOffice.org is the project name?
>
> (only openofficeorg.apache.org springs to mind if you intend to
> keep org in the project name)
>
> (And a shocking name that becomes imho)
>
> Thanks
>
> Gav...
>
> Since apache will own the openoffice.org domain you can as easily put a
> redirector from http://ooo.apache.org to http://apache.openoffice.org
>
>
>
> >
> > Marcus
>
>
>
> --
> Alexandro Colorado
> OpenOffice.org Español
> http://es.openoffice.org
>
>


-- 
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Pavel Janík]

On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Pavel Janík wrote:

>> It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the development 
>> project and the product brand names exactly the same.
> 
> Another proposal:
> 
> Product name: OpenOffice.org.
> 
> Project name: Apache OpenOffice.org.

.. and domain name/URL: http://openoffice.apache.org / 
http://apache.openoffice.org.
-- 
Pavel Janík

RE: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Gavin McDonald]

You misunderstood,

the project name becomes the subdomain name associated with the website

there is no project called ‘ooo’ so ‘ooo.apache.org’ will not be accepted.

Also, we would not redirect away from the *.apache.org domain, if anything, it
would be the other way around.

Apologies for top posting, one of the sins of replying to html email.

Gav…



From: acolor...@gmail.com [mailto:acolor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alexandro 
Colorado
Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 5:58 PM
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; ga...@16degrees.com.au
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)


On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Gavin McDonald  wrote:


> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 5:11 PM
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
>
 
> Am 07/12/2011 08:55 AM, schrieb Pavel Janík:
> >> It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the
> development project and the product brand names exactly the same.
> >
> > Another proposal:
> >
> > Product name: OpenOffice.org.
> >
> > Project name: Apache OpenOffice.org.
> >
> > I'm strongly against mixing OOo and OO here.
>
> +1
>
> Keep it simpe for the users and don't make any possibility for
> misunderstandings.
With domain names for ALL Apache projects coming under the
pattern of $projectname.apache.org how you propose that
would work if Apache OpenOffice.org is the project name?

(only openofficeorg.apache.org springs to mind if you intend to
keep org in the project name)

(And a shocking name that becomes imho)

Thanks

Gav...

Since apache will own the openoffice.org domain you can as easily put a 
redirector from http://ooo.apache.org to http://apache.openoffice.org
 


>
> Marcus



-- 
Alexandro Colorado
OpenOffice.org Español
http://es.openoffice.org

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 11/07/2011 TJ Frazier wrote:
> On 7/11/2011 07:28, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > Yes, I posted some more details in this message a few weeks ago:
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201106.mbox/browser
> > and I don't have further updates available. ...
> Andrea Pescetti's helpful message is easier to find here:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201106.mbox/%3c1308391724.2986.34.camel@localhost.localdomain%3e

Indeed. Thanks for digging it up from my link, I realize I sent just the
generic archive link...

> Just for fun, I tried looking up 
> OSUOSL's service ticket #18367, but their website was impenetrable

I was put in CC of the ticket by Thorsten Bosbach of Oracle, and as far
as I know there is no web interface; unfortunately, I don't know how to
add other people in CC or check the ticket history, I just know that I
didn't receive further updates.

Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Alexandro Colorado]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Gavin McDonald wrote:

>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 5:11 PM
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
> >
>


> > Am 07/12/2011 08:55 AM, schrieb Pavel Janík:
> > >> It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the
> > development project and the product brand names exactly the same.
> > >
> > > Another proposal:
> > >
> > > Product name: OpenOffice.org.
> > >
> > > Project name: Apache OpenOffice.org.
> > >
> > > I'm strongly against mixing OOo and OO here.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Keep it simpe for the users and don't make any possibility for
> > misunderstandings.
>
> With domain names for ALL Apache projects coming under the
> pattern of $projectname.apache.org how you propose that
> would work if Apache OpenOffice.org is the project name?
>
> (only openofficeorg.apache.org springs to mind if you intend to
> keep org in the project name)
>
> (And a shocking name that becomes imho)
>
> Thanks
>
> Gav...
>

Since apache will own the openoffice.org domain you can as easily put a
redirector from http://ooo.apache.org to http://apache.openoffice.org


>
>
> >
> > Marcus
>
>


-- 
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Graham Lauder]

On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 19:54 -0400, Carl Marcum wrote:
> It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the 
> development project and the product brand names exactly the same.
> 
> If there are indeed going to to be 2 websites, OpenOffice.org which is 
> where end users go to get the product, help, etc. and the 
> .apache.org where the development project resides.
> 
> I understand the need to maintain the product brand.
> 
> +1 to keep OpenOffice.org the product (at least near term).
> 
> I think the Apache brand strengthens the project development and that's 
> one reason I'm here.
> 
> +1 for Apache OpenOffice the project.
> 
> Looking at the people listing, it's possible not all members are here 
> because of OpenOffice.org the product, but common development of the 
> code base.
> 
> Best regards,
> Carl

I may have mentioned in another mail that marketing OOo has two entirely
different target markets, each is targeted for entirely different
reasons:  The front office Document producer and Developers.  In the
former OpenOffice.org is a very strong brand, but Apache is almost
nonexistent.  In the latter OpenOffice.org is also a strong brand but as
Danese pointed out Apache's brand is strong in this target group and I
would suggest stronger because generally Apache has more positive brand
recognition whereas OOo, in this demographic, does have a level of
negativity to the brand. 

I'm with Carl and Pavel on this, it gives us distinct brands for Devs
and for Front Office End Users  

Cheers
GL 
-- 
Graham Lauder,
OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ
http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html

OpenOffice.org Migration and training Consultant.

RE: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Gavin McDonald]

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 5:11 PM
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
> 
> Am 07/12/2011 08:55 AM, schrieb Pavel Janík:
> >> It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the
> development project and the product brand names exactly the same.
> >
> > Another proposal:
> >
> > Product name: OpenOffice.org.
> >
> > Project name: Apache OpenOffice.org.
> >
> > I'm strongly against mixing OOo and OO here.
> 
> +1
> 
> Keep it simpe for the users and don't make any possibility for
> misunderstandings.

With domain names for ALL Apache projects coming under the 
pattern of $projectname.apache.org how you propose that 
would work if Apache OpenOffice.org is the project name?

(only openofficeorg.apache.org springs to mind if you intend to 
keep org in the project name)

(And a shocking name that becomes imho)

Thanks

Gav...


> 
> Marcus

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Marcus (OOo)]

Am 07/12/2011 08:55 AM, schrieb Pavel Janík:

It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the development 
project and the product brand names exactly the same.


Another proposal:

Product name: OpenOffice.org.

Project name: Apache OpenOffice.org.

I'm strongly against mixing OOo and OO here.


+1

Keep it simpe for the users and don't make any possibility for 
misunderstandings.


Marcus

Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)

[Alexandro Colorado]

2011/7/12 Pavel Janík 

> > It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the
> development project and the product brand names exactly the same.
>
> Another proposal:
>
> Product name: OpenOffice.org.
>
> Project name: Apache OpenOffice.org.
>
> I'm strongly against mixing OOo and OO here.
>

+1 that makes more sense to me, and agree with Pavel about not mixing OOo
and OO.


> --
> Pavel Janík
>
>
>
>


-- 
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org