date:20120331


On 28/03/2012 Rob Weir wrote:

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Fernand Vanries...@pmgroup.be  wrote:

Interesting, do you have also figures about the differences in OS :
  Windows versus Linux or Mac etc..

There were some numbers posted on that a few weeks ago.  These charts show
the MirrorBrain downloads of OpenOffice, from February:
http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/marketing_bouncer.html
So, 90% Windows,  6% Mac, 3% Linux.


These numbers, while probably still realistic, are from February 2011, 
not from February 2012. As discussed in other threads, published 
download figures have not been automatically updated since the move to 
Kenai (the platform hosting openoffice.org websites from February 2011 
until the move to Apache).


If the Windows versions breakdown uses data from February 2011 too, then 
we probably have more Windows 7 downloads and fewer Windows XP download 
with respect to the data sent by Rob.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL] redirection of update services to www.openoffice.org


On 29/03/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:

Day before yesterday, we  tried to do a test (DNS re-routing) with the
older update.services.openoffice.org (I don't even know which version
this was the update service for), I am wondering if those *older* clients
were doing something different from what say the newer 3.x versions are.


Indeed,
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Update_Notification_Protocol
which Ariel and others found out to be the current version, says that 
this version no longer uses http post requests, which would confirm 
your doubt: probably there are thousands of very old clients using the 
old protocol, but newer versions behave in a more sustainable way.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: And idea for OOo

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.comwrote:

On 2012-03-30 10:16 PM Rob Weir wrote:

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Larry Gusaaslarry.gus...@gmail.com**
wrote:

Quit trying to weasel out of admitting you made an erroneous statement.

Having a Windows only statement means the point #1 is not done and not
available for all platforms. Your statement indicates you don't care
about
Mac or Linux users. Of course, you do work for IBM.

Take a chill pill Larry. I gave just one example. I could have easily
given another one, any of these, that are cross platform and allows cloud
storage of documents:

http://extensions.services.**openoffice.org/en/project/**ooo2gdhttp://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/project/ooo2gd

http://extensions.services.**openoffice.org/en/project/**smartcloudhttp://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/project/smartcloud

http://extensions.services.**openoffice.org/en/project/**
alfrescoconnectorhttp://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/project/alfrescoconnector

Good. You finally gave an useful response. Why didn't you do so in your
first response to me?

I was not responding to you. i was responding to Cody Miller who asked the
original question.

The fact remains that you are merely being argumentative, and have nothing
to offer to this conversation.

No I wasn't. I finally get an useful response to my original post. And
still you belittle me for pointing out the inadequacies of your original
post.

Again, yours was not the original post. It was Cody's.

Imagine we changed the topic slightly:

Cody: I have a really great idea. How about a machine that flies through
the air and carries people from one city to another?

Rob: It is easy, and in fact is already done, via airplanes. For example,
this airplane: www.lufthansa.com

Larry: It is not already done. I checked the Lufthansa website and they do
not fly to my city. Rob, your statement was inaccurate, Quit trying to
weasel out of admitting you made an erroneous statement. Your statement
indicates you don't care about small Canadian cities. Of course, you do
work for IBM.

Exactly parallel to above, but do you see how inappropriate such a response
would be seen?

The verb to done and its participle done is a very flexible word in
English. It has dozens of meanings listed in any good dictionary. Its
subtitles and idioms can vex even native English speakers. So I have a lot
of sympathy for how hard it must be for non-native speakers.

-Rob

--
__**___

Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind
theirs. - Edgard Varese

Re: Distribution of Windows versions

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.orgwrote:

 On 28/03/2012 Rob Weir wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Fernand Vanries...@pmgroup.be  wrote:

 Interesting, do you have also figures about the differences in OS :

  Windows versus Linux or Mac etc..

 There were some numbers posted on that a few weeks ago.  These charts show
 the MirrorBrain downloads of OpenOffice, from February:
 http://www.openoffice.org/**marketing/marketing_bouncer.**htmlhttp://www.openoffice.org/marketing/marketing_bouncer.html
 So, 90% Windows,  6% Mac, 3% Linux.


 These numbers, while probably still realistic, are from February 2011, not
 from February 2012. As discussed in other threads, published download
 figures have not been automatically updated since the move to Kenai (the
 platform hosting openoffice.org websites from February 2011 until the
 move to Apache).

 If the Windows versions breakdown uses data from February 2011 too, then
 we probably have more Windows 7 downloads and fewer Windows XP download
 with respect to the data sent by Rob.


The Windows breakdown numbers were from March 2012.  So they are current.

-Rob


 Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: Distribution of Windows versions

Please cancel all emails to me.
Tkanks

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:

 On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org
 wrote:

  On 28/03/2012 Rob Weir wrote:
 
  On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Fernand Vanries...@pmgroup.be  wrote:
 
  Interesting, do you have also figures about the differences in OS :
 
   Windows versus Linux or Mac etc..
 
  There were some numbers posted on that a few weeks ago.  These charts
 show
  the MirrorBrain downloads of OpenOffice, from February:
  http://www.openoffice.org/**marketing/marketing_bouncer.**html
 http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/marketing_bouncer.html
  So, 90% Windows,  6% Mac, 3% Linux.
 
 
  These numbers, while probably still realistic, are from February 2011,
 not
  from February 2012. As discussed in other threads, published download
  figures have not been automatically updated since the move to Kenai (the
  platform hosting openoffice.org websites from February 2011 until the
  move to Apache).
 
  If the Windows versions breakdown uses data from February 2011 too, then
  we probably have more Windows 7 downloads and fewer Windows XP download
  with respect to the data sent by Rob.
 
 
 The Windows breakdown numbers were from March 2012.  So they are current.

 -Rob


  Regards,
   Andrea.

Re: And idea for OOo

Please cancel all emails to me.
Tkanks

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:

 On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 
  On 2012-03-30 10:16 PM  Rob Weir wrote:
 
  On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Larry Gusaaslarry.gus...@gmail.com
 **
  wrote:
 
  Quit trying to weasel out of admitting you made an erroneous statement.
 
  Having a Windows only statement means the point #1 is not done and not
  available for all platforms. Your statement indicates you don't care
  about
  Mac or Linux users. Of course, you do work for IBM.
 
  Take a chill pill Larry.  I gave just one example.  I could have easily
  given another one, any of these, that are cross platform and allows
 cloud
  storage of documents:
 
  http://extensions.services.**openoffice.org/en/project/**ooo2gd
 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/project/ooo2gd
 
  http://extensions.services.**openoffice.org/en/project/**smartcloud
 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/project/smartcloud
 
  http://extensions.services.**openoffice.org/en/project/**
  alfrescoconnector
 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/project/alfrescoconnector
 
 
  Good. You finally gave an useful response. Why didn't you do so in your
  first response to me?
 
 
 
 I was not responding to you. i was responding to Cody Miller who asked the
 original question.



   The fact remains that you are merely being argumentative, and have
 nothing
  to offer to this conversation.
 
 
  No I wasn't. I finally get an useful response to my original post. And
  still you belittle me for pointing out the inadequacies of your original
  post.
 
 
 Again, yours was not the original post.  It was Cody's.

 Imagine we changed the topic slightly:

 Cody:  I have a really great idea.  How about a machine that flies through
 the air and carries people from one city to another?

 Rob:  It is easy, and in fact is already done, via airplanes.  For example,
 this airplane: www.lufthansa.com

 Larry: It is not already done.  I checked the Lufthansa website and they do
 not fly to my city.  Rob, your statement was inaccurate, Quit trying to
 weasel out of admitting you made an erroneous statement.  Your statement
 indicates you don't care about small Canadian cities. Of course, you do
 work for IBM.

 Exactly parallel to above, but do you see how inappropriate such a response
 would be seen?

 The verb to done and its participle done is a very flexible word in
 English.  It has dozens of meanings listed in any good dictionary.  Its
 subtitles and idioms can vex even native English speakers.  So I have a lot
 of sympathy for how hard it must be for non-native speakers.

 -Rob



 
  --
  __**___
 
  Larry I. Gusaas
  Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
  Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
  An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind
  theirs. - Edgard Varese

Re: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL] redirection of update services to www.openoffice.org

Please cancel all emails to me.
Tkanks

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.orgwrote:

 On 29/03/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:

 Day before yesterday, we  tried to do a test (DNS re-routing) with the
 older 
 update.services.openoffice.**orghttp://update.services.openoffice.org
 (I don't even know which version
 this was the update service for), I am wondering if those *older* clients
 were doing something different from what say the newer 3.x versions are.


 Indeed,
 http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/Update_**Notification_Protocolhttp://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Update_Notification_Protocol
 which Ariel and others found out to be the current version, says that this
 version no longer uses http post requests, which would confirm your
 doubt: probably there are thousands of very old clients using the old
 protocol, but newer versions behave in a more sustainable way.

 Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: OpenMeetings GSoC project relating to OpenOffice

Please cancel all emails to me.
Tkanks

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.comwrote:

 Just a heads up in case anyone here is interested. There is currently a
 discussion on the OpenMeetings (incubating) dev list about a GSoC project
 that involves using AOO to convert docs to JPG for display in video
 conferences. There might be an opportunity for some fruitful cross-project
 collaboration here.

 I'm on mobile do can't provide convenient links, sorry, search their dev
 list for GSoC OpenOffice if interested.

 Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.

Re: Instructions about how to retain access to the OpenOffice Templates website, now hosted at SourceForge

Please cancel all emails to me.
Tkanks

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.netwrote:

 On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com
 wrote:
 
 
  On 3/30/2012 12:27 AM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
 
  2012/3/30 Jürgen Schmidtjogischm...@googlemail.com:
 
  Hi Dennis,
 
  sorry for my reply I haven't noticed that the message was already sent
 to
  the template users. I got it as well as I have noticed afterwards.
 
  I should read emails only on the phone in the underground train and
  should
  answer it later.
 
  Anyway I am not really happy with the wording.
 
  Hi Jürgen,
 
   Dennis has no responsibility for that, and actually I did send the
  very same text message on this list on the 16th of March before
  sending it out, and again on the 27th, I'm sorry I couldn't get your
  feedback earlier. For further communications I'll make sure to double
  check with you.
 
  In terms of numbers and actions, here a recap of what we have been
  doing on this front:
 
  - we sent the first message to all active Extensions/Templates users
  - we restored almost all Extensions users (missing mapping/properly
  mapped 78/11700);
  - we restored a large number of Templates (missing mapping/properly
  mapped: 7480/28582).
  - with a final attempt at rescuing other users by using the alternate
  e-mails that Drupal stores we restored 25 Extensions users.
 
  Just to quickly clarify on this - the 'missing mapping' users are users
 who
  closed their accounts at OOo.
  Therefore, the deactivation of these accounts on Extensions/Templates is
  actually the preferred outcome.

 Ok, we'll deactivate all of them, but the ones with content (that
 otherwise would result as produced by 'anonymous').

 Roberto


  A.
 
 
 
  Roberto
 
  Juergen
 
 
 
  On 3/30/12 8:23 AM, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
 
  On Thursday, 29. March 2012 at 23:40, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
 
  FYI, all ...
 
  -Original Message-
  From: communityt...@sourceforge.net
  [mailto:communityt...@sourceforge.net]
  Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 14:19
  To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org
  Subject: Instructions about how to retain access to the OpenOffice
  Templates website, now hosted at SourceForge
 
  Dear OpenOffice.org Templates user,
 
  As you may have heard, Oracle contributed the OpenOffice.org (OOo)
 code
  to
 
  Why do you talk from code only? It is far more including the
 trademarks,
  domains.
 
  Apache in June 2011. As part of this move, we are about to lose
 access
  to
  the servers that formerly hosted the OpenOffice.org website and
 various
  other online services associated with the project, included the
  Templates
  websites.
 
  loose access to the servers sounds very negative. We should describe
 it
  differently, friendlier
 
  As part of the migration we had to move all services to Apache servers
  or other hosting services like sourceforge who offered help...
 
 
  Since SourceForge is currently hosting the Templates website, in
  collaboration with the Apache OpenOffice community we are working to
  help
  you to smoothly retain full control over your existing Templates
  credentials.
 
  All you need to do is to go to the following page and reset your
  password:
 
  http://templates.services.openoffice.org/en/user/password
 
  Whatever was your role at the OpenOffice.org community, we'd like to
  say
  thank you for your past contributions, and we look forward to see you
  help
  also the Apache OpenOffice community to succeed.
 
 
  Drop this paragraph, I don't see any value here. It sounds again very
  negative and as OpenOffice.org would be dead. The only thing that
  changed here is the user management.
 
  We should explain the facts an should try to describe it positive and
  maybe give an outlook ...
 
  Juergen
 
  We want also to take the
  chance to inform you that the Apache OpenOffice Templates and Apache
  OpenOffice Extensions were the first and second, respectively, on the
  last
  week's list of top-growth projects. That is, downloads for these two
  collections grew more in the last week than any other project on
  SourceForge.
 
  You maybe interested in knowing who are the top 10 Templates or which
  are
  the top countries by download, see below for more information.
 
  Top 10 Templates
 
  Basic Resume: http://aoo-templates.sourceforge.net/en/node/1312
  Tri Fold Brochure: http://aoo-templates.sourceforge.net/en/node/3067
  This Is a Resume: http://aoo-templates.sourceforge.net/en/node/6575
  Business card template:
  http://aoo-templates.sourceforge.net/en/node/1163/
  2012 Month/Year Calendar and Planner with Holidays.
  http://aoo-templates.sourceforge.net/en/node/8321
  DIN Brief mit Fenster links:
  http://aoo-templates.sourceforge.net/en/node/5039/
  Chronological Resume:
 http://aoo-templates.sourceforge.net/en/node/6431
  Resume Template: http://aoo-templates.sourceforge.net/en/node/3083
  Project Management Template with Gantt Schedule creation:

Re: After AOO 3.4, attracting new contributors

Please cancel all emails to me.
Tkanks

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 7:03 AM, drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 23:21 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
  On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:35 PM, drew jensen 
 drewjensen.in...@gmail.comwrote:
 
   On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 09:04 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Kevin Grignon 
   kevingrignon...@gmail.comwrote:
   
 Rob,

 Sounds like we can appeal to contributors intrinsic and extrinsic
 motivation.

 Another newbie question: Does OO have any experience recruiting
 non-technical volunteers. Many disciplines outside coding can have
 an
 impact on the offering. Product management, UX, ID, training,
 visual
 design, marketing, communications, etc. How might we position
   ourselves as
 open product development? A wider net would attract the diverse
 skills
   that
 could really make the effort a success long term.


See this page here, which our central how can I help page:
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-involved.html
   
So we need and value contributors in a wide range of disciplines, not
   just
technical ones.
   
   Hola Rob, Kevin
  
   Just an aside, if you will. At this years FOSDEM there was a panel
   discussion consisting of a number of the community managers. Included
   IIRC was openSUSE, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu (in this case the speaker was
   specifically from the LoCo team project, not Ubuntu overall)...and a
   couple others whose affiliation I can not recall.
  
   One topic, which would be germane here, was on recruiting contributors.
  
   Across the panel the participants felt that finding and retaining
   _quality_ non-coding contributors has proven to be more difficult then
   coders. Unfortunately that was the extent of the topic discussion, they
   all agreed but not a single one went into Why they thought this was, or
   what particular obstacles, procedural or cultural, might be involved,
 or
   what actions if any they have implemented to address the situation.
  
  
  I think OpenOffice has had the opposite problem.  We have a long
 tradition
  of having quality non-coding contributors, especially in areas like
  translation, marketing, documentation, support, etc.  But we had an
  over-reliance on corporate-sponsored engineers from a single company for
  coding.  If I look at the project today, I see volunteers for non-coding
  items volunteering on the list on a near-daily basis.  But not so often
 for
  coding volunteers.

 Hi Rob,

 Yes, you and I it would seem concur on our observational assessment of
 the current situation.

 
  In any case, my point was not really about coders versus non-coders.
  There
  is enough work to go around.  My concern was more that we're not doing a
  great job at getting new contributors involved in the project.  Look at
 our
  committers list.  We have nearly 100 now.  How many of them are actually
  new, e.g., were not involved with the legacy OpenOffice.org project.
  Sure,
  there are a few, but not many.
 
  Now look at the list archives for how many people of volunteered to help
  with the documentation, with the website, with UI, with testing, etc.
  How
  many of them were able to break into actually contributing to the
 project.
  Almost none of them, right?

 Yes, I'd agree. I also think it's fair to say, self forming volunteer
 organizations fit the pattern in general - and therefore even more so
 requires active attention always.

 
  So the issue, as I see it, is not an issue with attracting volunteers.
  It
  isan issue of helping the volunteers get started and helping them meet
  their goals in project participation.

 Sure, no argument here on any of that. I'd follow up from the first
 paragraph, and add that IMO the new actors most needed right now are
 those fitting the thin area - engineering.

 I think this means that; from those doing the engineering, particularly
 those making decisions on the directions the code will be developed
 going forward a need to be mindful to keep the required processes open
 and transparent - pick your term here, and I hope all understand what I
 mean here.. this is in no way an indictment but rather statemtnt of what
 I see as a general principle
 - so that those whom would be interested in such work will know it is
 here.

 I think this is the first step in attracting engineering resources.

 From there then yes, the group needs to be proactive with organizing
 hackfeasts, or activities of such like, the non-engineering contributors
 can only at best help with this not drive it forward.

 Anyhow - A long, rambling response, befitting a late Friday night, and
 all surrounded of course by IMO ;)

 //drew







 
  -Rob
 
 
 
   Anyhow, just thought I'd pass it along. BTW I watched this on a live
   video stream but the panel discussion may be available in an on-line
   archive, I don't know one way of the other.
  
   //drew

Re: AOO Web Logos?

Please cancel all emails to me.
Tkanks

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:

 On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 7:50 PM, drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 09:19 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote:
  
   On 03/30/2012 06:20 AM, drew jensen wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 08:03 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com
   wrote:
   
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org
   wrote:
   
What is the latest thinking on the AOO logos?
   
There is some great material on the wiki:
   
   
   
 
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Application+Branding
   
   
  https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOOLogo+proposal
   
   
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Logo+Proposals
   
Drew did a lot of initial work here.   But it is not clear to me
whether we have a final recommendation, whether the work is
 ongoing,
etc.
   
If we have a design that is considered the one to go with, could
someone propose it as the official logo, so we can see if there
 are
any objections?  It would be good to get some closure on this.
   
   
yes, I know...I am rather late to this party.
   
I would be happy to make a proposal to adopt the first banner on
   
   
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Logo+Proposals
   
as the official web logo, and actually make this change, but...
   
where are we with the incubating business. Would we have this in
  addition
to the current incubating logo which we currently have or ???
   
I probably have missed other discussions about the incubating
  topic.
   
   
   
The incubation requirement is that we have (incubating) on the
  *page*
along with the podling disclaimer.  We're not required to have
(incubating) in the logo.  In fact, some of us have recommended
  that we
do not put (incubating) in the logo.  If we can have a clean
 logo
without that, then we can use the same logo after we graduate.
   
well, all the artwork I've submitted and I've said this before, is
  setup
up with layers - just open it, hide or remove the layer named
'incubating' and it's gone.
   
   
   
   
   
   
Also, I'll feel a little artistic this week, after doing that
  timeline
;-).   So next I'd like to then take the logo design, and create
 two
variations that we can use to inform users about the 3.4 release.
   
-- a coming soon webpage/blog logo that project supporters may
 put
on their websites.  It would be linked to a page that we would
 host,
with FAQ's on AOO 3.4, including information on signing up for the
ooo-announce list, etc.
   
- a get AOO logo, also for supports to use on their own
 websites.
It would be linked to our download webpage on openoffice.org.
   
The nice thing about this approach (which is used by many other
projects) is we do not need to give blanket permission for anyone
 to
use our main logo for any purpose.  And we don't need to have them
  ask
permission for using our logo for these specific purposes. We
  provide
a special purpose logo to be used for these common things.
  
   Well I would be happy to do an actual PROPOSAL with Lazy Consensus from
   among the following 3 logos on:
  
   https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Logo+Proposals
  
   * the first logo under the heading
   1.1 Proposed banner logo for the main web site
  
   * or either of the orb-centric proposals
   2.1 Orb Centric Proposal Logo #1,
   2.2 Orb Centric Proposal Logo #2
  
 
  Howdy Kay, et al
 
  I really think the idea of a community, less restrictive, image makes
  sense. Looking at what is there then I'd vote for
 
  1.1 to base the official on, and use that specific image for the
  website. While still in incubating status we can just keep the ASF
  Incubating graphic in the upper right hand corner, after graduation just
  drop it.
 
  2.1 to base the community logo on and the specific image as the first
  entry on a wiki page and htmel snippet, ready for media and supporter
  use.
 
  So for the moment then it is a proposal to use the feather for
  in-project, or with permission, work and no feather for the less formal
  usage - does that sound right?
 
 

 What do you mean by less formal usage?  Do you mean use on the project
 blog, the support forums, etc., e.g., in a PMC-directed way?  If so this
 might be fine.  But if you mean that we allow it to be freely used outside
 of the project, then I think 2.1 is much too similar to the official logo,

 Ask yourself, would it confuse the public if the logo showed up in an eBay
 action next to a sale of OpenOffice CD's?  Would it confuse the user if it
 shows up on an external page claiming to raise funds?  Would it suggest
 affiliation with the project if it showed up on a 3rd part consultant's
 webpage?

Re: buildbot failure in ASF Buildbot on openoffice-linux64-nightly

Please cancel all emails to me.
Tkanks

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote:

 Just a heads up on the build.
 The stable buildbot build is having problems downloading newly added
 dictionaries during bootstrap.
 http://ci.apache.org/builders/**openoffice-linux64-nightly/**
 builds/172/steps/compile_3/**logs/stdiohttp://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux64-nightly/builds/172/steps/compile_3/logs/stdio

 On 3/30/2012 4:17 PM, build...@apache.org wrote:

 The Buildbot has finished a build on builder openoffice-linux64-nightly
 while building ASF Buildbot.
 Full details are available at:
  
 http://ci.apache.org/builders/**openoffice-linux64-nightly/**builds/172http://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux64-nightly/builds/172

 Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/

 Buildslave for this Build: tethys_ubuntu

 Build Reason: forced: by IRC userarist  on channel #asftest: to force
 RAT check
 Build Source Stamp: HEAD
 Blamelist:

 BUILD FAILED: failed compile_3

 sincerely,
  -The Buildbot

Making it easy for IPMC members to vote in favor of AOO 3.4

Try to imagine yourself in the IPMC, being asked to vote for the release of
AOO 3.4.  You want to make sure the release follows Apache policies and
guidelines.  You want to protect the ASF.  You want to ensure that users,
including developers using our source code packages, get the greatest
benefit from the release.  But you are faced with a 10 million line code
project, larger and more complex than anything you've faced before at
Apache.

What do you do?  Where do you start?

Honestly, I have absolutely no idea.  It is daunting task.  But I think it
is in our best interest as a PPMC to make our AOO 3.4 Release Candidate
easy to review for the IPMC.  This means understanding the common questions
and concerns they might have and preparing answers to these in advance.

I've drafted an outline, and filled in some of the blanks, for a Summary
of Apache OpenOffice 3.4 IP Review document on the wiki. I think this will
help raise the IPMC comfort level by documenting in one place the due
diligence we performed and the final results. It also highlights the
unusual things that came up in this project, such as the mere aggregation
inclusion of dictionaries in the binary packages.

Here it is:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Summary+of+Apache+OpenOffice+3.4+IP+Review+Activities

Any help in filling in the blanks would be much appreciated, by me (of
course), but hopefully also by the IPMC.   If we should cover other topics,
add those as well.

Regards,

-Rob

Re: Making it easy for IPMC members to vote in favor of AOO 3.4

2012-03-31 Thread Juergen Schmidt

On Saturday, 31. March 2012 at 17:14, Rob Weir wrote:
Try to imagine yourself in the IPMC, being asked to vote for the release of
AOO 3.4. You want to make sure the release follows Apache policies and
guidelines. You want to protect the ASF. You want to ensure that users,
including developers using our source code packages, get the greatest
benefit from the release. But you are faced with a 10 million line code
project, larger and more complex than anything you've faced before at
Apache.

What do you do? Where do you start?

Honestly, I have absolutely no idea. It is daunting task. But I think it
is in our best interest as a PPMC to make our AOO 3.4 Release Candidate
easy to review for the IPMC. This means understanding the common questions
and concerns they might have and preparing answers to these in advance.

I've drafted an outline, and filled in some of the blanks, for a Summary
of Apache OpenOffice 3.4 IP Review document on the wiki. I think this will
help raise the IPMC comfort level by documenting in one place the due
diligence we performed and the final results. It also highlights the
unusual things that came up in this project, such as the mere aggregation
inclusion of dictionaries in the binary packages.

Here it is:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Summary+of+Apache+OpenOffice+3.4+IP+Review+Activities

Any help in filling in the blanks would be much appreciated, by me (of
course), but hopefully also by the IPMC. If we should cover other topics,
add those as well.

You have probably missed this
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Release+FAQ

We have started a similar page and I would suggest that we consolidate these 2
pages immediately to avoid duplicated work and confusion.

Juergen

Regards,

-Rob

Re: Making it easy for IPMC members to vote in favor of AOO 3.4

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Juergen Schmidt
jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote:

On Saturday, 31. March 2012 at 17:14, Rob Weir wrote:
Try to imagine yourself in the IPMC, being asked to vote for the release
of
AOO 3.4. You want to make sure the release follows Apache policies and
guidelines. You want to protect the ASF. You want to ensure that users,
including developers using our source code packages, get the greatest
benefit from the release. But you are faced with a 10 million line code
project, larger and more complex than anything you've faced before at
Apache.

What do you do? Where do you start?

Honestly, I have absolutely no idea. It is daunting task. But I think it
is in our best interest as a PPMC to make our AOO 3.4 Release Candidate
easy to review for the IPMC. This means understanding the common
questions
and concerns they might have and preparing answers to these in advance.

I've drafted an outline, and filled in some of the blanks, for a Summary
of Apache OpenOffice 3.4 IP Review document on the wiki. I think this
will
help raise the IPMC comfort level by documenting in one place the due
diligence we performed and the final results. It also highlights the
unusual things that came up in this project, such as the mere
aggregation
inclusion of dictionaries in the binary packages.

Here it is:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Summary+of+Apache+OpenOffice+3.4+IP+Review+Activities

Any help in filling in the blanks would be much appreciated, by me (of
course), but hopefully also by the IPMC. If we should cover other topics,
add those as well.

You have probably missed this
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Release+FAQ

We have started a similar page and I would suggest that we consolidate
these 2 pages immediately to avoid duplicated work and confusion.

I think they are subtly different. Your page is a summary of the release
package, what is included, what different directories do, etc. It is good
for someone who has download the package, unzipped it, and is looking at
the files.

The page I started is more about the process we followed, what we did, what
we removed, the decisions we made, and why. So it is more about the logic
of what we did. Your page is more about the end results.

But it probably makes sense to combine these somehow, I agree.

-Rob

Juergen

Regards,

-Rob

Re: And idea for OOo

2012-03-31 Thread Larry Gusaas



On 2012-03-31 5:55 AM  Rob Weir wrote:

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Larry Gusaaslarry.gus...@gmail.comwrote:

Good. You finally gave an useful response. Why didn't you do so in your
first response to me?

I was not responding to you. i was responding to Cody Miller who asked the
original question.


Your first response to me was not to me? God, how dense can you be? I pointed out the fallacy 
in your response to the OP and you repeatedly gave meaningless responses. When I acknowledge 
that you finally gave an useful response you once again start belittling me.


Do you have a PhD in obfuscation, alienation, and condescension? Is your ego so big you can't 
admit your response was inadequate?


Do you always need to have the last word? If you respond to this, you will have 
it.

--
_

Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - 
Edgard Varese

[PROPOSAL] AOO logo rebranding...

2012-03-31 Thread Kay Schenk

We're getting very close to a 3.4 launch, and the time has come to move
forward with a logo rebranidng for at least the user portal web site,
http://www.openoffice.org, and possibly the project web site as well,
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/.

Quite a number of logo variations have been proposed for uses within
OpenOffice, both internal to the program and other uses, page sidebars,
Forum header, etc.

The most recent discussion can be found at the following thread:

http://markmail.org/thread/fvgwlvva5ziib7qg

a conversation started by Rob on March 15.

You will note that one of the outcomes of this discussion was the desire
that a new logo NOT include the word incubating in the logo.

What I think we need to focus on now, and get Lazy Consensus on, is a new
logo for the upcoming release, 3.4. Internally, we've already started
calling OpenOffice.org Apache OpenOffice, and we need to move forward to
complete this re-branding to the public.

I've put 3 web header logos in...

http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/

*
AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpghttp://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpg
*
AOO_orb2_logo_webSite.jpghttp://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/AOO_orb2_logo_webSite.jpg
*
AOOfeather_logo_webSite.pnghttp://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/AOOfeather_logo_webSite.png

Please respond to this e-mail by selecting your favorite from these 3.

Given the Lazy Consenus process, discussion will be closed on Tuesday,
April 2, 0900 PDT.
Hopefully, we'll have a clear choice by then.

MzK

Women and cats will do as they please,
and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
--
Robert Heinlein

Re: [TRANSLATION]: Current status

2012-03-31 Thread Paolo Pozzan


Il 29/03/2012 13:24, Jürgen Schmidt ha scritto:

Hi,

the Pootle server is now updated and in sync with the latest available
translation data and the new 3-4 relevant templates.

[cut]

I tend to include these languages in our first release and plan to take
the available data from Pootle on Monday. That means every update that
is available until Monday (April 4th) will be integrated. You can also
attach local translated po file to a new issue and assign it to me.


I need to send you the files for italian translations.
Can you please remind me what is your BZ username?


The relevant projects can be found under
UI: https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/
HELP: https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34_help/

Right now there is a general problem on the Pootle server that
suggestions can't be accepted or declined. Even when the permissions are
set correct (I have the same problem in my local installation of
Pootle). But it can be workaround by copy the suggestion manually. Not
perfect but it works. In such cases I would suggest the committer who
plan to accept something search the dialog on the mailing first or
however it is managed by the people who work on it in a shared team.

I would say we will need at least 1 committer for every language.


That's why I send a signed ICLA to the foundation. What are the next 
steps I should follow to become committer?

Thanks.

Paolo

Re: And idea for OOo

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.comwrote:


 On 2012-03-31 5:55 AM  Rob Weir wrote:

 On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Larry Gusaaslarry.gus...@gmail.com**
 wrote:

 Good. You finally gave an useful response. Why didn't you do so in your
 first response to me?

 I was not responding to you. i was responding to Cody Miller who asked the
 original question.


 Your first response to me was not to me? God, how dense can you be? I
 pointed out the fallacy in your response to the OP and you repeatedly gave
 meaningless responses. When I acknowledge that you finally gave an useful
 response you once again start belittling me.

 Do you have a PhD in obfuscation, alienation, and condescension? Is your
 ego so big you can't admit your response was inadequate?


Larry, if you were confused by my post or thought it was inadequate then I
sincerely apologize for my inability to make things clear to you.  Feel
free to ask questions in the future if you do not understand something I
write, on list or off.

Regards,

-Rob


 Do you always need to have the last word? If you respond to this, you will
 have it.


 --
 __**___

 Larry I. Gusaas
 Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
 Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
 An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind
 theirs. - Edgard Varese

Re: AOO Web Logos?

2012-03-31 Thread Kay Schenk

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:

 On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:

 
 
  On 03/30/2012 06:20 AM, drew jensen wrote:
 
  On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 08:03 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
 
  On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com
   wrote:
 
   On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org
  wrote:
 
   What is the latest thinking on the AOO logos?
 
  There is some great material on the wiki:
 
 
   https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
  Application+Branding
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Application+Branding
 
 
  https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
  AOOLogo+proposal
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOOLogo+proposal
 
  https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
  Logo+Proposals
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Logo+Proposals
 
  Drew did a lot of initial work here.   But it is not clear to me
  whether we have a final recommendation, whether the work is ongoing,
  etc.
 
  If we have a design that is considered the one to go with, could
  someone propose it as the official logo, so we can see if there are
  any objections?  It would be good to get some closure on this.
 
 
  yes, I know...I am rather late to this party.
 
  I would be happy to make a proposal to adopt the first banner on
 
 
 https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**Logo+Proposals
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Logo+Proposals
 
  as the official web logo, and actually make this change, but...
 
  where are we with the incubating business. Would we have this in
  addition
  to the current incubating logo which we currently have or ???
 
  I probably have missed other discussions about the incubating topic.
 
 
 
  The incubation requirement is that we have (incubating) on the *page*
  along with the podling disclaimer.  We're not required to have
  (incubating) in the logo.  In fact, some of us have recommended that
 we
  do not put (incubating) in the logo.  If we can have a clean logo
  without that, then we can use the same logo after we graduate.
 
 
  well, all the artwork I've submitted and I've said this before, is setup
  up with layers - just open it, hide or remove the layer named
  'incubating' and it's gone.
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Also, I'll feel a little artistic this week, after doing that
 timeline
  ;-).   So next I'd like to then take the logo design, and create two
  variations that we can use to inform users about the 3.4 release.
 
  -- a coming soon webpage/blog logo that project supporters may put
  on their websites.  It would be linked to a page that we would host,
  with FAQ's on AOO 3.4, including information on signing up for the
  ooo-announce list, etc.
 
  - a get AOO logo, also for supports to use on their own websites.
  It would be linked to our download webpage on openoffice.org.
 
  The nice thing about this approach (which is used by many other
  projects) is we do not need to give blanket permission for anyone to
  use our main logo for any purpose.  And we don't need to have them
 ask
  permission for using our logo for these specific purposes. We provide
  a special purpose logo to be used for these common things.
 
 
  Well I would be happy to do an actual PROPOSAL with Lazy Consensus from
  among the following 3 logos on:
 
  https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**Logo+Proposals
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Logo+Proposals
 
  * the first logo under the heading
  1.1 Proposed banner logo for the main web site
 
  * or either of the orb-centric proposals
  2.1 Orb Centric Proposal Logo #1,
  2.2 Orb Centric Proposal Logo #2
 
 
 

 I'd recommend starting a new [Proposal] thread if you want to seek lazy
 consensus on this, so it is not buried in this thread.


done! this was my intention all alongI've referenced this thread.

baby steps.


 
  Rob, given your explanation, I'm assuming we would keep the
 (incubating)
  wording next to the logo as we have now.
 
 
 As HTML text, yes.



  Re your other comments...the Coming soon logo does sound like a
  nice/worthwhile idea. Something we can work on soonish...
 
 
 
 With current progress on the AOO 3.4 builds, it might be too late for a
 coming soon logo.  We can probably go straight to the download or get
 it here logo,   Drew has some examples of these on the wiki as well.



 
 
 
  -Rob
 
 
 
 
  --
 
  --**--**
  
  MzK
 
  Women and cats will do as they please,
   and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
 --
  Robert Heinlein
 
 
 
 
  --
  --**--**
  
  MzK
 
  Women and cats will do as they please,
   and men and

Re: And idea for OOo


Yue Helen wrote:

Cody has one
more great idea which is to edit the document directly in the storage...I
think he is talking about a web-based editor solution based on OO.
Have we had such discussion before?


There is this prototype, and it's amazing to think that it is from 4 
years ago...

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ODF@WWW

This video shows it in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI0AEJkotzMfmt=6

Then an OpenOffice.org project was started for it, but it has always 
been silent. It used to live at http://odf-at-www.openoffice.org and be 
an incubator project (unrelated to the Apache Incubator) but I can't 
see it at http://www.openoffice.org/projects/incubator.html


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: Making it easy for IPMC members to vote in favor of AOO 3.4

2012-03-31 Thread Dave Fisher

On Mar 31, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Juergen Schmidt
jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote:

On Saturday, 31. March 2012 at 17:14, Rob Weir wrote:
Try to imagine yourself in the IPMC, being asked to vote for the release
of
AOO 3.4. You want to make sure the release follows Apache policies and
guidelines. You want to protect the ASF. You want to ensure that users,
including developers using our source code packages, get the greatest
benefit from the release. But you are faced with a 10 million line code
project, larger and more complex than anything you've faced before at
Apache.

What do you do? Where do you start?

Honestly, I have absolutely no idea. It is daunting task. But I think it
is in our best interest as a PPMC to make our AOO 3.4 Release Candidate
easy to review for the IPMC. This means understanding the common
questions
and concerns they might have and preparing answers to these in advance.

I've drafted an outline, and filled in some of the blanks, for a Summary
of Apache OpenOffice 3.4 IP Review document on the wiki. I think this
will
help raise the IPMC comfort level by documenting in one place the due
diligence we performed and the final results. It also highlights the
unusual things that came up in this project, such as the mere
aggregation
inclusion of dictionaries in the binary packages.

Here it is:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Summary+of+Apache+OpenOffice+3.4+IP+Review+Activities

Any help in filling in the blanks would be much appreciated, by me (of
course), but hopefully also by the IPMC. If we should cover other topics,
add those as well.

You have probably missed this
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Release+FAQ

We have started a similar page and I would suggest that we consolidate
these 2 pages immediately to avoid duplicated work and confusion.

I think that Marvin and Juergen have had productive conversations on
general@i.a.o

Here is what I would want to see.

(1) BUILD instructions. An accurate and complete description of the build of
the binaries from source including how much time it takes on various platforms.
This would help an IPMC plan how much time they will need to check the release.
This is about the mechanics. Also, how to run the RAT report.

(2) README. This can be the description of the release, dependencies, SGA, RAT
excludes and why, etc.

(3) NOTICE and LICENSE will need to be at the head of the tree in the standard
location. Additions for the Binary packages should end up in the appropriate
place in those packages after the build. I expect that these may differ
slightly depending on the target platform?

But it probably makes sense to combine these somehow, I agree.

Yes and no. I think that Rob is leaning in on the README and the other Wiki
page is about To Dos. For the release, I think that there are different aspects
of the project's contents that need to be explained in the each of four
contexts.

(1) BUILD - how does one assemble the source into a usable binary?
(2) README - what are the project's components?
(3) LICENSE - what are the legal obligations?
(4) NOTICE - what are the copyrights?

Regards,
Dave

-Rob

Juergen

Regards,

-Rob

Re: [PROPOSAL] AOO logo rebranding...

2012-03-31 Thread Andrew Rist

AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpg

On 3/31/2012 9:02 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:

Quite a number of logo variations have been proposed for uses within
OpenOffice, both internal to the program and other uses, page sidebars,
Forum header, etc.

The most recent discussion can be found at the following thread:

http://markmail.org/thread/fvgwlvva5ziib7qg

a conversation started by Rob on March 15.

You will note that one of the outcomes of this discussion was the desire
that a new logo NOT include the word incubating in the logo.

I've put 3 web header logos in...

http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/

Please respond to this e-mail by selecting your favorite from these 3.

Given the Lazy Consenus process, discussion will be closed on Tuesday,
April 2, 0900 PDT.
Hopefully, we'll have a clear choice by then.

MzK

Women and cats will do as they please,
and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
--
Robert Heinlein

Re: [PROPOSAL] AOO logo rebranding...

2012-03-31 Thread RGB ES

El día 31 de marzo de 2012 18:02, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com escribió:
We're getting very close to a 3.4 launch, and the time has come to move
forward with a logo rebranidng for at least the user portal web site,
http://www.openoffice.org, and possibly the project web site as well,
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/.

Quite a number of logo variations have been proposed for uses within
OpenOffice, both internal to the program and other uses, page sidebars,
Forum header, etc.

The most recent discussion can be found at the following thread:

http://markmail.org/thread/fvgwlvva5ziib7qg

a conversation started by Rob on March 15.

You will note that one of the outcomes of this discussion was the desire
that a new logo NOT include the word incubating in the logo.

I've put 3 web header logos in...

http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/

Please respond to this e-mail by selecting your favorite from these 3.

Given the Lazy Consenus process, discussion will be closed on Tuesday,
April 2, 0900 PDT.
Hopefully, we'll have a clear choice by then.

MzK

Women and cats will do as they please,
and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
--
Robert Heinlein

AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpg

[TRANSLATION] 119159 for Finnish UI

2012-03-31 Thread Risto Jääskeläinen


I just send updates of Finnish Apache OpenOffice UI translations to Bugzilla. 
Hope it will be found there.

Regards 
Risto

Re: Bugzilla 4.2 has been released


On 28/03/2012 Rob Weir wrote:

This is the release that adds support for Disabling Old Components,
Versions and Milestones, something that would make our lives a lot easier...
Would it make sense to let Infra know that we're willing to test/pilot
Bugzilla 4.2, if that would be useful, before any general roll-out to other
projects?


Yes, this would definitely improve the user experience of people who try 
to report bugs and it would be very good to have it available when 
OpenOffice 3.4 is released.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Analytics - of a kind ( was: Uk gov open standards consultation and odf)

2012-03-31 Thread drew

Changed the subject line - please indulge me with a small aside from the
original subject matter.

1 days numbers. (pulled over the last few minutes, of course ;)

The forum post has received 94 views
24 of those came from the single twitter post.
[ we know that by going to https://bitly.com/HA9hnK+ ]

The twitter post also landed the shortened URL on two paper.il pages:
the front page here
http://paper.li/OUCVols/1323382478/2012/03/31
[as an aside to an aside - I took another indulgence this morning
creating a one off background image for use here, kind on the logo
conversation - proposal - going on..it's easily changed/removed]

and the business page at
http://paper.li/baseanswers/1291434220/2012/03/31#!business

anyway - I looked and thought to pass it along.

I suppose if anything though, such belongs on the marketing list, more
then here.

Ah - one more aside to the aside - there is a standing invitation no the
marketing list to a conference call, with a focus on marketing/promotion
activities.. anyone interested should make an effort to check it out I
would think. 

Ciao for now,

//drew


On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 18:06 -0400, drew wrote:
 On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 23:50 +0200, Hagar Delest wrote:
  Thanks for the pointer.
  Done on the English forum: 
  http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49t=49691
  
 Howdy Hagar
 
 Great - added a tweet w/link to the forum post from the OUCVols account
 as:
 
 OUCVols ‏ @OUCVols 
 
 Apache OpenOffice Forum: ODF  OOXML: standards at stake
 http://bit.ly/HA9hnK
 
 //drew
 
  
  
   It seems Microsoft is lobbying the UK Cabinet office for OOXML in place of
   odf
   http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/public-sector/2012/03/microsoft-redeploys-ooxml-in-o.html
  
   Anyone that has a point of view can respond to the consultation at
   http://consultation.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/openstandards/how-to-respond/
  
   The more that state odf is the choice if we want proper open standards the
   better so please publicise on relevant lists.

Re: Making it easy for IPMC members to vote in favor of AOO 3.4

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:


 On Mar 31, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

  On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Juergen Schmidt 
  jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote:
 
  On Saturday, 31. March 2012 at 17:14, Rob Weir wrote:
  Try to imagine yourself in the IPMC, being asked to vote for the
 release
  of
  AOO 3.4. You want to make sure the release follows Apache policies and
  guidelines. You want to protect the ASF. You want to ensure that users,
  including developers using our source code packages, get the greatest
  benefit from the release. But you are faced with a 10 million line code
  project, larger and more complex than anything you've faced before at
  Apache.
 
  What do you do? Where do you start?
 
  Honestly, I have absolutely no idea. It is daunting task. But I think
 it
  is in our best interest as a PPMC to make our AOO 3.4 Release Candidate
  easy to review for the IPMC. This means understanding the common
  questions
  and concerns they might have and preparing answers to these in advance.
 
  I've drafted an outline, and filled in some of the blanks, for a
 Summary
  of Apache OpenOffice 3.4 IP Review document on the wiki. I think this
  will
  help raise the IPMC comfort level by documenting in one place the due
  diligence we performed and the final results. It also highlights the
  unusual things that came up in this project, such as the mere
  aggregation
  inclusion of dictionaries in the binary packages.
 
  Here it is:
 
 
 
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Summary+of+Apache+OpenOffice+3.4+IP+Review+Activities
 
  Any help in filling in the blanks would be much appreciated, by me (of
  course), but hopefully also by the IPMC. If we should cover other
 topics,
  add those as well.
 
 
 
 
  You have probably missed this
 
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Release+FAQ
 
  We have started a similar page and I would suggest that we consolidate
  these 2 pages immediately to avoid duplicated work and confusion.
 
 
  I think they are subtly different. Your page is a summary of the release
  package, what is included, what different directories do, etc.  It is
 good
  for someone who has download the package, unzipped it, and is looking at
  the files.

 I think that Marvin and Juergen have had productive conversations on
 general@i.a.o


Yes, that is part of what informed the choice of material to present.  But
it is worth looking beyond that.  The old saying is every new class of
testers finds a new class of bugs.  The same could be said of reviewers.
Marvin found one class of issues. Other IPMC members will have their own
particular interests and areas of concern.


 Here is what I would want to see.

 (1) BUILD instructions.  An accurate and complete description of the build
 of the binaries from source including how much time it takes on various
 platforms. This would help an IPMC plan how much time they will need to
 check the release. This is about the mechanics. Also, how to run the RAT
 report.

 (2) README. This can be the description of the release, dependencies, SGA,
 RAT excludes and why, etc.

 (3) NOTICE and LICENSE will need to be at the head of the tree in the
 standard location. Additions for the Binary packages should end up in the
 appropriate place in those packages after the build. I expect that these
 may differ slightly depending on the target platform?

 
  The page I started is more about the process we followed, what we did,
 what
  we removed, the decisions we made, and why. So it is more about the logic
  of what we did.  Your page is more about the end results.
 
  But it probably makes sense to combine these somehow, I agree.

 Yes and no. I think that Rob is leaning in on the README and the other
 Wiki page is about To Dos. For the release, I think that there are
 different aspects of the project's contents that need to be explained in
 the each of four contexts.


For now I've cross-linked the two pages.

-Rob


 (1) BUILD - how does one assemble the source into a usable binary?
 (2) README - what are the project's components?
 (3) LICENSE - what are the legal obligations?
 (4) NOTICE - what are the copyrights?

 Regards,
 Dave


 
  -Rob
 
 
 
  Juergen
 
  Regards,
 
  -Rob

Re: Making it easy for IPMC members to vote in favor of AOO 3.4

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:


 On Mar 31, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

  On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net
 wrote:
 
 
  On Mar 31, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
 
  On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Juergen Schmidt 
  jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote:
 
  On Saturday, 31. March 2012 at 17:14, Rob Weir wrote:
  Try to imagine yourself in the IPMC, being asked to vote for the
  release
  of
  AOO 3.4. You want to make sure the release follows Apache policies
 and
  guidelines. You want to protect the ASF. You want to ensure that
 users,
  including developers using our source code packages, get the greatest
  benefit from the release. But you are faced with a 10 million line
 code
  project, larger and more complex than anything you've faced before at
  Apache.
 
  What do you do? Where do you start?
 
  Honestly, I have absolutely no idea. It is daunting task. But I think
  it
  is in our best interest as a PPMC to make our AOO 3.4 Release
 Candidate
  easy to review for the IPMC. This means understanding the common
  questions
  and concerns they might have and preparing answers to these in
 advance.
 
  I've drafted an outline, and filled in some of the blanks, for a
  Summary
  of Apache OpenOffice 3.4 IP Review document on the wiki. I think
 this
  will
  help raise the IPMC comfort level by documenting in one place the due
  diligence we performed and the final results. It also highlights the
  unusual things that came up in this project, such as the mere
  aggregation
  inclusion of dictionaries in the binary packages.
 
  Here it is:
 
 
 
 
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Summary+of+Apache+OpenOffice+3.4+IP+Review+Activities
 
  Any help in filling in the blanks would be much appreciated, by me
 (of
  course), but hopefully also by the IPMC. If we should cover other
  topics,
  add those as well.
 
 
 
 
  You have probably missed this
 
 
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Release+FAQ
 
  We have started a similar page and I would suggest that we consolidate
  these 2 pages immediately to avoid duplicated work and confusion.
 
 
  I think they are subtly different. Your page is a summary of the
 release
  package, what is included, what different directories do, etc.  It is
  good
  for someone who has download the package, unzipped it, and is looking
 at
  the files.
 
  I think that Marvin and Juergen have had productive conversations on
  general@i.a.o
 
 
  Yes, that is part of what informed the choice of material to present.
  But
  it is worth looking beyond that.  The old saying is every new class of
  testers finds a new class of bugs.  The same could be said of reviewers.
  Marvin found one class of issues. Other IPMC members will have their own
  particular interests and areas of concern.

 Wearing my IPMC hat, you've heard what my interests are.


And that is important to note, that some of these are PMC interests, not
user interests, and not even downstream consumer interests.  Downstream
consumers need to be able to build, understand the license and notice
requirements that come with the use of our code.  They do not need to
review the SGA or RAT scans. Those are purely PMC concerns.  So I really
don't see those going into a README file.  But I do think it is important
for us to consolidate that info somepace.


Make the following readily available with a predictable impact on my time
 and a vote for a release will be eased..


This all makes sense to me except the README part.   What would a
downstream consumer do with a RAT scan or a discussion of the SGA?

-Rob



 
 
  Here is what I would want to see.
 
  (1) BUILD instructions.  An accurate and complete description of the
 build
  of the binaries from source including how much time it takes on various
  platforms. This would help an IPMC plan how much time they will need to
  check the release. This is about the mechanics. Also, how to run the RAT
  report.
 
  (2) README. This can be the description of the release, dependencies,
 SGA,
  RAT excludes and why, etc.
 
  (3) NOTICE and LICENSE will need to be at the head of the tree in the
  standard location. Additions for the Binary packages should end up in
 the
  appropriate place in those packages after the build. I expect that these
  may differ slightly depending on the target platform?
 
 
  The page I started is more about the process we followed, what we did,
  what
  we removed, the decisions we made, and why. So it is more about the
 logic
  of what we did.  Your page is more about the end results.
 
  But it probably makes sense to combine these somehow, I agree.
 
  Yes and no. I think that Rob is leaning in on the README and the other
  Wiki page is about To Dos. For the release, I think that there are
  different aspects of the project's contents that need to be explained in
  the each of four contexts.
 
 
  For now I've

Re: [PROPOSAL] AOO logo rebranding...

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:

 We're getting very close to a 3.4 launch, and the time has come to move
 forward with a logo rebranidng for at least the user portal  web site,
 http://www.openoffice.org, and possibly the project web site as well,
 http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/.

 Quite a number of logo variations have been proposed for uses within
 OpenOffice, both internal to the program and other uses, page sidebars,
 Forum header, etc.

 The most recent discussion can be found at the following thread:

 http://markmail.org/thread/fvgwlvva5ziib7qg

 a conversation started by Rob on March 15.

 You will note that one of  the outcomes of this discussion was the desire
 that a new logo NOT include the word incubating in the logo.

 What I think we need to focus on now, and get Lazy Consensus on, is a new
 logo for the upcoming release, 3.4. Internally, we've already started
 calling OpenOffice.org Apache OpenOffice, and we need to move forward to
 complete this re-branding to the public.

 I've put 3 web header logos in...

 http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/

 * AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpg
 http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpg
 * AOO_orb2_logo_webSite.jpg
 http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/AOO_orb2_logo_webSite.jpg
 * AOOfeather_logo_webSite.png
 http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/AOOfeather_logo_webSite.png

 Please respond to this e-mail by selecting your favorite from these 3.



So hard to pick.  These are all good choices.  But I think
AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpg is the best choice for the website.

(My second choice would have been AOOfeather_logo_webSite.png.  I really
like that as well, but considering the wide range of languages spoken in
the larger user community, a logo that has the extra text slogan would be
less universal.)



 Given the Lazy Consenus process, discussion will be closed on Tuesday,
 April 2, 0900 PDT.
 Hopefully, we'll have a clear choice by then.


 
 MzK

 Women and cats will do as they please,
  and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
--
 Robert Heinlein

RE: [PROPOSAL] AOO logo rebranding...

2012-03-31 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Ah, for the web site.  The coin drops.

Yes, definitely orb1 for me too.  

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 18:57
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] AOO logo rebranding...

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:

 We're getting very close to a 3.4 launch, and the time has come to move
 forward with a logo rebranidng for at least the user portal  web site,
 http://www.openoffice.org, and possibly the project web site as well,
 http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/.

 Quite a number of logo variations have been proposed for uses within
 OpenOffice, both internal to the program and other uses, page sidebars,
 Forum header, etc.

 The most recent discussion can be found at the following thread:

 http://markmail.org/thread/fvgwlvva5ziib7qg

 a conversation started by Rob on March 15.

 You will note that one of  the outcomes of this discussion was the desire
 that a new logo NOT include the word incubating in the logo.

 What I think we need to focus on now, and get Lazy Consensus on, is a new
 logo for the upcoming release, 3.4. Internally, we've already started
 calling OpenOffice.org Apache OpenOffice, and we need to move forward to
 complete this re-branding to the public.

 I've put 3 web header logos in...

 http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/

 * AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpg
 http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpg
 * AOO_orb2_logo_webSite.jpg
 http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/AOO_orb2_logo_webSite.jpg
 * AOOfeather_logo_webSite.png
 http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/AOOfeather_logo_webSite.png

 Please respond to this e-mail by selecting your favorite from these 3.

So hard to pick.  These are all good choices.  But I think
AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpg is the best choice for the website.

(My second choice would have been AOOfeather_logo_webSite.png.  I really
like that as well, but considering the wide range of languages spoken in
the larger user community, a logo that has the extra text slogan would be
less universal.)

 Given the Lazy Consenus process, discussion will be closed on Tuesday,
 April 2, 0900 PDT.
 Hopefully, we'll have a clear choice by then.

 MzK

 Women and cats will do as they please,
  and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
--
 Robert Heinlein

Re: [PROPOSAL] AOO logo rebranding...

2012-03-31 Thread Nancy K

I would vote for orb1 because it is a very neat and clean design.  
I must say that the way that the feather logo presents the word OPEN - the 
smaller wings leading the eye towards a larger set of wings and then an even 
larger blue word OPEN - is what I LOVE about that logo. 
Definitely a tough choice!
Good designs...and if you do not already have it, beta version of PhotoShop CS6 
is a free download until they sell it in May...just for you crafty folks.
Nancy
 
     Nancy      Web Design   
Free 24 hour pass to lynda.com.
Video courses on SEO, CMS,
Design and Software Courses


  


 From: Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org 
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 7:58 PM
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] AOO logo rebranding...
 
Ah, for the web site.  The coin drops.

Yes, definitely orb1 for me too.  

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 18:57
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] AOO logo rebranding...

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:

 We're getting very close to a 3.4 launch, and the time has come to move
 forward with a logo rebranidng for at least the user portal  web site,
 http://www.openoffice.org, and possibly the project web site as well,
 http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/.

 Quite a number of logo variations have been proposed for uses within
 OpenOffice, both internal to the program and other uses, page sidebars,
 Forum header, etc.

 The most recent discussion can be found at the following thread:

 http://markmail.org/thread/fvgwlvva5ziib7qg

 a conversation started by Rob on March 15.

 You will note that one of  the outcomes of this discussion was the desire
 that a new logo NOT include the word incubating in the logo.

 What I think we need to focus on now, and get Lazy Consensus on, is a new
 logo for the upcoming release, 3.4. Internally, we've already started
 calling OpenOffice.org Apache OpenOffice, and we need to move forward to
 complete this re-branding to the public.

 I've put 3 web header logos in...

 http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/

 * AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpg
 http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpg
 * AOO_orb2_logo_webSite.jpg
 http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/AOO_orb2_logo_webSite.jpg
 * AOOfeather_logo_webSite.png
 http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/AOOfeather_logo_webSite.png

 Please respond to this e-mail by selecting your favorite from these 3.



So hard to pick.  These are all good choices.  But I think
AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpg is the best choice for the website.

(My second choice would have been AOOfeather_logo_webSite.png.  I really
like that as well, but considering the wide range of languages spoken in
the larger user community, a logo that has the extra text slogan would be
less universal.)



 Given the Lazy Consenus process, discussion will be closed on Tuesday,
 April 2, 0900 PDT.
 Hopefully, we'll have a clear choice by then.


 
 MzK

 Women and cats will do as they please,
  and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
                                                                    --
 Robert Heinlein

Re: Distribution of Windows versions

2012/3/29 drew d...@baseanswers.com

 On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 14:21 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
  On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM, drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
   On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 13:25 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Fernand Vanrie s...@pmgroup.be
 wrote:
   
  Rob ,

 Interesting, do you have also figures about the differences in OS :
  Windows versus Linux or Mac etc..


There were some numbers posted on that a few weeks ago.  These charts
   show
the MirrorBrain downloads of OpenOffice, from February:
   
http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/marketing_bouncer.html
   
So, 90% Windows,  6% Mac, 3% Linux.
   
But note this is not necessarily the same distribution as the overall
   user
base.  Some ports, like BSD and OS/2 are distributed on other web
 sites,
   so
they are not counted here.  And some derivatives of OOo are included
 in
   the
Linux distros directly, so are not reflected in these numbers.
  
   Please, and asking only for myself, if you know of a linux distro using
   a derivative of Apache OpenOffice do name it - if you mean LibreOffice,
   please stop calling it a derivative - it is not a valid reflection of
   the facts, if you are referring to the former package OpenOffice.org
   then please refer to it by its legal name.
  
  
  I don't think LO makes sense in this context. We're talking about OOo
  flavors.  The relevant version of OO o distributed by distros was Go-OO.

  Their numbers would not be included in the MirrorBrain stats.

 Yes quite true - historically Go-OO, Novell OpenOffice.org, SUN
 StarOffice and Oracle OpenOffice were all available for Windows, none of
 those packages would be reflected in the mirrorbrain stats.

 Another derivative was IBM Lotus Symphony, any idea what the OS mix
 looks like for that package?

 For Symphony, the Windows platform mix are mostly like:
Windows 7 40%
Windows XP 50%
Window Vista 9%
Others: 1%

Very few customers reported defects on other Windows platform.

Best wishes,

 //drew

 
  -Rob
 
 
   
-Rob
   
   
 Greetz

 Fernand

  There was a question in an earlier thread on whether we should
 still
 support Windows 2000.  It was an open question whether we had many
   users
 on
 that platform.

 Here are the numbers we have, based on downloads.  Note that we
 can
   only
 figure out what platform a user was on when they downloaded
   OpenOffice.
  It
 is entirely possible for someone to download from a Windows 7
 machine
   and
 then install it onto a Windows 2000 machine.  We have no easy way
 to
 measure that.  However, that should be small compared to the
 number of
 users who download onto the same machine they will be installing
 onto.

 Win7   57.32%
 XP   31.37%
 Vista   10.07%
 NT0.76%
 2003 Server   0.32%
 2000 0.14%
 98  0.02%
 CE  0.00%

Re: Distribution of Windows versions

2012/3/29 Juergen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com

 On Wednesday, 28. March 2012 at 22:03, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
  To calibrate this a little better, what are
 
  1. the absolute number that 100% is, and
  2. the range of calendar dates over which these statistics were derived?
 
 It doesn't really matter if we can't answer the question:

 Is anybody interested to fix Win 2000 bugs?

 If nobody is interested to develop actively on this platform it is useless
 to test it or spent any time on this platform.

 Part agree to you, the better way to saying if one platform should be
supported or not depend on customer numbers. If users in good part are on
Windows 2000 platforms, testing is valueable to show the AOO 3.4 quality on
this platform, or at least can showing the special bugs related to Windows
2000 to see if AOO 3.4 is ready to say supporting this platform even no
developer plan to fix bugs.

we have much more important things to do...

 Just my 2 cents

 Juergen


  - Dennis
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
  Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 12:10
  To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
  Subject: Re: Distribution of Windows versions
 
  On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Kevin Sisco kevinsisco61...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
   Okay so all this data really tells us is that more people download on
   windows 7. Does this really mean we should stop supporting windows
   2000 all together?
  
 
  If support means anything, it means that someone has volunteered to
 test
  the platform and confirm that we work, and if there are gross errors with
  installing or running on that platform, then we treat them as release
  blockers.
 
  But if no one volunteers to do that work, then I think we should not say
 we
  support Windows 2000.
 
  What the 0.14% figure means to me is that I feel less bad if we say that
 we
  do not support Windows 2000.
 
  -Rob
 
 
   On 3/28/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
There was a question in an earlier thread on whether we should still
support Windows 2000. It was an open question whether we had many
 users
   
  
   on
that platform.
   
Here are the numbers we have, based on downloads. Note that we can
 only
figure out what platform a user was on when they downloaded
 OpenOffice.
   
  
   It
is entirely possible for someone to download from a Windows 7
 machine and
then install it onto a Windows 2000 machine. We have no easy way to
measure that. However, that should be small compared to the number of
users who download onto the same machine they will be installing
 onto.
   
Win7 57.32%
XP 31.37%
Vista 10.07%
NT 0.76%
2003 Server 0.32%
2000 0.14%
98 0.02%
CE 0.00%

Propose Ahead RC Test Plan to now

Hi all,

Considering recently still have something related IP clearance occured
against AOO 3.4 code base, I propose ahead RC test plan to now.

Here is the AOO 3.4 RC build test plan:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+RC+Build+Test+Plan

And once RC build is ready, we focus on installer and extension testing
plus some regression testing.

Juergen, when the next dev snapshot build will be ready? Currently it is
r1303653.http://people.apache.org/%7Eorw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1303653/win32/OOo_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe


Best Regards,

Lily

Re: [PROPOSAL] AOO logo rebranding...