Re: Ditching our mirror system for an inferior solution?
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 04:12:09 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote: Personally Peter I would *love* to see the ASF adopt mirrorbrain somehow, and encourage you to work with Henk on something along those lines. We know it's good, we just have a lot of legacy infra that we need to keep supporting. Thanks for your openmindedness! I'll see what we can do. Peter pgpM9rX4N23Nq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/18/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/17/12, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 11:15 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote: My point is that we are going to be bombarded with support questions, regardless if we choose not to, is not up to us. Sure you can redirect them to the ML/Forums, but that would be done 99% of the time, which will frustrate the user and the handlers. That's the point I wanted to make based on the experience of handling these accounts in the past. Like I said, I am more concern with solving the issue of operation first than figuring out which new accounts to create and why/why not. Well, I am not advocating removal of any existing accounts. I am sure you didn't. That is not what I said. Hi Alexandro and all, Will @openofficeorg be under the Apache OpenOffice control? If this is the case, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to use that one instead of the new ones. In case I'd recommend to upload the new logo, as well as to update the short description. We've tried to contact the owner of @openofficeorg, to discuss putting this account under PPMC control. We have no had success with that. So we're going forward with a new account. It should be easy and quick to get a similar number of followers once we promote it on the homepage. Who decided this? you? Decided what? That it would be easy to get a similar number of followers? That is purely my estimate, based on the fact that we've managed to get almost 8000 users to sign up on the ooo-announce list. Following someone on Twitter should is much easier than signing up on an ezmlm list. So if we have 8000 there, getting more than 1500 Twitter followers should not be hard. What I am advocating is the creation of a set un-ambiguous official Apache OpenOffice project accounts. what will happened when the unambigous official account get support inquiries everyday? I had a look at the flow of questions and answers, it seems manageable to me. I believe that there is work needing to be done to establish the Apache OpenOffice identity. It seems to me that this is an appropriate step to further that goal. Here my list of recommendations: 1. Rebranding existing accounts (see above) 2. Spend some time to choose (few) people to follow (maybe using keywords like office suites, odf, open standards, etc). As of today only Alexandro and Rob are followed by @openofficeorg, think we should spend some time to choose people to follow, so that it could be easier to engage in conversations using tools like googlefinder, Listorious, etc. That is an interesting point. Many people decide who to follow based on recommendation engines that look at existing following patterns in Twitter. So having a good set of mutual followers will help. 3. Start simple. So announcements, news from our blog, new committers, etc. 4. Be consistent. Two message a day could be a good starting point, maybe once a day over the week-ends. 5. Don't follow back just for the sake of it, it's wise to follow only people we might want to engage with. 6. Start conversations with people we know, related projects, etc. For example, we might congratulate other OSS projects,Apache and external, that make new releases, if these would be of interest to our followers. 7. Establish a clear policy about language style, but especially for how to handle crises 8. Use a tool to measure our improvements, both Klout and PeerIndex may be useful in this respect. Roberto Sure I agree, but my point is really about how to do it based on previous issues. //drew On 4/17/12, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 11:02 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote: I think this provide a bit of confussion on the user end. Also I recognize the struggle of keeping the accounts active. Making multiple accounts will increase the job. The blog itself has not been updated that frequently, and I am not sure if this will increase as we get a release. Most of the use of the accounts on my experience is support-like issues. So relying on one single point of contact is also pretty bad. Having an AOO-Support and AOO-Annoucement is equally not good strategy in my account because people will tend to stick to the account that they see crossing their path. (Just because we structure one way, doesnt mean users will do so). One of the issues of openofficeorg accounts both on Facebook Google plus and twitter had been the issue of keeping the content fresh and also interacting as a group as opposed to an individual. I would argue to stop taking liberties on creating new
Re: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Christoph Jopp j...@gmx.de wrote: Am 18.04.2012 23:01, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Christoph Jopp j...@gmx.de wrote: Am 18.04.2012 19:17, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Michael, I am curious what has you be interested in the availability of an AOO 3.4 Release Candidate. 1. What does it say to you when a project build set is designated a Release Candidate? 2. What use would you make of such a designated build different from a developer snapshot and an actual release (i.e., AOO 3.4[.0])? I wonder if there might be some language misunderstanding when we say casually, We'll soon be voting on a Release Candidate? To some this could mean we will have a vote to label a particular build as a Release Candidate. That interpretation would explain some of the post we've been seeing. But that is not how it really works. What actually happens is two things: 1) The Release Manager (Juergen) declares that a particular build is the Release Candidate. 2) The PMC then votes on whether or not to release the Release Candidate. When we say vote on a Release Candidate, some readers might think that we're voting to make the Release Candidate. But we're really voting to release the Release Candidate. Like when I vote for candidate for US President, I'm not voting to make him a candidate. I'm voting to make him President. A further point of clarification. Does Release Candidate in the ASF have the same meaning as the traditional meaning. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate Given this definition, a Release Candidate means the final test before the actual release. So, to me, and perhaps others, a release candidate is NOT the same as a release. And, to me, a release candidate as opposed to a release implies some predetermined time announced to the public at large, for FINAL testing -- seems like 2 weeks is typical. I am not sure at this point if this historical definition applies in the ASF. I think it would be valuable to head up a new thread on this -- What it means to vote on a release candidate at the ASF -- or something similar so folks have a better understanding of release candidates/release at the ASF. I might be totally wrong, but I think the main difference is that this project as long as it is a podling does not release anything. The one who releases is the Incubator project and the podling (PPMC) presents (after voting) the Incubator project a candidate to be released. Then the Incubator project votes whether it should be officially released or not. The PPMC votes to approve the Release Candidate as suitable for release. The IPMC, which has the overall responsibility for ensuring that all podling releases conform to Apache policies, then votes on whether the release can actually occur. But this is not why we call it a candidate. Even once we graduate to be a Top Level Project (TLP) and vote on our own release, we would still call this stage a Release Candidate. I have no idea how the project did testing before, but the approach I learned was to match the risk with the test effort. So after major code changes you have a major test effort. And when code changes are minor, then you have less testing. And when there are almost no coding changes, like when simply updating the NOTICE.txt file, then you have only the smallest test effort. As we get closer to a release we reduce the rate of change in the code, but also reduce the testing effort. So releasing code is like pulling a trigger on a rifle, slow and smooth, not a sudden jerky motion. The major coding effort for AOO 3.4 was the removal/replacement of copyleft components with compatibly licensed components. That work was completed last year. That was what needed most of the test effort, and that testing was already done. The product changes in recent weeks have been very minor, generally around packaging the language translations and dictionaries. So it should be sufficient to concentrate the scope of testing to what has changed. That doesn't mean that a volunteer is not permitted to go back and test code that has not changed in 6 months. But it would not be an optimal use of their time. So all that can be checked for bugs and regressions are the unofficial snapshots. Volunteers are welcome to check any build or release candidate for any bugs at any time and enter them into BZ. There are no restrictions on this. However, to the extent we want to take an engineering-informed approach to QA, and make optimal use of volunteer time, and use this effort in a way that best improves product quality, then we want to be testing much earlier in the project cycle. That is why Lily sent several notes
Seeking PPMC volunteers for shared project Twitter account
I can support up to 10. Please send me your Twitter account name. Also follow the account here: https://twitter.com/#!/apacheoo I'll give you access to the account and send you instructions for how to use it. (Group accounts work a little differently than normal Twitter accounts). Ideally we'd have some geographical and language coverage. -Rob
Re: [RELEASE]: status update for our first RC
Hi Jürgen, On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 03:46:33AM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi, I would like to inform you about the current status for our RC. Andrew has updated the NOTICE file and we will rebuild the office now. I have also updated the version number string for the src package. Building, signing and update will take some time. And once the bits are available I will start the voting immediately. The new revision for building the RC is *1327774* Looking at https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119210 I think we should build full install sets, SDK, *and* language packs. What do you think? Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgp4UywSLHV60.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?
Am 19.04.2012 08:19, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Christoph Jopp j...@gmx.de wrote: Am 18.04.2012 23:01, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Christoph Jopp j...@gmx.de wrote: Am 18.04.2012 19:17, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Michael, I am curious what has you be interested in the availability of an AOO 3.4 Release Candidate. 1. What does it say to you when a project build set is designated a Release Candidate? 2. What use would you make of such a designated build different from a developer snapshot and an actual release (i.e., AOO 3.4[.0])? I wonder if there might be some language misunderstanding when we say casually, We'll soon be voting on a Release Candidate? To some this could mean we will have a vote to label a particular build as a Release Candidate. That interpretation would explain some of the post we've been seeing. But that is not how it really works. What actually happens is two things: 1) The Release Manager (Juergen) declares that a particular build is the Release Candidate. 2) The PMC then votes on whether or not to release the Release Candidate. When we say vote on a Release Candidate, some readers might think that we're voting to make the Release Candidate. But we're really voting to release the Release Candidate. Like when I vote for candidate for US President, I'm not voting to make him a candidate. I'm voting to make him President. A further point of clarification. Does Release Candidate in the ASF have the same meaning as the traditional meaning. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate Given this definition, a Release Candidate means the final test before the actual release. So, to me, and perhaps others, a release candidate is NOT the same as a release. And, to me, a release candidate as opposed to a release implies some predetermined time announced to the public at large, for FINAL testing -- seems like 2 weeks is typical. I am not sure at this point if this historical definition applies in the ASF. I think it would be valuable to head up a new thread on this -- What it means to vote on a release candidate at the ASF -- or something similar so folks have a better understanding of release candidates/release at the ASF. I might be totally wrong, but I think the main difference is that this project as long as it is a podling does not release anything. The one who releases is the Incubator project and the podling (PPMC) presents (after voting) the Incubator project a candidate to be released. Then the Incubator project votes whether it should be officially released or not. The PPMC votes to approve the Release Candidate as suitable for release. The IPMC, which has the overall responsibility for ensuring that all podling releases conform to Apache policies, then votes on whether the release can actually occur. But this is not why we call it a candidate. Even once we graduate to be a Top Level Project (TLP) and vote on our own release, we would still call this stage a Release Candidate. I have no idea how the project did testing before, but the approach I learned was to match the risk with the test effort. So after major code changes you have a major test effort. And when code changes are minor, then you have less testing. And when there are almost no coding changes, like when simply updating the NOTICE.txt file, then you have only the smallest test effort. As we get closer to a release we reduce the rate of change in the code, but also reduce the testing effort. So releasing code is like pulling a trigger on a rifle, slow and smooth, not a sudden jerky motion. The major coding effort for AOO 3.4 was the removal/replacement of copyleft components with compatibly licensed components. That work was completed last year. That was what needed most of the test effort, and that testing was already done. The product changes in recent weeks have been very minor, generally around packaging the language translations and dictionaries. So it should be sufficient to concentrate the scope of testing to what has changed. That doesn't mean that a volunteer is not permitted to go back and test code that has not changed in 6 months. But it would not be an optimal use of their time. So all that can be checked for bugs and regressions are the unofficial snapshots. Volunteers are welcome to check any build or release candidate for any bugs at any time and enter them into BZ. There are no restrictions on this. However, to the extent we want to take an engineering-informed approach to QA, and make optimal use of volunteer time, and use this effort in a way that best improves product quality, then we want to be testing much earlier in the project
Re: Seeking PPMC volunteers for shared project Twitter account
On 4/19/12 8:26 AM, Rob Weir wrote: I can support up to 10. Please send me your Twitter account name. Also follow the account here: https://twitter.com/#!/apacheoo I'll give you access to the account and send you instructions for how to use it. (Group accounts work a little differently than normal Twitter accounts). Ideally we'd have some geographical and language coverage. -Rob you can count me in, I have to improve my twitter experience ;-) Juergen
Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account
On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/18/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/17/12, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 11:15 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote: My point is that we are going to be bombarded with support questions, regardless if we choose not to, is not up to us. Sure you can redirect them to the ML/Forums, but that would be done 99% of the time, which will frustrate the user and the handlers. That's the point I wanted to make based on the experience of handling these accounts in the past. Like I said, I am more concern with solving the issue of operation first than figuring out which new accounts to create and why/why not. Well, I am not advocating removal of any existing accounts. I am sure you didn't. That is not what I said. Hi Alexandro and all, Will @openofficeorg be under the Apache OpenOffice control? If this is the case, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to use that one instead of the new ones. In case I'd recommend to upload the new logo, as well as to update the short description. We've tried to contact the owner of @openofficeorg, to discuss putting this account under PPMC control. We have no had success with that. So we're going forward with a new account. It should be easy and quick to get a similar number of followers once we promote it on the homepage. Who decided this? you? Decided what? That it would be easy to get a similar number of followers? That is purely my estimate, based on the fact that we've managed to get almost 8000 users to sign up on the ooo-announce list. Following someone on Twitter should is much easier than signing up on an ezmlm list. So if we have 8000 there, getting more than 1500 Twitter followers should not be hard. So you are deciding things? When you said 'we're going forward' you mean you are moving forward. What I am advocating is the creation of a set un-ambiguous official Apache OpenOffice project accounts. what will happened when the unambigous official account get support inquiries everyday? I had a look at the flow of questions and answers, it seems manageable to me. I believe that there is work needing to be done to establish the Apache OpenOffice identity. It seems to me that this is an appropriate step to further that goal. Here my list of recommendations: 1. Rebranding existing accounts (see above) 2. Spend some time to choose (few) people to follow (maybe using keywords like office suites, odf, open standards, etc). As of today only Alexandro and Rob are followed by @openofficeorg, think we should spend some time to choose people to follow, so that it could be easier to engage in conversations using tools like googlefinder, Listorious, etc. That is an interesting point. Many people decide who to follow based on recommendation engines that look at existing following patterns in Twitter. So having a good set of mutual followers will help. 3. Start simple. So announcements, news from our blog, new committers, etc. 4. Be consistent. Two message a day could be a good starting point, maybe once a day over the week-ends. 5. Don't follow back just for the sake of it, it's wise to follow only people we might want to engage with. 6. Start conversations with people we know, related projects, etc. For example, we might congratulate other OSS projects,Apache and external, that make new releases, if these would be of interest to our followers. 7. Establish a clear policy about language style, but especially for how to handle crises 8. Use a tool to measure our improvements, both Klout and PeerIndex may be useful in this respect. Roberto Sure I agree, but my point is really about how to do it based on previous issues. //drew On 4/17/12, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 11:02 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote: I think this provide a bit of confussion on the user end. Also I recognize the struggle of keeping the accounts active. Making multiple accounts will increase the job. The blog itself has not been updated that frequently, and I am not sure if this will increase as we get a release. Most of the use of the accounts on my experience is support-like issues. So relying on one single point of contact is also pretty bad. Having an AOO-Support and AOO-Annoucement is equally not good strategy in my account because people will tend to stick to the account that they see crossing their path. (Just because we structure one way, doesnt mean users will do so). One of the issues of openofficeorg accounts both on Facebook Google plus and twitter
Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account
On 4/19/12 9:41 AM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Alexandro Coloradoj...@apache.org wrote: On 4/18/12, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Roberto Galoppinirgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Alexandro Coloradoj...@apache.org wrote: On 4/17/12, drewd...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 11:15 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote: My point is that we are going to be bombarded with support questions, regardless if we choose not to, is not up to us. Sure you can redirect them to the ML/Forums, but that would be done 99% of the time, which will frustrate the user and the handlers. That's the point I wanted to make based on the experience of handling these accounts in the past. Like I said, I am more concern with solving the issue of operation first than figuring out which new accounts to create and why/why not. Well, I am not advocating removal of any existing accounts. I am sure you didn't. That is not what I said. Hi Alexandro and all, Will @openofficeorg be under the Apache OpenOffice control? If this is the case, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to use that one instead of the new ones. In case I'd recommend to upload the new logo, as well as to update the short description. We've tried to contact the owner of @openofficeorg, to discuss putting this account under PPMC control. We have no had success with that. So we're going forward with a new account. It should be easy and quick to get a similar number of followers once we promote it on the homepage. Who decided this? you? Decided what? That it would be easy to get a similar number of followers? That is purely my estimate, based on the fact that we've managed to get almost 8000 users to sign up on the ooo-announce list. Following someone on Twitter should is much easier than signing up on an ezmlm list. So if we have 8000 there, getting more than 1500 Twitter followers should not be hard. So you are deciding things? When you said 'we're going forward' you mean you are moving forward. I think you misunderstand something here. Rob decided not on his own, I think it was the outcome of this longer discussion. and if the owner of the existing account doesn't reply it is natural to move forward with a new one, isn't it? What is your concern here? Juergen What I am advocating is the creation of a set un-ambiguous official Apache OpenOffice project accounts. what will happened when the unambigous official account get support inquiries everyday? I had a look at the flow of questions and answers, it seems manageable to me. I believe that there is work needing to be done to establish the Apache OpenOffice identity. It seems to me that this is an appropriate step to further that goal. Here my list of recommendations: 1. Rebranding existing accounts (see above) 2. Spend some time to choose (few) people to follow (maybe using keywords like office suites, odf, open standards, etc). As of today only Alexandro and Rob are followed by @openofficeorg, think we should spend some time to choose people to follow, so that it could be easier to engage in conversations using tools like googlefinder, Listorious, etc. That is an interesting point. Many people decide who to follow based on recommendation engines that look at existing following patterns in Twitter. So having a good set of mutual followers will help. 3. Start simple. So announcements, news from our blog, new committers, etc. 4. Be consistent. Two message a day could be a good starting point, maybe once a day over the week-ends. 5. Don't follow back just for the sake of it, it's wise to follow only people we might want to engage with. 6. Start conversations with people we know, related projects, etc. For example, we might congratulate other OSS projects,Apache and external, that make new releases, if these would be of interest to our followers. 7. Establish a clear policy about language style, but especially for how to handle crises 8. Use a tool to measure our improvements, both Klout and PeerIndex may be useful in this respect. Roberto Sure I agree, but my point is really about how to do it based on previous issues. //drew On 4/17/12, drewd...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 11:02 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote: I think this provide a bit of confussion on the user end. Also I recognize the struggle of keeping the accounts active. Making multiple accounts will increase the job. The blog itself has not been updated that frequently, and I am not sure if this will increase as we get a release. Most of the use of the accounts on my experience is support-like issues. So relying on one single point of contact is also pretty bad. Having an AOO-Support and AOO-Annoucement is equally not good strategy in my account because people will tend to stick to the account
Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account
On 4/19/12, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: On 4/19/12 9:41 AM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Alexandro Coloradoj...@apache.org wrote: On 4/18/12, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Roberto Galoppinirgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Alexandro Coloradoj...@apache.org wrote: On 4/17/12, drewd...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 11:15 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote: My point is that we are going to be bombarded with support questions, regardless if we choose not to, is not up to us. Sure you can redirect them to the ML/Forums, but that would be done 99% of the time, which will frustrate the user and the handlers. That's the point I wanted to make based on the experience of handling these accounts in the past. Like I said, I am more concern with solving the issue of operation first than figuring out which new accounts to create and why/why not. Well, I am not advocating removal of any existing accounts. I am sure you didn't. That is not what I said. Hi Alexandro and all, Will @openofficeorg be under the Apache OpenOffice control? If this is the case, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to use that one instead of the new ones. In case I'd recommend to upload the new logo, as well as to update the short description. We've tried to contact the owner of @openofficeorg, to discuss putting this account under PPMC control. We have no had success with that. So we're going forward with a new account. It should be easy and quick to get a similar number of followers once we promote it on the homepage. Who decided this? you? Decided what? That it would be easy to get a similar number of followers? That is purely my estimate, based on the fact that we've managed to get almost 8000 users to sign up on the ooo-announce list. Following someone on Twitter should is much easier than signing up on an ezmlm list. So if we have 8000 there, getting more than 1500 Twitter followers should not be hard. So you are deciding things? When you said 'we're going forward' you mean you are moving forward. I think you misunderstand something here. Rob decided not on his own, I No way to prove that. think it was the outcome of this longer discussion. and if the owner of the existing account doesn't reply it is natural to move forward with a new one, isn't it? What is your concern here? Rob contacted me on the matter, and I reply back into the thread and now he said that nobody replied and refer to his decisions as we, when he is the one alone making how things are shaping. Juergen What I am advocating is the creation of a set un-ambiguous official Apache OpenOffice project accounts. what will happened when the unambigous official account get support inquiries everyday? I had a look at the flow of questions and answers, it seems manageable to me. I believe that there is work needing to be done to establish the Apache OpenOffice identity. It seems to me that this is an appropriate step to further that goal. Here my list of recommendations: 1. Rebranding existing accounts (see above) 2. Spend some time to choose (few) people to follow (maybe using keywords like office suites, odf, open standards, etc). As of today only Alexandro and Rob are followed by @openofficeorg, think we should spend some time to choose people to follow, so that it could be easier to engage in conversations using tools like googlefinder, Listorious, etc. That is an interesting point. Many people decide who to follow based on recommendation engines that look at existing following patterns in Twitter. So having a good set of mutual followers will help. 3. Start simple. So announcements, news from our blog, new committers, etc. 4. Be consistent. Two message a day could be a good starting point, maybe once a day over the week-ends. 5. Don't follow back just for the sake of it, it's wise to follow only people we might want to engage with. 6. Start conversations with people we know, related projects, etc. For example, we might congratulate other OSS projects,Apache and external, that make new releases, if these would be of interest to our followers. 7. Establish a clear policy about language style, but especially for how to handle crises 8. Use a tool to measure our improvements, both Klout and PeerIndex may be useful in this respect. Roberto Sure I agree, but my point is really about how to do it based on previous issues. //drew On 4/17/12, drewd...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 11:02 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote: I think this provide a bit of confussion on the user end. Also I recognize the struggle of keeping the accounts active. Making multiple accounts will increase the job. The blog itself has not been updated that
Re: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?
On 19.04.2012 17:08, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Christoph Joppj...@gmx.de wrote: Am 19.04.2012 08:19, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Christoph Joppj...@gmx.de wrote: Am 18.04.2012 23:01, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Christoph Joppj...@gmx.de wrote: Am 18.04.2012 19:17, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Michael, I am curious what has you be interested in the availability of an AOO 3.4 Release Candidate. 1. What does it say to you when a project build set is designated a Release Candidate? 2. What use would you make of such a designated build different from a developer snapshot and an actual release (i.e., AOO 3.4[.0])? I wonder if there might be some language misunderstanding when we say casually, We'll soon be voting on a Release Candidate? To some this could mean we will have a vote to label a particular build as a Release Candidate. That interpretation would explain some of the post we've been seeing. But that is not how it really works. What actually happens is two things: 1) The Release Manager (Juergen) declares that a particular build is the Release Candidate. 2) The PMC then votes on whether or not to release the Release Candidate. When we say vote on a Release Candidate, some readers might think that we're voting to make the Release Candidate. But we're really voting to release the Release Candidate. Like when I vote for candidate for US President, I'm not voting to make him a candidate. I'm voting to make him President. A further point of clarification. Does Release Candidate in the ASF have the same meaning as the traditional meaning. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate Given this definition, a Release Candidate means the final test before the actual release. So, to me, and perhaps others, a release candidate is NOT the same as a release. And, to me, a release candidate as opposed to a release implies some predetermined time announced to the public at large, for FINAL testing -- seems like 2 weeks is typical. I am not sure at this point if this historical definition applies in the ASF. I think it would be valuable to head up a new thread on this -- What it means to vote on a release candidate at the ASF -- or something similar so folks have a better understanding of release candidates/release at the ASF. I might be totally wrong, but I think the main difference is that this project as long as it is a podling does not release anything. The one who releases is the Incubator project and the podling (PPMC) presents (after voting) the Incubator project a candidate to be released. Then the Incubator project votes whether it should be officially released or not. The PPMC votes to approve the Release Candidate as suitable for release. The IPMC, which has the overall responsibility for ensuring that all podling releases conform to Apache policies, then votes on whether the release can actually occur. But this is not why we call it a candidate. Even once we graduate to be a Top Level Project (TLP) and vote on our own release, we would still call this stage a Release Candidate. I have no idea how the project did testing before, but the approach I learned was to match the risk with the test effort. So after major code changes you have a major test effort. And when code changes are minor, then you have less testing. And when there are almost no coding changes, like when simply updating the NOTICE.txt file, then you have only the smallest test effort. As we get closer to a release we reduce the rate of change in the code, but also reduce the testing effort. So releasing code is like pulling a trigger on a rifle, slow and smooth, not a sudden jerky motion. The major coding effort for AOO 3.4 was the removal/replacement of copyleft components with compatibly licensed components. That work was completed last year. That was what needed most of the test effort, and that testing was already done. The product changes in recent weeks have been very minor, generally around packaging the language translations and dictionaries. So it should be sufficient to concentrate the scope of testing to what has changed. That doesn't mean that a volunteer is not permitted to go back and test code that has not changed in 6 months. But it would not be an optimal use of their time. So all that can be checked for bugs and regressions are the unofficial snapshots. Volunteers are welcome to check any build or release candidate for any bugs at any time and enter them into BZ. There are no restrictions on this. However, to the extent we want to take an engineering-informed approach to QA, and make optimal use of volunteer time, and use this effort in a way that best improves product quality, then we want
Re: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Andre Fischer a...@a-w-f.de wrote: On 19.04.2012 17:08, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Christoph Joppj...@gmx.de wrote: Am 19.04.2012 08:19, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Christoph Joppj...@gmx.de wrote: Am 18.04.2012 23:01, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Christoph Joppj...@gmx.de wrote: Am 18.04.2012 19:17, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Michael, I am curious what has you be interested in the availability of an AOO 3.4 Release Candidate. 1. What does it say to you when a project build set is designated a Release Candidate? 2. What use would you make of such a designated build different from a developer snapshot and an actual release (i.e., AOO 3.4[.0])? I wonder if there might be some language misunderstanding when we say casually, We'll soon be voting on a Release Candidate? To some this could mean we will have a vote to label a particular build as a Release Candidate. That interpretation would explain some of the post we've been seeing. But that is not how it really works. What actually happens is two things: 1) The Release Manager (Juergen) declares that a particular build is the Release Candidate. 2) The PMC then votes on whether or not to release the Release Candidate. When we say vote on a Release Candidate, some readers might think that we're voting to make the Release Candidate. But we're really voting to release the Release Candidate. Like when I vote for candidate for US President, I'm not voting to make him a candidate. I'm voting to make him President. A further point of clarification. Does Release Candidate in the ASF have the same meaning as the traditional meaning. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate Given this definition, a Release Candidate means the final test before the actual release. So, to me, and perhaps others, a release candidate is NOT the same as a release. And, to me, a release candidate as opposed to a release implies some predetermined time announced to the public at large, for FINAL testing -- seems like 2 weeks is typical. I am not sure at this point if this historical definition applies in the ASF. I think it would be valuable to head up a new thread on this -- What it means to vote on a release candidate at the ASF -- or something similar so folks have a better understanding of release candidates/release at the ASF. I might be totally wrong, but I think the main difference is that this project as long as it is a podling does not release anything. The one who releases is the Incubator project and the podling (PPMC) presents (after voting) the Incubator project a candidate to be released. Then the Incubator project votes whether it should be officially released or not. The PPMC votes to approve the Release Candidate as suitable for release. The IPMC, which has the overall responsibility for ensuring that all podling releases conform to Apache policies, then votes on whether the release can actually occur. But this is not why we call it a candidate. Even once we graduate to be a Top Level Project (TLP) and vote on our own release, we would still call this stage a Release Candidate. I have no idea how the project did testing before, but the approach I learned was to match the risk with the test effort. So after major code changes you have a major test effort. And when code changes are minor, then you have less testing. And when there are almost no coding changes, like when simply updating the NOTICE.txt file, then you have only the smallest test effort. As we get closer to a release we reduce the rate of change in the code, but also reduce the testing effort. So releasing code is like pulling a trigger on a rifle, slow and smooth, not a sudden jerky motion. The major coding effort for AOO 3.4 was the removal/replacement of copyleft components with compatibly licensed components. That work was completed last year. That was what needed most of the test effort, and that testing was already done. The product changes in recent weeks have been very minor, generally around packaging the language translations and dictionaries. So it should be sufficient to concentrate the scope of testing to what has changed. That doesn't mean that a volunteer is not permitted to go back and test code that has not changed in 6 months. But it would not be an optimal use of their time. So all that can be checked for bugs and regressions are the unofficial snapshots. Volunteers are welcome to check any build or release candidate for any bugs at any time and enter them into BZ. There are no restrictions on this. However, to the extent we want to
Re: Seeking PPMC volunteers for shared project Twitter account
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I can support up to 10. Please send me your Twitter account name. Also follow the account here: https://twitter.com/#!/apacheoo Please add me. My twitter account name = dpharbison I'll give you access to the account and send you instructions for how to use it. (Group accounts work a little differently than normal Twitter accounts). Ideally we'd have some geographical and language coverage. -Rob
Re: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?
On 19.04.2012 17:32, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Andre Fischera...@a-w-f.de wrote: On 19.04.2012 17:08, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Christoph Joppj...@gmx.dewrote: Am 19.04.2012 08:19, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Christoph Joppj...@gmx.dewrote: Am 18.04.2012 23:01, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Christoph Joppj...@gmx.dewrote: Am 18.04.2012 19:17, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.orgwrote: Michael, I am curious what has you be interested in the availability of an AOO 3.4 Release Candidate. 1. What does it say to you when a project build set is designated a Release Candidate? 2. What use would you make of such a designated build different from a developer snapshot and an actual release (i.e., AOO 3.4[.0])? I wonder if there might be some language misunderstanding when we say casually, We'll soon be voting on a Release Candidate? To some this could mean we will have a vote to label a particular build as a Release Candidate. That interpretation would explain some of the post we've been seeing. But that is not how it really works. What actually happens is two things: 1) The Release Manager (Juergen) declares that a particular build is the Release Candidate. 2) The PMC then votes on whether or not to release the Release Candidate. When we say vote on a Release Candidate, some readers might think that we're voting to make the Release Candidate. But we're really voting to release the Release Candidate. Like when I vote for candidate for US President, I'm not voting to make him a candidate. I'm voting to make him President. A further point of clarification. Does Release Candidate in the ASF have the same meaning as the traditional meaning. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate Given this definition, a Release Candidate means the final test before the actual release. So, to me, and perhaps others, a release candidate is NOT the same as a release. And, to me, a release candidate as opposed to a release implies some predetermined time announced to the public at large, for FINAL testing -- seems like 2 weeks is typical. I am not sure at this point if this historical definition applies in the ASF. I think it would be valuable to head up a new thread on this -- What it means to vote on a release candidate at the ASF -- or something similar so folks have a better understanding of release candidates/release at the ASF. I might be totally wrong, but I think the main difference is that this project as long as it is a podling does not release anything. The one who releases is the Incubator project and the podling (PPMC) presents (after voting) the Incubator project a candidate to be released. Then the Incubator project votes whether it should be officially released or not. The PPMC votes to approve the Release Candidate as suitable for release. The IPMC, which has the overall responsibility for ensuring that all podling releases conform to Apache policies, then votes on whether the release can actually occur. But this is not why we call it a candidate. Even once we graduate to be a Top Level Project (TLP) and vote on our own release, we would still call this stage a Release Candidate. I have no idea how the project did testing before, but the approach I learned was to match the risk with the test effort. So after major code changes you have a major test effort. And when code changes are minor, then you have less testing. And when there are almost no coding changes, like when simply updating the NOTICE.txt file, then you have only the smallest test effort. As we get closer to a release we reduce the rate of change in the code, but also reduce the testing effort. So releasing code is like pulling a trigger on a rifle, slow and smooth, not a sudden jerky motion. The major coding effort for AOO 3.4 was the removal/replacement of copyleft components with compatibly licensed components. That work was completed last year. That was what needed most of the test effort, and that testing was already done. The product changes in recent weeks have been very minor, generally around packaging the language translations and dictionaries. So it should be sufficient to concentrate the scope of testing to what has changed. That doesn't mean that a volunteer is not permitted to go back and test code that has not changed in 6 months. But it would not be an optimal use of their time. So all that can be checked for bugs and regressions are the unofficial snapshots. Volunteers are welcome to check any build or release candidate for any bugs at any time and enter them into BZ. There are no restrictions on this. However, to the extent we want to take an engineering-informed
Re: Seeking PPMC volunteers for shared project Twitter account
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: On 4/19/12 8:26 AM, Rob Weir wrote: I can support up to 10. Please send me your Twitter account name. Also follow the account here: https://twitter.com/#!/apacheoo I'll give you access to the account and send you instructions for how to use it. (Group accounts work a little differently than normal Twitter accounts). Ideally we'd have some geographical and language coverage. -Rob you can count me in, I have to improve my twitter experience ;-) What is your Twitter ID? Juergen
Re: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?
Am 19.04.2012 11:08, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Christoph Jopp j...@gmx.de wrote: Am 19.04.2012 08:19, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Christoph Jopp j...@gmx.de wrote: Am 18.04.2012 23:01, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Christoph Jopp j...@gmx.de wrote: Am 18.04.2012 19:17, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Michael, I am curious what has you be interested in the availability of an AOO 3.4 Release Candidate. 1. What does it say to you when a project build set is designated a Release Candidate? 2. What use would you make of such a designated build different from a developer snapshot and an actual release (i.e., AOO 3.4[.0])? I wonder if there might be some language misunderstanding when we say casually, We'll soon be voting on a Release Candidate? To some this could mean we will have a vote to label a particular build as a Release Candidate. That interpretation would explain some of the post we've been seeing. But that is not how it really works. What actually happens is two things: 1) The Release Manager (Juergen) declares that a particular build is the Release Candidate. 2) The PMC then votes on whether or not to release the Release Candidate. When we say vote on a Release Candidate, some readers might think that we're voting to make the Release Candidate. But we're really voting to release the Release Candidate. Like when I vote for candidate for US President, I'm not voting to make him a candidate. I'm voting to make him President. A further point of clarification. Does Release Candidate in the ASF have the same meaning as the traditional meaning. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate Given this definition, a Release Candidate means the final test before the actual release. So, to me, and perhaps others, a release candidate is NOT the same as a release. And, to me, a release candidate as opposed to a release implies some predetermined time announced to the public at large, for FINAL testing -- seems like 2 weeks is typical. I am not sure at this point if this historical definition applies in the ASF. I think it would be valuable to head up a new thread on this -- What it means to vote on a release candidate at the ASF -- or something similar so folks have a better understanding of release candidates/release at the ASF. I might be totally wrong, but I think the main difference is that this project as long as it is a podling does not release anything. The one who releases is the Incubator project and the podling (PPMC) presents (after voting) the Incubator project a candidate to be released. Then the Incubator project votes whether it should be officially released or not. The PPMC votes to approve the Release Candidate as suitable for release. The IPMC, which has the overall responsibility for ensuring that all podling releases conform to Apache policies, then votes on whether the release can actually occur. But this is not why we call it a candidate. Even once we graduate to be a Top Level Project (TLP) and vote on our own release, we would still call this stage a Release Candidate. I have no idea how the project did testing before, but the approach I learned was to match the risk with the test effort. So after major code changes you have a major test effort. And when code changes are minor, then you have less testing. And when there are almost no coding changes, like when simply updating the NOTICE.txt file, then you have only the smallest test effort. As we get closer to a release we reduce the rate of change in the code, but also reduce the testing effort. So releasing code is like pulling a trigger on a rifle, slow and smooth, not a sudden jerky motion. The major coding effort for AOO 3.4 was the removal/replacement of copyleft components with compatibly licensed components. That work was completed last year. That was what needed most of the test effort, and that testing was already done. The product changes in recent weeks have been very minor, generally around packaging the language translations and dictionaries. So it should be sufficient to concentrate the scope of testing to what has changed. That doesn't mean that a volunteer is not permitted to go back and test code that has not changed in 6 months. But it would not be an optimal use of their time. So all that can be checked for bugs and regressions are the unofficial snapshots. Volunteers are welcome to check any build or release candidate for any bugs at any time and enter them into BZ. There are no restrictions on this. However, to the extent we want to take an engineering-informed approach to QA, and make optimal use of volunteer time,
Re: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Christoph Jopp j...@gmx.de wrote: Am 19.04.2012 11:08, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Christoph Jopp j...@gmx.de wrote: Am 19.04.2012 08:19, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Christoph Jopp j...@gmx.de wrote: Am 18.04.2012 23:01, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Christoph Jopp j...@gmx.de wrote: Am 18.04.2012 19:17, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Michael, I am curious what has you be interested in the availability of an AOO 3.4 Release Candidate. 1. What does it say to you when a project build set is designated a Release Candidate? 2. What use would you make of such a designated build different from a developer snapshot and an actual release (i.e., AOO 3.4[.0])? I wonder if there might be some language misunderstanding when we say casually, We'll soon be voting on a Release Candidate? To some this could mean we will have a vote to label a particular build as a Release Candidate. That interpretation would explain some of the post we've been seeing. But that is not how it really works. What actually happens is two things: 1) The Release Manager (Juergen) declares that a particular build is the Release Candidate. 2) The PMC then votes on whether or not to release the Release Candidate. When we say vote on a Release Candidate, some readers might think that we're voting to make the Release Candidate. But we're really voting to release the Release Candidate. Like when I vote for candidate for US President, I'm not voting to make him a candidate. I'm voting to make him President. A further point of clarification. Does Release Candidate in the ASF have the same meaning as the traditional meaning. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate Given this definition, a Release Candidate means the final test before the actual release. So, to me, and perhaps others, a release candidate is NOT the same as a release. And, to me, a release candidate as opposed to a release implies some predetermined time announced to the public at large, for FINAL testing -- seems like 2 weeks is typical. I am not sure at this point if this historical definition applies in the ASF. I think it would be valuable to head up a new thread on this -- What it means to vote on a release candidate at the ASF -- or something similar so folks have a better understanding of release candidates/release at the ASF. I might be totally wrong, but I think the main difference is that this project as long as it is a podling does not release anything. The one who releases is the Incubator project and the podling (PPMC) presents (after voting) the Incubator project a candidate to be released. Then the Incubator project votes whether it should be officially released or not. The PPMC votes to approve the Release Candidate as suitable for release. The IPMC, which has the overall responsibility for ensuring that all podling releases conform to Apache policies, then votes on whether the release can actually occur. But this is not why we call it a candidate. Even once we graduate to be a Top Level Project (TLP) and vote on our own release, we would still call this stage a Release Candidate. I have no idea how the project did testing before, but the approach I learned was to match the risk with the test effort. So after major code changes you have a major test effort. And when code changes are minor, then you have less testing. And when there are almost no coding changes, like when simply updating the NOTICE.txt file, then you have only the smallest test effort. As we get closer to a release we reduce the rate of change in the code, but also reduce the testing effort. So releasing code is like pulling a trigger on a rifle, slow and smooth, not a sudden jerky motion. The major coding effort for AOO 3.4 was the removal/replacement of copyleft components with compatibly licensed components. That work was completed last year. That was what needed most of the test effort, and that testing was already done. The product changes in recent weeks have been very minor, generally around packaging the language translations and dictionaries. So it should be sufficient to concentrate the scope of testing to what has changed. That doesn't mean that a volunteer is not permitted to go back and test code that has not changed in 6 months. But it would not be an optimal use of their time. So all that can be checked for bugs and regressions are the unofficial snapshots. Volunteers are welcome to check any build or release candidate for any bugs at any time and enter them into BZ. There are no restrictions on this. However, to the extent we want to take an
Re: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?
Am 19.04.2012 11:57, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Christoph Jopp j...@gmx.de wrote: Am 19.04.2012 11:08, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Christoph Jopp j...@gmx.de wrote: Am 19.04.2012 08:19, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Christoph Jopp j...@gmx.de wrote: Am 18.04.2012 23:01, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Christoph Jopp j...@gmx.de wrote: Am 18.04.2012 19:17, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Michael, I am curious what has you be interested in the availability of an AOO 3.4 Release Candidate. 1. What does it say to you when a project build set is designated a Release Candidate? 2. What use would you make of such a designated build different from a developer snapshot and an actual release (i.e., AOO 3.4[.0])? I wonder if there might be some language misunderstanding when we say casually, We'll soon be voting on a Release Candidate? To some this could mean we will have a vote to label a particular build as a Release Candidate. That interpretation would explain some of the post we've been seeing. But that is not how it really works. What actually happens is two things: 1) The Release Manager (Juergen) declares that a particular build is the Release Candidate. 2) The PMC then votes on whether or not to release the Release Candidate. When we say vote on a Release Candidate, some readers might think that we're voting to make the Release Candidate. But we're really voting to release the Release Candidate. Like when I vote for candidate for US President, I'm not voting to make him a candidate. I'm voting to make him President. A further point of clarification. Does Release Candidate in the ASF have the same meaning as the traditional meaning. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate Given this definition, a Release Candidate means the final test before the actual release. So, to me, and perhaps others, a release candidate is NOT the same as a release. And, to me, a release candidate as opposed to a release implies some predetermined time announced to the public at large, for FINAL testing -- seems like 2 weeks is typical. I am not sure at this point if this historical definition applies in the ASF. I think it would be valuable to head up a new thread on this -- What it means to vote on a release candidate at the ASF -- or something similar so folks have a better understanding of release candidates/release at the ASF. I might be totally wrong, but I think the main difference is that this project as long as it is a podling does not release anything. The one who releases is the Incubator project and the podling (PPMC) presents (after voting) the Incubator project a candidate to be released. Then the Incubator project votes whether it should be officially released or not. The PPMC votes to approve the Release Candidate as suitable for release. The IPMC, which has the overall responsibility for ensuring that all podling releases conform to Apache policies, then votes on whether the release can actually occur. But this is not why we call it a candidate. Even once we graduate to be a Top Level Project (TLP) and vote on our own release, we would still call this stage a Release Candidate. I have no idea how the project did testing before, but the approach I learned was to match the risk with the test effort. So after major code changes you have a major test effort. And when code changes are minor, then you have less testing. And when there are almost no coding changes, like when simply updating the NOTICE.txt file, then you have only the smallest test effort. As we get closer to a release we reduce the rate of change in the code, but also reduce the testing effort. So releasing code is like pulling a trigger on a rifle, slow and smooth, not a sudden jerky motion. The major coding effort for AOO 3.4 was the removal/replacement of copyleft components with compatibly licensed components. That work was completed last year. That was what needed most of the test effort, and that testing was already done. The product changes in recent weeks have been very minor, generally around packaging the language translations and dictionaries. So it should be sufficient to concentrate the scope of testing to what has changed. That doesn't mean that a volunteer is not permitted to go back and test code that has not changed in 6 months. But it would not be an optimal use of their time. So all that can be checked for bugs and regressions are the unofficial snapshots. Volunteers are welcome to check any build or release candidate for any bugs at any time and enter them into BZ. There are no restrictions on this.
Re: Ditching our mirror system for an inferior solution? (was: Re: About Testing the SourceForce Mirror of AOO 3.4)
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Peter Poeml: anyone, including ASF infra, is free to use MirrorBrain. My recommendation is that ASF infra upgrades from closer.cgi to MirrorBrain, because then they can integrate the existing OOo/AOo mirrors into Apache mirroring easily. I would also like that we take advantage of MirrorBrain besides SourceForge, in the way Roberto suggests in another discussion (redirect update requests to MirrorBrain) or some other agreement. By splitting those two very different download streams, in case of issues would be easy to figure out where the problem is. Roberto MirrorBrain is a working and well-tested community service and it would be great if Apache used it to serve its share of OpenOffice downloads (obviously, after Peter and Infra coordinate on how to host and maintain MirrorBrain as part of the Apache infrastructure) on the long term (so, not only for version 3.4). Having two systems, SourceForge and MirrorBrain, would provide extremely good reliability and scalability for the OpenOffice downloads. I don't know performance of the existing Apache mirror network, but the performance and reliability offered by MirrorBrain so far surely deserve attention. Regards, Andrea. This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account
On 4/19/12, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: On 4/19/12 9:41 AM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Alexandro Coloradoj...@apache.org wrote: On 4/18/12, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Roberto Galoppinirgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Alexandro Coloradoj...@apache.org wrote: On 4/17/12, drewd...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 11:15 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote: My point is that we are going to be bombarded with support questions, regardless if we choose not to, is not up to us. Sure you can redirect them to the ML/Forums, but that would be done 99% of the time, which will frustrate the user and the handlers. That's the point I wanted to make based on the experience of handling these accounts in the past. Like I said, I am more concern with solving the issue of operation first than figuring out which new accounts to create and why/why not. Well, I am not advocating removal of any existing accounts. I am sure you didn't. That is not what I said. Hi Alexandro and all, Will @openofficeorg be under the Apache OpenOffice control? If this is the case, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to use that one instead of the new ones. In case I'd recommend to upload the new logo, as well as to update the short description. We've tried to contact the owner of @openofficeorg, to discuss putting this account under PPMC control. We have no had success with that. So we're going forward with a new account. It should be easy and quick to get a similar number of followers once we promote it on the homepage. Who decided this? you? Decided what? That it would be easy to get a similar number of followers? That is purely my estimate, based on the fact that we've managed to get almost 8000 users to sign up on the ooo-announce list. Following someone on Twitter should is much easier than signing up on an ezmlm list. So if we have 8000 there, getting more than 1500 Twitter followers should not be hard. So you are deciding things? When you said 'we're going forward' you mean you are moving forward. I think you misunderstand something here. Rob decided not on his own, I No way to prove that. think it was the outcome of this longer discussion. and if the owner of the existing account doesn't reply it is natural to move forward with a new one, isn't it? What is your concern here? Rob contacted me on the matter, and I reply back into the thread and now he said that nobody replied and refer to his decisions as we, when he is the one alone making how things are shaping. Alexandro are you actually the maintainer of the @openofficeorg account? yes I am. If this is the case, guess we could go in a different direction, if not I guess the only option we have at this time is to create another one. My point is exactly that, Rob did contact me about the issue then said nobody reply to him. Roberto Juergen What I am advocating is the creation of a set un-ambiguous official Apache OpenOffice project accounts. what will happened when the unambigous official account get support inquiries everyday? I had a look at the flow of questions and answers, it seems manageable to me. I believe that there is work needing to be done to establish the Apache OpenOffice identity. It seems to me that this is an appropriate step to further that goal. Here my list of recommendations: 1. Rebranding existing accounts (see above) 2. Spend some time to choose (few) people to follow (maybe using keywords like office suites, odf, open standards, etc). As of today only Alexandro and Rob are followed by @openofficeorg, think we should spend some time to choose people to follow, so that it could be easier to engage in conversations using tools like googlefinder, Listorious, etc. That is an interesting point. Many people decide who to follow based on recommendation engines that look at existing following patterns in Twitter. So having a good set of mutual followers will help. 3. Start simple. So announcements, news from our blog, new committers, etc. 4. Be consistent. Two message a day could be a good starting point, maybe once a day over the week-ends. 5. Don't follow back just for the sake of it, it's wise to follow only people we might want to engage with. 6. Start conversations with people we know, related projects, etc. For example, we might congratulate other OSS projects,Apache and external, that make new releases, if these would be of interest to our followers. 7. Establish a clear policy about language style, but especially for how to handle crises 8. Use a tool to measure our improvements, both
Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account
On 19 April 2012 11:34, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: What is your concern here? Rob contacted me on the matter, and I reply back into the thread and now he said that nobody replied and refer to his decisions as we, when he is the one alone making how things are shaping. Alexandro are you actually the maintainer of the @openofficeorg account? yes I am. If this is the case, guess we could go in a different direction, if not I guess the only option we have at this time is to create another one. My point is exactly that, Rob did contact me about the issue then said nobody reply to him. Seems @openofficeorg has 1500 followers already. Unless there is another twitter account with more followers, I can't see much logic in not simply building around this account. Just need some strategic tweets so we can get followers to retweet and get more followers. If Alexandro is willing to maintain this as a PPMC member, what is the problem? -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 11:34, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: What is your concern here? Rob contacted me on the matter, and I reply back into the thread and now he said that nobody replied and refer to his decisions as we, when he is the one alone making how things are shaping. Alexandro are you actually the maintainer of the @openofficeorg account? yes I am. If this is the case, guess we could go in a different direction, if not I guess the only option we have at this time is to create another one. My point is exactly that, Rob did contact me about the issue then said nobody reply to him. Seems @openofficeorg has 1500 followers already. Unless there is another twitter account with more followers, I can't see much logic in not simply building around this account. Just need some strategic tweets so we can get followers to retweet and get more followers. If Alexandro is willing to maintain this as a PPMC member, what is the problem? I have asked Alexandro many times over several months whether he would put that Twitter account under the control of the AOO PPMC, rather than treat it as his personal account. He has not agreed to do this,so I've made a new account which I am putting under PPMC control. We've had this discussion, in open, on this list. I've done the work. I've done the research. I've worked this through the community. I've created the account. I've applied the Apache branding. I've signed up other PPMC members to have access to this account. I've updated the website. This is not about how many people follow the account. The question is purely about which account can be under PPMC control and thus be the official account. -Rob -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
[Proposal] Official Google+ Page for Apache OpenOffice
Like Twitter and Facebook, Google+ is a good way to engage with users and the larger OpenOffice ecosystem. Unlike Twitter, Google+ has some enhanced capabilities, such as ease of sharing pictures and video and chat hangouts. The user base is slightly different as well. Google+ is more cutting edge at present, compared to Twitter, and has more early adopters. An important capability from the perspective of the PPMC is that Google+ has built in support for allowing multiple account managers, allowing us to put an account under PPMC control and share responsibilities for maintaining it. I'm proposing that we make this Google+ account into the official Google+ account for the project. I'd be happy to add any PPMC members who are willing to help me with it. Just send me your Google ID and I will add you. https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/114598373874764163668/114598373874764163668/about -Rob
Re: [Proposal] Official Google+ Page for Apache OpenOffice
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Like Twitter and Facebook, Google+ is a good way to engage with users and the larger OpenOffice ecosystem. Unlike Twitter, Google+ has some enhanced capabilities, such as ease of sharing pictures and video and chat hangouts. The user base is slightly different as well. Google+ is more cutting edge at present, compared to Twitter, and has more early adopters. An important capability from the perspective of the PPMC is that Google+ has built in support for allowing multiple account managers, allowing us to put an account under PPMC control and share responsibilities for maintaining it. I'm proposing that we make this Google+ account into the official Google+ account for the project. I'd be happy to add any PPMC members who are willing to help me with it. Just send me your Google ID and I will add you. Please add: dpharbison https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/114598373874764163668/114598373874764163668/about -Rob
Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account
On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 11:34, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: What is your concern here? Rob contacted me on the matter, and I reply back into the thread and now he said that nobody replied and refer to his decisions as we, when he is the one alone making how things are shaping. Alexandro are you actually the maintainer of the @openofficeorg account? yes I am. If this is the case, guess we could go in a different direction, if not I guess the only option we have at this time is to create another one. My point is exactly that, Rob did contact me about the issue then said nobody reply to him. Seems @openofficeorg has 1500 followers already. Unless there is another twitter account with more followers, I can't see much logic in not simply building around this account. Just need some strategic tweets so we can get followers to retweet and get more followers. If Alexandro is willing to maintain this as a PPMC member, what is the problem? I have asked Alexandro many times over several months whether he would put that Twitter account under the control of the AOO PPMC, rather than treat it as his personal account. He has not agreed to do this,so I've made a new account which I am putting under PPMC control. We've had this discussion, in open, on this list. I dont remember having this discussion with you. So what are you talking about? I've done the work. I've done the research. I've worked this through the community. I've created the account. I've applied the Apache branding. I've signed up other PPMC members to have access to this account. I've updated the website. Then what you mean with 'I never recieved a reply'. Rob you are acting on your own, and that is really not good for the community not your reputation of power grabber. Is very skewed the way you reffer yourself as 'we', when is only you acting on your own behalf. This is not about how many people follow the account. The question is purely about which account can be under PPMC control and thus be the official account. What you mean with PPMC control, I am a PPMC and I control the account. So what exactly is the issue here? Do you want to have control of the account? If so please say so and not act as a 'we' when is an 'I'. -Rob -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?
On 19/04/2012 Christoph Jopp wrote: Plus, I think you will find more people to take part in bug hunting (fun) than doing disciplined QA (work). Not necessarily. Contrary to what people might think, the community QA activities have traditionally been very structured: each volunteer received a few dozens very specific tests to run and reported the results back. We're following the same pattern for the ongoing community tests on the Italian version, by assigning each volunteer specific categories of tests from the wiki page. Then of course volunteers are still volunteers and you can't demand that they do their tests and respect deadlines, but this method was quite effective so far. Regards, Andrea.
Explaining Otto's Club
A few years back, social media was growing and an attempt to set a footprint of the OOo marketing targets was to accommodate OOo on these networks. For that reason the initiative was called Otto's 2.0 club (Otto is the mascot of OpenOffice.org). To use Otto's club, the marketing leads and project leads or anyone that want to provide value, was able to use these accounts through a layer that will allow to post to the networks without the need of sharing authentication credentials. The write up is on the OOo wiki: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Marketing/Otto_2.0_club The issue is that some of these layers got broken as the networks modify the API and some commercial services went for-pay. At the moment Ping.fm is the only way to publish to the account through the exclusive email of the accounts. So users could post to these email and their message will get published on all the networks assign to the Ping.fm account. If anyone want to publish to twitter: @openofficeorg facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openoffice.org identica: @openofficeorg can do so using this email ucf...@ping.fm -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account
On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 11:34, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: What is your concern here? Rob contacted me on the matter, and I reply back into the thread and now he said that nobody replied and refer to his decisions as we, when he is the one alone making how things are shaping. Alexandro are you actually the maintainer of the @openofficeorg account? yes I am. If this is the case, guess we could go in a different direction, if not I guess the only option we have at this time is to create another one. My point is exactly that, Rob did contact me about the issue then said nobody reply to him. Seems @openofficeorg has 1500 followers already. Unless there is another twitter account with more followers, I can't see much logic in not simply building around this account. Just need some strategic tweets so we can get followers to retweet and get more followers. If Alexandro is willing to maintain this as a PPMC member, what is the problem? I have asked Alexandro many times over several months whether he would put that Twitter account under the control of the AOO PPMC, rather than treat it as his personal account. He has not agreed to do this,so I've made a new account which I am putting under PPMC control. We've had this discussion, in open, on this list. I dont remember having this discussion with you. So what are you talking about? In this thread, on this list and several times. For example, 8 days ago I wrote: Hi Alexandro -- Is the above your Twitter account? If so, would you be willing to contribute it to the AOO project, so we can rebrand it and allow other PMC members to have write access to it, etc.? You didn't seem to understand that, perhaps due to my poor description. So I described in more detail what I was looking for: By contribute to the AOO project I mean give control to the AOO PMC, so we can use it as a project-wide account, similar to how we treat the blog: -- Any PPMC member, upon request, can have write access. -- We can use the project's official logo in conjunction with the account. -- We would promote the account on our project's website. -- We would generally treat the account as an official voice of the project, not as a personal account. Again, no response. Instead of giving a straightforward yes or no answer, you changed the subject to debating support questions via Twitter. Which means that I want to discuss this first before moving the account or creating a new one. Is the question I'm asking clear? I've done the work. I've done the research. I've worked this through the community. I've created the account. I've applied the Apache branding. I've signed up other PPMC members to have access to this account. I've updated the website. Then what you mean with 'I never recieved a reply'. Rob you are acting on your own, and that is really not good for the community not your reputation of power grabber. Is very skewed the way you reffer yourself as 'we', when is only you acting on your own behalf. I'm not acting on my own at all. I'm creating an account for use by any PPMC member who want to volunteer to help with this Twitter account. I'm discussing how we use Twitter and Google+ as a project, Great but we had that already. Why are you duplicating efforts? and I'm doing this openly on the public list. This is a topic I've raised repeatedly on ooo-dev and ooo-private for several months. Now that we are nearing release time for 3.4 it is time for moving forward with these proposals. Acting on your own sounds more like PPMC members who sit on such accounts, treat them as personal accounts, and never offer them to the PPMC, and never worked with the PPMC to make the best use of them. Well these accounts were long before the PPMC ever existed, and at the same time, were available for the group before there was a PPMC. PPMC can join in anytime they want. But like I mentioned, the service to handled this is no longer available, and we need to tie them to a new service. Again if all fails, you can always email me the post to be launched. I dont see a dealbreaker. But acting like nobody replied to you, is a skewed message for everybody. This is not about how many people follow the account. The question is purely about which account can be under PPMC control and thus be the official account. What you mean with PPMC control, I am a PPMC and I control the account. So what exactly is the issue here? Do you want to have control of the account? If so please say so and not act as a 'we' when is an 'I'. Having it controlled by a single PPMC member is not the same as under PPMC control. That is not what I am aiming for at
Re: [Proposal] Official Google+ Page for Apache OpenOffice
we already have this one https://plus.google.com/b/110957008676542606262/ please avoid duplicating efforts. On 4/19/12, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Like Twitter and Facebook, Google+ is a good way to engage with users and the larger OpenOffice ecosystem. Unlike Twitter, Google+ has some enhanced capabilities, such as ease of sharing pictures and video and chat hangouts. The user base is slightly different as well. Google+ is more cutting edge at present, compared to Twitter, and has more early adopters. An important capability from the perspective of the PPMC is that Google+ has built in support for allowing multiple account managers, allowing us to put an account under PPMC control and share responsibilities for maintaining it. I'm proposing that we make this Google+ account into the official Google+ account for the project. I'd be happy to add any PPMC members who are willing to help me with it. Just send me your Google ID and I will add you. Please add: dpharbison https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/114598373874764163668/114598373874764163668/about -Rob -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Seeking PPMC volunteers for shared project Twitter account
Hi Rob, My Twitter account name is khiran I will cover Japanese and Japan. :) Thanks, khirano On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I can support up to 10. Please send me your Twitter account name. Also follow the account here: https://twitter.com/#!/apacheoo I'll give you access to the account and send you instructions for how to use it. (Group accounts work a little differently than normal Twitter accounts). Ideally we'd have some geographical and language coverage. -Rob -- khir...@apache.org Apache OpenOffice (incubating) http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/
Re: [Proposal] Official Google+ Page for Apache OpenOffice
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: we already have this one https://plus.google.com/b/110957008676542606262/ Yes, an account that has been dormant since last November, and which you have never offered to put under PPMC control. please avoid duplicating efforts. I'm not duplicating a dormant account controlled by a single user. I'm creating an account that all PPMC members can use. You've had the opportunity to do this for many months, but either you did not feel like or did not think it was important. You also never thought it useful to provide project news on that account, point to project blog posts or do anything that would be part of running a healthy community project social networking account. I am not interesting in duplicating that effort. I am interesting in doing far, far better. And I'd welcome you to join with me in doing this. Give me you your Google ID and I'll add you as a manager for this account immediately. This is not duplicating effort since you have obviously put in nearly zero effort for your Google+ account. -Rob On 4/19/12, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Like Twitter and Facebook, Google+ is a good way to engage with users and the larger OpenOffice ecosystem. Unlike Twitter, Google+ has some enhanced capabilities, such as ease of sharing pictures and video and chat hangouts. The user base is slightly different as well. Google+ is more cutting edge at present, compared to Twitter, and has more early adopters. An important capability from the perspective of the PPMC is that Google+ has built in support for allowing multiple account managers, allowing us to put an account under PPMC control and share responsibilities for maintaining it. I'm proposing that we make this Google+ account into the official Google+ account for the project. I'd be happy to add any PPMC members who are willing to help me with it. Just send me your Google ID and I will add you. Please add: dpharbison https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/114598373874764163668/114598373874764163668/about -Rob -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?
There still seems to be a misunderstanding. Am 19.04.2012 14:44, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: On 19/04/2012 Christoph Jopp wrote: Plus, I think you will find more people to take part in bug hunting (fun) than doing disciplined QA (work). Not necessarily. Contrary to what people might think, the community QA activities have traditionally been very structured: each volunteer received a few dozens very specific tests to run and reported the results back. We're following the same pattern for the ongoing community tests on the Italian version, by assigning each volunteer specific categories of tests from the wiki page. I know that there was done really good QA work by the OpenOffice.org QA community and not only by SUN employees. I also agree that this kind of work really has to be done and it would be really cool to have a similar strong QA community in the Apache project. I also found it big news, when you said there are around 20 people doing this for the Italian version. The other thing was that with announcing and publishing Beta Versions and Release Candidates also people without a close connection to the project were attracted to test or maybe better to try out the new version. And their bug hunting might be of some value. Then of course volunteers are still volunteers and you can't demand that they do their tests and respect deadlines, but this method was quite effective so far. Regards, Andrea.
Re: [Proposal] Official Google+ Page for Apache OpenOffice
I don't see how this is not duplicating an effort. If you want to contribute to the account you are welcome. But creating a brand new account is exactly duplicating efforts. On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: we already have this one https://plus.google.com/b/110957008676542606262/ Yes, an account that has been dormant since last November, and which you have never offered to put under PPMC control. please avoid duplicating efforts. I'm not duplicating a dormant account controlled by a single user. I'm creating an account that all PPMC members can use. You've had the opportunity to do this for many months, but either you did not feel like or did not think it was important. You also never thought it useful to provide project news on that account, point to project blog posts or do anything that would be part of running a healthy community project social networking account. I am not interesting in duplicating that effort. I am interesting in doing far, far better. And I'd welcome you to join with me in doing this. Give me you your Google ID and I'll add you as a manager for this account immediately. This is not duplicating effort since you have obviously put in nearly zero effort for your Google+ account. -Rob On 4/19/12, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Like Twitter and Facebook, Google+ is a good way to engage with users and the larger OpenOffice ecosystem. Unlike Twitter, Google+ has some enhanced capabilities, such as ease of sharing pictures and video and chat hangouts. The user base is slightly different as well. Google+ is more cutting edge at present, compared to Twitter, and has more early adopters. An important capability from the perspective of the PPMC is that Google+ has built in support for allowing multiple account managers, allowing us to put an account under PPMC control and share responsibilities for maintaining it. I'm proposing that we make this Google+ account into the official Google+ account for the project. I'd be happy to add any PPMC members who are willing to help me with it. Just send me your Google ID and I will add you. Please add: dpharbison https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/114598373874764163668/114598373874764163668/about -Rob -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español http://es.openoffice.org -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español http://es.openoffice.org
Re: [Proposal] Official Google+ Page for Apache OpenOffice
On 4/19/12 8:12 PM, Donald Harbison wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: Like Twitter and Facebook, Google+ is a good way to engage with users and the larger OpenOffice ecosystem. Unlike Twitter, Google+ has some enhanced capabilities, such as ease of sharing pictures and video and chat hangouts. The user base is slightly different as well. Google+ is more cutting edge at present, compared to Twitter, and has more early adopters. An important capability from the perspective of the PPMC is that Google+ has built in support for allowing multiple account managers, allowing us to put an account under PPMC control and share responsibilities for maintaining it. I'm proposing that we make this Google+ account into the official Google+ account for the project. I'd be happy to add any PPMC members who are willing to help me with it. Just send me your Google ID and I will add you. Please add: dpharbison me too jogischmidt Juergen https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/114598373874764163668/114598373874764163668/about -Rob
Re: Seeking PPMC volunteers for shared project Twitter account
On 4/19/12 5:43 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: On 4/19/12 8:26 AM, Rob Weir wrote: I can support up to 10. Please send me your Twitter account name. Also follow the account here: https://twitter.com/#!/apacheoo I'll give you access to the account and send you instructions for how to use it. (Group accounts work a little differently than normal Twitter accounts). Ideally we'd have some geographical and language coverage. -Rob you can count me in, I have to improve my twitter experience ;-) What is your Twitter ID? it should be jogischmidt but I haven't used it for a while. And I have problems to connect here from China. But I also have problems to connect Facebook. Juergen Juergen
Re: [Proposal] Official Google+ Page for Apache OpenOffice
On 4/19/12 9:40 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: I don't see how this is not duplicating an effort. If you want to contribute to the account you are welcome. But creating a brand new account is exactly duplicating efforts. please Alexandro read what Rob have written. We don't want an account controlled by a single person. For whatever reasons you have created this account it seems that you were not interested to share it with the PPMC. You are always quite fast to create such accounts or register domains like openoffice.org.es, libreoffice.es, ... and use it for your private interests You should have learned that this will not longer will work. Juergen On 4/19/12, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Alexandro Coloradoj...@apache.org wrote: we already have this one https://plus.google.com/b/110957008676542606262/ Yes, an account that has been dormant since last November, and which you have never offered to put under PPMC control. please avoid duplicating efforts. I'm not duplicating a dormant account controlled by a single user. I'm creating an account that all PPMC members can use. You've had the opportunity to do this for many months, but either you did not feel like or did not think it was important. You also never thought it useful to provide project news on that account, point to project blog posts or do anything that would be part of running a healthy community project social networking account. I am not interesting in duplicating that effort. I am interesting in doing far, far better. And I'd welcome you to join with me in doing this. Give me you your Google ID and I'll add you as a manager for this account immediately. This is not duplicating effort since you have obviously put in nearly zero effort for your Google+ account. -Rob On 4/19/12, Donald Harbisondpharbi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: Like Twitter and Facebook, Google+ is a good way to engage with users and the larger OpenOffice ecosystem. Unlike Twitter, Google+ has some enhanced capabilities, such as ease of sharing pictures and video and chat hangouts. The user base is slightly different as well. Google+ is more cutting edge at present, compared to Twitter, and has more early adopters. An important capability from the perspective of the PPMC is that Google+ has built in support for allowing multiple account managers, allowing us to put an account under PPMC control and share responsibilities for maintaining it. I'm proposing that we make this Google+ account into the official Google+ account for the project. I'd be happy to add any PPMC members who are willing to help me with it. Just send me your Google ID and I will add you. Please add: dpharbison https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/114598373874764163668/114598373874764163668/about -Rob -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español http://es.openoffice.org
Re: [Proposal] Official Google+ Page for Apache OpenOffice
On 4/19/12, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: On 4/19/12 9:40 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: I don't see how this is not duplicating an effort. If you want to contribute to the account you are welcome. But creating a brand new account is exactly duplicating efforts. please Alexandro read what Rob have written. We don't want an account controlled by a single person. For whatever reasons you have created this account it seems that you were not interested to share it with the PPMC. You are always quite fast to create such accounts or register domains like openoffice.org.es, libreoffice.es, ... and use it for your private interests You should have learned that this will not longer will work. I have no idea who own those sites. But I these accounts were created many years ago, and if you read the last thread the intiative was well documented to work as a group account. of course members (PPMC or Marketing contact) needed to ad-hoc to the service. My question to you is why you didnt add to it last year or the year before? Stefan Taxhet did. Juergen On 4/19/12, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Alexandro Coloradoj...@apache.org wrote: we already have this one https://plus.google.com/b/110957008676542606262/ Yes, an account that has been dormant since last November, and which you have never offered to put under PPMC control. please avoid duplicating efforts. I'm not duplicating a dormant account controlled by a single user. I'm creating an account that all PPMC members can use. You've had the opportunity to do this for many months, but either you did not feel like or did not think it was important. You also never thought it useful to provide project news on that account, point to project blog posts or do anything that would be part of running a healthy community project social networking account. I am not interesting in duplicating that effort. I am interesting in doing far, far better. And I'd welcome you to join with me in doing this. Give me you your Google ID and I'll add you as a manager for this account immediately. This is not duplicating effort since you have obviously put in nearly zero effort for your Google+ account. -Rob On 4/19/12, Donald Harbisondpharbi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: Like Twitter and Facebook, Google+ is a good way to engage with users and the larger OpenOffice ecosystem. Unlike Twitter, Google+ has some enhanced capabilities, such as ease of sharing pictures and video and chat hangouts. The user base is slightly different as well. Google+ is more cutting edge at present, compared to Twitter, and has more early adopters. An important capability from the perspective of the PPMC is that Google+ has built in support for allowing multiple account managers, allowing us to put an account under PPMC control and share responsibilities for maintaining it. I'm proposing that we make this Google+ account into the official Google+ account for the project. I'd be happy to add any PPMC members who are willing to help me with it. Just send me your Google ID and I will add you. Please add: dpharbison https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/114598373874764163668/114598373874764163668/about -Rob -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español http://es.openoffice.org -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 11:34, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: What is your concern here? Rob contacted me on the matter, and I reply back into the thread and now he said that nobody replied and refer to his decisions as we, when he is the one alone making how things are shaping. Alexandro are you actually the maintainer of the @openofficeorg account? yes I am. If this is the case, guess we could go in a different direction, if not I guess the only option we have at this time is to create another one. My point is exactly that, Rob did contact me about the issue then said nobody reply to him. Seems @openofficeorg has 1500 followers already. Unless there is another twitter account with more followers, I can't see much logic in not simply building around this account. Just need some strategic tweets so we can get followers to retweet and get more followers. If Alexandro is willing to maintain this as a PPMC member, what is the problem? I have asked Alexandro many times over several months whether he would put that Twitter account under the control of the AOO PPMC, rather than treat it as his personal account. He has not agreed to do this,so I've made a new account which I am putting under PPMC control. We've had this discussion, in open, on this list. I dont remember having this discussion with you. So what are you talking about? In this thread, on this list and several times. For example, 8 days ago I wrote: Hi Alexandro -- Is the above your Twitter account? If so, would you be willing to contribute it to the AOO project, so we can rebrand it and allow other PMC members to have write access to it, etc.? You didn't seem to understand that, perhaps due to my poor description. So I described in more detail what I was looking for: By contribute to the AOO project I mean give control to the AOO PMC, so we can use it as a project-wide account, similar to how we treat the blog: -- Any PPMC member, upon request, can have write access. -- We can use the project's official logo in conjunction with the account. -- We would promote the account on our project's website. -- We would generally treat the account as an official voice of the project, not as a personal account. Again, no response. Instead of giving a straightforward yes or no answer, you changed the subject to debating support questions via Twitter. Which means that I want to discuss this first before moving the account or creating a new one. Is the question I'm asking clear? I've done the work. I've done the research. I've worked this through the community. I've created the account. I've applied the Apache branding. I've signed up other PPMC members to have access to this account. I've updated the website. Then what you mean with 'I never recieved a reply'. Rob you are acting on your own, and that is really not good for the community not your reputation of power grabber. Is very skewed the way you reffer yourself as 'we', when is only you acting on your own behalf. I'm not acting on my own at all. I'm creating an account for use by any PPMC member who want to volunteer to help with this Twitter account. I'm discussing how we use Twitter and Google+ as a project, Great but we had that already. Why are you duplicating efforts? Ok, if I understand it right you're open to provide the PPMC with the ability to control that account, that means allign the logo, description, etc to what the PPMC thinks is appropriate, as well as to have other PPMC members to join the club and tweet. Is it correct? If not please ask questions you believe went unanswered. I'm pretty sure people on this list are open to keep providing answers to end-users, yet to make all necessary changes to have blog post news as well as other news automated. Unless you see a problem with moving in this direction, it seems like we are all on the same page. Roberto and I'm doing this openly on the public list. This is a topic I've raised repeatedly on ooo-dev and ooo-private for several months. Now that we are nearing release time for 3.4 it is time for moving forward with these proposals. Acting on your own sounds more like PPMC members who sit on such accounts, treat them as personal accounts, and never offer them to the PPMC, and never worked with the PPMC to make the best use of them. Well these accounts were long before the PPMC ever existed, and at the same time, were available for the group before there was a PPMC. PPMC can join in anytime they want. But like I mentioned, the service to handled this is no longer available, and we need to tie
Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account
On 4/19/12, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 11:34, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: What is your concern here? Rob contacted me on the matter, and I reply back into the thread and now he said that nobody replied and refer to his decisions as we, when he is the one alone making how things are shaping. Alexandro are you actually the maintainer of the @openofficeorg account? yes I am. If this is the case, guess we could go in a different direction, if not I guess the only option we have at this time is to create another one. My point is exactly that, Rob did contact me about the issue then said nobody reply to him. Seems @openofficeorg has 1500 followers already. Unless there is another twitter account with more followers, I can't see much logic in not simply building around this account. Just need some strategic tweets so we can get followers to retweet and get more followers. If Alexandro is willing to maintain this as a PPMC member, what is the problem? I have asked Alexandro many times over several months whether he would put that Twitter account under the control of the AOO PPMC, rather than treat it as his personal account. He has not agreed to do this,so I've made a new account which I am putting under PPMC control. We've had this discussion, in open, on this list. I dont remember having this discussion with you. So what are you talking about? In this thread, on this list and several times. For example, 8 days ago I wrote: Hi Alexandro -- Is the above your Twitter account? If so, would you be willing to contribute it to the AOO project, so we can rebrand it and allow other PMC members to have write access to it, etc.? You didn't seem to understand that, perhaps due to my poor description. So I described in more detail what I was looking for: By contribute to the AOO project I mean give control to the AOO PMC, so we can use it as a project-wide account, similar to how we treat the blog: -- Any PPMC member, upon request, can have write access. -- We can use the project's official logo in conjunction with the account. -- We would promote the account on our project's website. -- We would generally treat the account as an official voice of the project, not as a personal account. Again, no response. Instead of giving a straightforward yes or no answer, you changed the subject to debating support questions via Twitter. Which means that I want to discuss this first before moving the account or creating a new one. Is the question I'm asking clear? I've done the work. I've done the research. I've worked this through the community. I've created the account. I've applied the Apache branding. I've signed up other PPMC members to have access to this account. I've updated the website. Then what you mean with 'I never recieved a reply'. Rob you are acting on your own, and that is really not good for the community not your reputation of power grabber. Is very skewed the way you reffer yourself as 'we', when is only you acting on your own behalf. I'm not acting on my own at all. I'm creating an account for use by any PPMC member who want to volunteer to help with this Twitter account. I'm discussing how we use Twitter and Google+ as a project, Great but we had that already. Why are you duplicating efforts? Ok, if I understand it right you're open to provide the PPMC with the ability to control that account, that means allign the logo, description, etc to what the PPMC thinks is appropriate, as well as to have other PPMC members to join the club and tweet. Is it correct? If not please ask questions you believe went unanswered. The point I made before, was about dealing how will structured be handled. I don't think sharing credentials is a good practice. (is like sharing root password through many users). After I understand the methodology I will contribute the account credentials to infrastructure. I'm pretty sure people on this list are open to keep providing answers to end-users, yet to make all necessary changes to have blog post news as well as other news automated. Unless you see a problem with moving in this direction, it seems like we are all on the same page. Roberto and I'm doing this openly on the public list. This is a topic I've raised repeatedly on ooo-dev and ooo-private for several months. Now that we are nearing release time for 3.4 it is time for moving forward with these proposals. Acting on your own sounds more like PPMC members who sit on such accounts, treat them as personal accounts, and never
Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 11:34, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: What is your concern here? Rob contacted me on the matter, and I reply back into the thread and now he said that nobody replied and refer to his decisions as we, when he is the one alone making how things are shaping. Alexandro are you actually the maintainer of the @openofficeorg account? yes I am. If this is the case, guess we could go in a different direction, if not I guess the only option we have at this time is to create another one. My point is exactly that, Rob did contact me about the issue then said nobody reply to him. Seems @openofficeorg has 1500 followers already. Unless there is another twitter account with more followers, I can't see much logic in not simply building around this account. Just need some strategic tweets so we can get followers to retweet and get more followers. If Alexandro is willing to maintain this as a PPMC member, what is the problem? I have asked Alexandro many times over several months whether he would put that Twitter account under the control of the AOO PPMC, rather than treat it as his personal account. He has not agreed to do this,so I've made a new account which I am putting under PPMC control. We've had this discussion, in open, on this list. I dont remember having this discussion with you. So what are you talking about? In this thread, on this list and several times. For example, 8 days ago I wrote: Hi Alexandro -- Is the above your Twitter account? If so, would you be willing to contribute it to the AOO project, so we can rebrand it and allow other PMC members to have write access to it, etc.? You didn't seem to understand that, perhaps due to my poor description. So I described in more detail what I was looking for: By contribute to the AOO project I mean give control to the AOO PMC, so we can use it as a project-wide account, similar to how we treat the blog: -- Any PPMC member, upon request, can have write access. -- We can use the project's official logo in conjunction with the account. -- We would promote the account on our project's website. -- We would generally treat the account as an official voice of the project, not as a personal account. Again, no response. Instead of giving a straightforward yes or no answer, you changed the subject to debating support questions via Twitter. Which means that I want to discuss this first before moving the account or creating a new one. Is the question I'm asking clear? I've done the work. I've done the research. I've worked this through the community. I've created the account. I've applied the Apache branding. I've signed up other PPMC members to have access to this account. I've updated the website. Then what you mean with 'I never recieved a reply'. Rob you are acting on your own, and that is really not good for the community not your reputation of power grabber. Is very skewed the way you reffer yourself as 'we', when is only you acting on your own behalf. I'm not acting on my own at all. I'm creating an account for use by any PPMC member who want to volunteer to help with this Twitter account. I'm discussing how we use Twitter and Google+ as a project, Great but we had that already. Why are you duplicating efforts? Ok, if I understand it right you're open to provide the PPMC with the ability to control that account, that means allign the logo, description, etc to what the PPMC thinks is appropriate, as well as to have other PPMC members to join the club and tweet. Is it correct? If not please ask questions you believe went unanswered. The point I made before, was about dealing how will structured be handled. I don't think sharing credentials is a good practice. (is like sharing root password through many users). After I understand the methodology I will contribute the account credentials to infrastructure. Agree 100% on the security side. So, what is needed from us to move things on, what's missing on our part? Roberto I'm pretty sure people on this list are open to keep providing answers to end-users, yet to make all necessary changes to have blog post news as well as other news automated. Unless you see a problem with moving in this direction, it seems like we are all on the same page. Roberto and I'm doing this openly on the public list. This is a topic I've raised repeatedly on ooo-dev and ooo-private for several months. Now that we are
Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account
On 4/19/12, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 11:34, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: What is your concern here? Rob contacted me on the matter, and I reply back into the thread and now he said that nobody replied and refer to his decisions as we, when he is the one alone making how things are shaping. Alexandro are you actually the maintainer of the @openofficeorg account? yes I am. If this is the case, guess we could go in a different direction, if not I guess the only option we have at this time is to create another one. My point is exactly that, Rob did contact me about the issue then said nobody reply to him. Seems @openofficeorg has 1500 followers already. Unless there is another twitter account with more followers, I can't see much logic in not simply building around this account. Just need some strategic tweets so we can get followers to retweet and get more followers. If Alexandro is willing to maintain this as a PPMC member, what is the problem? I have asked Alexandro many times over several months whether he would put that Twitter account under the control of the AOO PPMC, rather than treat it as his personal account. He has not agreed to do this,so I've made a new account which I am putting under PPMC control. We've had this discussion, in open, on this list. I dont remember having this discussion with you. So what are you talking about? In this thread, on this list and several times. For example, 8 days ago I wrote: Hi Alexandro -- Is the above your Twitter account? If so, would you be willing to contribute it to the AOO project, so we can rebrand it and allow other PMC members to have write access to it, etc.? You didn't seem to understand that, perhaps due to my poor description. So I described in more detail what I was looking for: By contribute to the AOO project I mean give control to the AOO PMC, so we can use it as a project-wide account, similar to how we treat the blog: -- Any PPMC member, upon request, can have write access. -- We can use the project's official logo in conjunction with the account. -- We would promote the account on our project's website. -- We would generally treat the account as an official voice of the project, not as a personal account. Again, no response. Instead of giving a straightforward yes or no answer, you changed the subject to debating support questions via Twitter. Which means that I want to discuss this first before moving the account or creating a new one. Is the question I'm asking clear? I've done the work. I've done the research. I've worked this through the community. I've created the account. I've applied the Apache branding. I've signed up other PPMC members to have access to this account. I've updated the website. Then what you mean with 'I never recieved a reply'. Rob you are acting on your own, and that is really not good for the community not your reputation of power grabber. Is very skewed the way you reffer yourself as 'we', when is only you acting on your own behalf. I'm not acting on my own at all. I'm creating an account for use by any PPMC member who want to volunteer to help with this Twitter account. I'm discussing how we use Twitter and Google+ as a project, Great but we had that already. Why are you duplicating efforts? Ok, if I understand it right you're open to provide the PPMC with the ability to control that account, that means allign the logo, description, etc to what the PPMC thinks is appropriate, as well as to have other PPMC members to join the club and tweet. Is it correct? If not please ask questions you believe went unanswered. The point I made before, was about dealing how will structured be handled. I don't think sharing credentials is a good practice. (is like sharing root password through many users). After I understand the methodology I will contribute the account credentials to infrastructure. Agree 100% on the security side. So, what is needed from us to move things on, what's missing on our part? Well before cotweet service use to work in this situations having multiple mantainers, cotweet has change its business model as of feb 15 and the others are also non-free or beta stage. We will need to look and try services that will allow us to have multiple account contributors. I have done my search and at the moment the only reliable service is the one I mentioned before (Ping.fm)
Re: Using language pack r1303653 with program version r1325589?
Hi, On 18.04.2012 17:21, Regina Henschel wrote: Hi all, I get crashes on the multi-language version r1303653, which makes the version not usable for me. But I need German and English UI. Is it possible to use the language pack r1303653 with the program version r1325589? I never tried something like this. Thus, I do not know, if it is possible. I would just try it out, because the rev. are not too far away from each other regarding the changes in the code. Best regards, Oliver.
Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 11:34, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: What is your concern here? Rob contacted me on the matter, and I reply back into the thread and now he said that nobody replied and refer to his decisions as we, when he is the one alone making how things are shaping. Alexandro are you actually the maintainer of the @openofficeorg account? yes I am. If this is the case, guess we could go in a different direction, if not I guess the only option we have at this time is to create another one. My point is exactly that, Rob did contact me about the issue then said nobody reply to him. Seems @openofficeorg has 1500 followers already. Unless there is another twitter account with more followers, I can't see much logic in not simply building around this account. Just need some strategic tweets so we can get followers to retweet and get more followers. If Alexandro is willing to maintain this as a PPMC member, what is the problem? I have asked Alexandro many times over several months whether he would put that Twitter account under the control of the AOO PPMC, rather than treat it as his personal account. He has not agreed to do this,so I've made a new account which I am putting under PPMC control. We've had this discussion, in open, on this list. I dont remember having this discussion with you. So what are you talking about? In this thread, on this list and several times. For example, 8 days ago I wrote: Hi Alexandro -- Is the above your Twitter account? If so, would you be willing to contribute it to the AOO project, so we can rebrand it and allow other PMC members to have write access to it, etc.? You didn't seem to understand that, perhaps due to my poor description. So I described in more detail what I was looking for: By contribute to the AOO project I mean give control to the AOO PMC, so we can use it as a project-wide account, similar to how we treat the blog: -- Any PPMC member, upon request, can have write access. -- We can use the project's official logo in conjunction with the account. -- We would promote the account on our project's website. -- We would generally treat the account as an official voice of the project, not as a personal account. Again, no response. Instead of giving a straightforward yes or no answer, you changed the subject to debating support questions via Twitter. Which means that I want to discuss this first before moving the account or creating a new one. Is the question I'm asking clear? I've done the work. I've done the research. I've worked this through the community. I've created the account. I've applied the Apache branding. I've signed up other PPMC members to have access to this account. I've updated the website. Then what you mean with 'I never recieved a reply'. Rob you are acting on your own, and that is really not good for the community not your reputation of power grabber. Is very skewed the way you reffer yourself as 'we', when is only you acting on your own behalf. I'm not acting on my own at all. I'm creating an account for use by any PPMC member who want to volunteer to help with this Twitter account. I'm discussing how we use Twitter and Google+ as a project, Great but we had that already. Why are you duplicating efforts? Ok, if I understand it right you're open to provide the PPMC with the ability to control that account, that means allign the logo, description, etc to what the PPMC thinks is appropriate, as well as to have other PPMC members to join the club and tweet. Is it correct? If not please ask questions you believe went unanswered. The point I made before, was about dealing how will structured be handled. I don't think sharing credentials is a good practice. (is like sharing root password through many users). After I understand the methodology I will contribute the account credentials to infrastructure. Agree 100% on the security side. So, what is needed from us to move things on, what's missing on our part? Well before cotweet service use to work in this situations having multiple mantainers, cotweet has change its business model as of feb 15 and the others are also non-free or beta stage. We will need to look and try services that will allow us to have multiple account contributors. I have done my search
Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account
On 4/19/12, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 11:34, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: What is your concern here? Rob contacted me on the matter, and I reply back into the thread and now he said that nobody replied and refer to his decisions as we, when he is the one alone making how things are shaping. Alexandro are you actually the maintainer of the @openofficeorg account? yes I am. If this is the case, guess we could go in a different direction, if not I guess the only option we have at this time is to create another one. My point is exactly that, Rob did contact me about the issue then said nobody reply to him. Seems @openofficeorg has 1500 followers already. Unless there is another twitter account with more followers, I can't see much logic in not simply building around this account. Just need some strategic tweets so we can get followers to retweet and get more followers. If Alexandro is willing to maintain this as a PPMC member, what is the problem? I have asked Alexandro many times over several months whether he would put that Twitter account under the control of the AOO PPMC, rather than treat it as his personal account. He has not agreed to do this,so I've made a new account which I am putting under PPMC control. We've had this discussion, in open, on this list. I dont remember having this discussion with you. So what are you talking about? In this thread, on this list and several times. For example, 8 days ago I wrote: Hi Alexandro -- Is the above your Twitter account? If so, would you be willing to contribute it to the AOO project, so we can rebrand it and allow other PMC members to have write access to it, etc.? You didn't seem to understand that, perhaps due to my poor description. So I described in more detail what I was looking for: By contribute to the AOO project I mean give control to the AOO PMC, so we can use it as a project-wide account, similar to how we treat the blog: -- Any PPMC member, upon request, can have write access. -- We can use the project's official logo in conjunction with the account. -- We would promote the account on our project's website. -- We would generally treat the account as an official voice of the project, not as a personal account. Again, no response. Instead of giving a straightforward yes or no answer, you changed the subject to debating support questions via Twitter. Which means that I want to discuss this first before moving the account or creating a new one. Is the question I'm asking clear? I've done the work. I've done the research. I've worked this through the community. I've created the account. I've applied the Apache branding. I've signed up other PPMC members to have access to this account. I've updated the website. Then what you mean with 'I never recieved a reply'. Rob you are acting on your own, and that is really not good for the community not your reputation of power grabber. Is very skewed the way you reffer yourself as 'we', when is only you acting on your own behalf. I'm not acting on my own at all. I'm creating an account for use by any PPMC member who want to volunteer to help with this Twitter account. I'm discussing how we use Twitter and Google+ as a project, Great but we had that already. Why are you duplicating efforts? Ok, if I understand it right you're open to provide the PPMC with the ability to control that account, that means allign the logo, description, etc to what the PPMC thinks is appropriate, as well as to have other PPMC members to join the club and tweet. Is it correct? If not please ask questions you believe went unanswered. The point I made before, was about dealing how will structured be handled. I don't think sharing credentials is a good practice. (is like sharing root password through many users). After I understand the methodology I will contribute the account credentials to infrastructure. Agree 100% on the security side. So, what is needed from us to move things on, what's missing on our part? Well before cotweet service use to work in this situations having multiple mantainers, cotweet has change its business model as of feb 15 and the others are also non-free or beta stage. We will need to look and try services that will allow
Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account
On 19 April 2012 15:52, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 11:34, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: What is your concern here? Rob contacted me on the matter, and I reply back into the thread and now he said that nobody replied and refer to his decisions as we, when he is the one alone making how things are shaping. Alexandro are you actually the maintainer of the @openofficeorg account? yes I am. If this is the case, guess we could go in a different direction, if not I guess the only option we have at this time is to create another one. My point is exactly that, Rob did contact me about the issue then said nobody reply to him. Seems @openofficeorg has 1500 followers already. Unless there is another twitter account with more followers, I can't see much logic in not simply building around this account. Just need some strategic tweets so we can get followers to retweet and get more followers. If Alexandro is willing to maintain this as a PPMC member, what is the problem? I have asked Alexandro many times over several months whether he would put that Twitter account under the control of the AOO PPMC, rather than treat it as his personal account. He has not agreed to do this,so I've made a new account which I am putting under PPMC control. We've had this discussion, in open, on this list. I dont remember having this discussion with you. So what are you talking about? In this thread, on this list and several times. For example, 8 days ago I wrote: Hi Alexandro -- Is the above your Twitter account? If so, would you be willing to contribute it to the AOO project, so we can rebrand it and allow other PMC members to have write access to it, etc.? You didn't seem to understand that, perhaps due to my poor description. So I described in more detail what I was looking for: By contribute to the AOO project I mean give control to the AOO PMC, so we can use it as a project-wide account, similar to how we treat the blog: -- Any PPMC member, upon request, can have write access. -- We can use the project's official logo in conjunction with the account. -- We would promote the account on our project's website. -- We would generally treat the account as an official voice of the project, not as a personal account. Again, no response. Instead of giving a straightforward yes or no answer, you changed the subject to debating support questions via Twitter. Which means that I want to discuss this first before moving the account or creating a new one. Is the question I'm asking clear? I've done the work. I've done the research. I've worked this through the community. I've created the account. I've applied the Apache branding. I've signed up other PPMC members to have access to this account. I've updated the website. Then what you mean with 'I never recieved a reply'. Rob you are acting on your own, and that is really not good for the community not your reputation of power grabber. Is very skewed the way you reffer yourself as 'we', when is only you acting on your own behalf. I'm not acting on my own at all. I'm creating an account for use by any PPMC member who want to volunteer to help with this Twitter account. I'm discussing how we use Twitter and Google+ as a project, Great but we had that already. Why are you duplicating efforts? Ok, if I understand it right you're open to provide the PPMC with the ability to control that account, that means allign the logo, description, etc to what the PPMC thinks is appropriate, as well as to have other PPMC members to join the club and tweet. Is it correct? If not please ask questions you believe went unanswered. The point I made before, was about dealing how will structured be handled. I don't think sharing credentials is a good practice. (is like sharing root password through many users). After I understand the methodology I will contribute the account credentials to infrastructure. Agree 100% on the security side. So, what is needed from us to move things on, what's missing on our part? Well before
Re: Seeking PPMC volunteers for shared project Twitter account
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I can support up to 10. Please send me your Twitter account name. Also follow the account here: https://twitter.com/#!/apacheoo I'll give you access to the account and send you instructions for how to use it. (Group accounts work a little differently than normal Twitter accounts). Ideally we'd have some geographical and language coverage. I've given Don, Juergen and Hirano-san access, per their request. We can add up to 6 more PPMC members to the account, if there is interest. Members added to the account can send a Tweet using their existing Twitter client, or the www.twitter.com website interface. To send a tweet simply send a direct message to the ApacheOO account. For example: d ApacheOO hello world Note that there is no @ before ApacheOO in this syntax. Regards, -Rob
Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account
On 4/19/12, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 15:52, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 11:34, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: What is your concern here? Rob contacted me on the matter, and I reply back into the thread and now he said that nobody replied and refer to his decisions as we, when he is the one alone making how things are shaping. Alexandro are you actually the maintainer of the @openofficeorg account? yes I am. If this is the case, guess we could go in a different direction, if not I guess the only option we have at this time is to create another one. My point is exactly that, Rob did contact me about the issue then said nobody reply to him. Seems @openofficeorg has 1500 followers already. Unless there is another twitter account with more followers, I can't see much logic in not simply building around this account. Just need some strategic tweets so we can get followers to retweet and get more followers. If Alexandro is willing to maintain this as a PPMC member, what is the problem? I have asked Alexandro many times over several months whether he would put that Twitter account under the control of the AOO PPMC, rather than treat it as his personal account. He has not agreed to do this,so I've made a new account which I am putting under PPMC control. We've had this discussion, in open, on this list. I dont remember having this discussion with you. So what are you talking about? In this thread, on this list and several times. For example, 8 days ago I wrote: Hi Alexandro -- Is the above your Twitter account? If so, would you be willing to contribute it to the AOO project, so we can rebrand it and allow other PMC members to have write access to it, etc.? You didn't seem to understand that, perhaps due to my poor description. So I described in more detail what I was looking for: By contribute to the AOO project I mean give control to the AOO PMC, so we can use it as a project-wide account, similar to how we treat the blog: -- Any PPMC member, upon request, can have write access. -- We can use the project's official logo in conjunction with the account. -- We would promote the account on our project's website. -- We would generally treat the account as an official voice of the project, not as a personal account. Again, no response. Instead of giving a straightforward yes or no answer, you changed the subject to debating support questions via Twitter. Which means that I want to discuss this first before moving the account or creating a new one. Is the question I'm asking clear? I've done the work. I've done the research. I've worked this through the community. I've created the account. I've applied the Apache branding. I've signed up other PPMC members to have access to this account. I've updated the website. Then what you mean with 'I never recieved a reply'. Rob you are acting on your own, and that is really not good for the community not your reputation of power grabber. Is very skewed the way you reffer yourself as 'we', when is only you acting on your own behalf. I'm not acting on my own at all. I'm creating an account for use by any PPMC member who want to volunteer to help with this Twitter account. I'm discussing how we use Twitter and Google+ as a project, Great but we had that already. Why are you duplicating efforts? Ok, if I understand it right you're open to provide the PPMC with the ability to control that account, that means allign the logo, description, etc to what the PPMC thinks is appropriate, as well as to have other PPMC members to join the club and tweet. Is it correct? If not please ask questions you believe went unanswered. The point I made before, was about dealing how will structured be handled. I don't think sharing credentials is a good practice. (is like sharing root password through many users). After I understand the methodology I will contribute the account credentials to infrastructure. Agree 100% on the security side. So, what is needed from
CWS licensing query ...
Hi there, Just digging through the code looking at some (re)-licensing issues we have to deal with, and I'm wondering about the license of code in Child Workspaces (branches in Mercurial). It would be my hope (and for both project's benefit) that existing patches (ie. CWS), to the code that Oracle has contributed under the AL2, would also be available under the AL2. Is that the case ? reading: https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/summary-of-apache-openoffice-34-ip-review-activities.html I see: The ASF received two Software Grant Agreements from Oracle, the first on June 1st, 2011 and a supplemental one on October 17th, 2011. Presumably these agreements are available for inspection by Apache Members. The list of files covered by each of these grants, were extracted from the SGA and can be found in _these files_ Which seems to just have flat lists of files, and I had a couple of questions: 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of them ? 2. Is the text of these SGA's made public somewhere ? (prolly a FAQ) I'm confused by this 'Members only' restriction that is presumed. Anyhow - glad to see Oracle has got close to the end of getting the code out there: good stuff. It'd be nice to get some clarity around those CWS' that are not yet merged, eg. Armin's nice work in CWS aw080. It'd be really useful to have a statement on that - or perhaps I just missed an existing one, help appreciated ! Thanks, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: [Proposal] Official Google+ Page for Apache OpenOffice
On 2012/04/19 20:12, Donald Harbison said: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I'm proposing that we make this Google+ account into the official Google+ account for the project. I'd be happy to add any PPMC members who are willing to help me with it. Just send me your Google ID and I will add you. Please add: dpharbison Please add me, too: imacat@gmail.com https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/114598373874764163668/114598373874764163668/about -- Best regards, imacat ^_*' ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc Woman's Voice News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/ Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/ Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/ Apache OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: CWS licensing query ...
Hi Michael, On Apr 19, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: Hi there, Just digging through the code looking at some (re)-licensing issues we have to deal with, and I'm wondering about the license of code in Child Workspaces (branches in Mercurial). It would be my hope (and for both project's benefit) that existing patches (ie. CWS), to the code that Oracle has contributed under the AL2, would also be available under the AL2. Is that the case ? reading: https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/summary-of-apache-openoffice-34-ip-review-activities.html I see: The ASF received two Software Grant Agreements from Oracle, the first on June 1st, 2011 and a supplemental one on October 17th, 2011. Presumably these agreements are available for inspection by Apache Members. The list of files covered by each of these grants, were extracted from the SGA and can be found in _these files_ Which seems to just have flat lists of files, and I had a couple of questions: 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of them ? 2. Is the text of these SGA's made public somewhere ? (prolly a FAQ) I'm confused by this 'Members only' restriction that is presumed. Good questions. I can partially answer: Members only refers to an Apache Software Foundation Members private area. Anyhow - glad to see Oracle has got close to the end of getting the code out there: good stuff. It'd be nice to get some clarity around those CWS' that are not yet merged, eg. Armin's nice work in CWS aw080. Armin has been working on aw080 in a branch here at AOO: incubator/ooo/branches/alg/aw080 I know that people have made sure they have copies of mercurial. It'd be really useful to have a statement on that - or perhaps I just missed an existing one, help appreciated ! Maybe search the archives for aw080? This is the help I can provide perhaps others will answer further. Regards, Dave Thanks, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: Seeking PPMC volunteers for shared project Twitter account
Me: @luispo I can cover large sections of snowy landmass, and I tweet in English. On 2012-04-19, at 08:26 , Rob Weir wrote: I can support up to 10. Please send me your Twitter account name. Also follow the account here: https://twitter.com/#!/apacheoo I'll give you access to the account and send you instructions for how to use it. (Group accounts work a little differently than normal Twitter accounts). Ideally we'd have some geographical and language coverage. -Rob
Grouptweet on twitter account
I am testing this service called grouptweet, seems they could provide a good interface for group collaboration on the account. The site is http://grouptweet.com Seems this could work as a replacement for cotweet. So far I will need to add some twitter accounts that want to get on this testing phase. The way to publish tweets is rather simpler, since it just need to add @openofficeorg to the message to get it re-published under the @openofficeorg account. There are other messaging methods, lets see which is the best one. -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?
Christoph Jopp wrote: There still seems to be a misunderstanding. ... The other thing was that with announcing and publishing Beta Versions and Release Candidates also people without a close connection to the project were attracted to test or maybe better to try out the new version. And their bug hunting might be of some value. Yes, sure. While we encourage volunteers to help in an organized way, brave users or bug hunters are welcome too. The main problem I see is to provide them with a clear channel for bug reporting/triaging: some of them will report bugs on a mailing list, but won't bother filing a Bugzilla issue. For localized QA the localized mailing lists could do the job, for general QA would it make sense to refer users to the newly created QA list? (Of course the best solution would be to have everybody file their issues properly in Bugzilla, but we can't expect this from everybody). Regards, Andrea
Re: Seeking PPMC volunteers for shared project Twitter account
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts lui...@gmail.com wrote: Me: @luispo I can cover large sections of snowy landmass, and I tweet in English. Thanks. Be sure that you follow @ApacheOO from your account as well. Since the group access is based on forwarding via DM's, all co-authors need to follow the main account. -Rob On 2012-04-19, at 08:26 , Rob Weir wrote: I can support up to 10. Please send me your Twitter account name. Also follow the account here: https://twitter.com/#!/apacheoo I'll give you access to the account and send you instructions for how to use it. (Group accounts work a little differently than normal Twitter accounts). Ideally we'd have some geographical and language coverage. -Rob
Re: Grouptweet on twitter account
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: I am testing this service called grouptweet, seems they could provide a good interface for group collaboration on the account. The site is http://grouptweet.com Do you know of anything that could work well with setting up a group account on Facebook? We could really use some help with that, if you have any insights there. Regards, -Rob Seems this could work as a replacement for cotweet. So far I will need to add some twitter accounts that want to get on this testing phase. The way to publish tweets is rather simpler, since it just need to add @openofficeorg to the message to get it re-published under the @openofficeorg account. There are other messaging methods, lets see which is the best one. -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Christoph Jopp wrote: There still seems to be a misunderstanding. ... The other thing was that with announcing and publishing Beta Versions and Release Candidates also people without a close connection to the project were attracted to test or maybe better to try out the new version. And their bug hunting might be of some value. Yes, sure. While we encourage volunteers to help in an organized way, brave users or bug hunters are welcome too. The main problem I see is to provide them with a clear channel for bug reporting/triaging: some of them will report bugs on a mailing list, but won't bother filing a Bugzilla issue. For localized QA the localized mailing lists could do the job, for general QA would it make sense to refer users to the newly created QA list? (Of course the best solution would be to have everybody file their issues properly in Bugzilla, but we can't expect this from everybody). Or is there something we can do to make BZ bug reporting easier? QA list is definitely *not* for reporting bugs. Maybe ooo-users? -Rob Regards, Andrea
Re: CWS licensing query ...
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote: Hi there, Just digging through the code looking at some (re)-licensing issues we have to deal with, and I'm wondering about the license of code in Child Workspaces (branches in Mercurial). It would be my hope (and for both project's benefit) that existing patches (ie. CWS), to the code that Oracle has contributed under the AL2, would also be available under the AL2. I'm glad to hear that you are supportive of the Apache license and see its benefits. Is that the case ? reading: https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/summary-of-apache-openoffice-34-ip-review-activities.html I see: The ASF received two Software Grant Agreements from Oracle, the first on June 1st, 2011 and a supplemental one on October 17th, 2011. Presumably these agreements are available for inspection by Apache Members. The list of files covered by each of these grants, were extracted from the SGA and can be found in _these files_ Which seems to just have flat lists of files, and I had a couple of questions: 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of them ? 2. Is the text of these SGA's made public somewhere ? (prolly a FAQ) I'm confused by this 'Members only' restriction that is presumed. The SGA is schedule B of the CCLA. You can read it here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt But something to remember is that an SGA is not the only way code can get under the Apache license. Anyhow - glad to see Oracle has got close to the end of getting the code out there: good stuff. It'd be nice to get some clarity around those CWS' that are not yet merged, eg. Armin's nice work in CWS aw080. It'd be really useful to have a statement on that - or perhaps I just missed an existing one, help appreciated ! Were there any other specific CWS's that you are interested in, aside from aw080? Regards, -Rob Thanks, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: Expanding Review and Contributions as AOO 3.4 Approaches
On 04/16/2012 03:05 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Short answer: At Apache, release candidates are not releases and don't appear anywhere that releases do. With respect to the outside world, they are unofficial, intermediate work. - Dennis This is my understanding: The RC artifacts are made available the same way as developer snapshots and previews. (If you look at the links, you'll see that the RC1 artifacts are on the release manager's Apache account.) The difference is that a release candidate is packaged in the form of artifacts on which release votes happen. When a release vote is held and passes, those are the artifacts that will then be put up as a release, populated on mirrors, etc. Since these candidates are not releases, it is inappropriate to notify the user base, make an ASF announcement, etc. They should not be provided at the download page either. Dennis and others-- Yes, trying to track down some other things, it is VERY clear that pre-releases, like these, should ONLY be announced on the dev list. http://www.apache.org/dev/release LOTS of info in this, and, much of it, well, different than what some of use are used to. In some sense, there is a feature and code freeze in effect for the release, except for any necessary repairs that require a new candidate to be produced. The need for repair can come about as part of the in-Apache review of the candidate and independently as the result of a release-blocking defect reported by anyone. Because of that level of stability, this is a time when investment of any volunteer testing, trial use, etc., is valuable in both how the candidate deploys and how it is usable. It's not a moving target and additional explorations are well-spent, especially for any show-stopper that is uncovered. - Dennis -Original Message- From: drew [mailto:d...@baseanswers.com] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3c1334611284.19386.7.camel@sybil-gnome%3e Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 14:21 To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org Cc: OOo-dev Apache Incubator; 'Louis Suárez-Potts' Subject: Re: Expanding Review and Contributions as AOO 3.4 Approaches Howdy, I have a few basic questions - sorry if this has been covered and I missed it. How extensive an announcement are we looking for with this? The files are not on the mirror system at this moment, right, so it's premature to blast out to the full user base, correct? Will the RC files go to the mirrors, BTW, and I suppose in the same question - will the download pages on the main ooo site be used for RC as in the past? If so then that is the point at which we want to promote the RC more broadly, so I would think. Thanks, //drew On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 13:37 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3c01df01cd1c10$b4f45ba0$1edd12e0$@acm.org%3e [ ... ] -- MzK Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea. -- Robert Heinlein
Re: mirrors, release publishing...again
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all-- Please see: http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html esp the paragraph on Distribution sentence... === Distribution The Apache infrastructure must be the primary source for all artifacts officially released by the ASF. The Apache Infrastructure team maintains the Apache release distribution infrastructure. This infrastructure has two parts: the mirrored directories on www.apache.org and the Maven repository on repository.apache.org. = To me, this means we will use Apache infra and mirrors for the distribution of release 3.4, when that happens. But in our case Apache Infra has agreed that we could/should accept help from SourceForge due to the size and volume involved in this release. I think this statement from Joe is the most recent and authoritative statement from Infra on this specific topic: http://markmail.org/message/quwkdctro7dpzyly -Rob -- MzK Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea. -- Robert Heinlein
Re: mirrors, release publishing...again
On 04/19/2012 02:19 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all-- Please see: http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html esp the paragraph on Distribution sentence... === Distribution The Apache infrastructure must be the primary source for all artifacts officially released by the ASF. The Apache Infrastructure team maintains the Apache release distribution infrastructure. This infrastructure has two parts: the mirrored directories on www.apache.org and the Maven repository on repository.apache.org. = To me, this means we will use Apache infra and mirrors for the distribution of release 3.4, when that happens. But in our case Apache Infra has agreed that we could/should accept help from SourceForge due to the size and volume involved in this release. I think this statement from Joe is the most recent and authoritative statement from Infra on this specific topic: http://markmail.org/message/quwkdctro7dpzyly -Rob Rob--Thanks for pointing this out and pinning this down. Despite the fact that I read through this thread, I obviously missed this --and it was just a few days ago! ack! (I will now file this in a safe place.) OK, but it is not clear to me at all how to incorporate more than one mirror system (automatically), and like others I don't think it can be done really. So Joe's statement-- Infra's position is currently that, for the upcoming release ONLY, continuing to use the legacy mirrorbrain system in conjunction with ASF mirrors and SF downloads is A-OK is a big ??? for me. How would in conjunction work? Maybe Joe or one of the other infra staff have some ideas about this. Change the current DL script to present the user with a choice of download options? ASF or MirrorBrain/SourceForge? We could do this I think. Also, it would be difficult to keep actual DL statistics if we split things up. Thoughts? -- 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 dogs should relax and get used to the idea. -- Robert Heinlein
Re: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?
On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 23:06 +0200, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Christoph Jopp wrote: There still seems to be a misunderstanding. ... The other thing was that with announcing and publishing Beta Versions and Release Candidates also people without a close connection to the project were attracted to test or maybe better to try out the new version. And their bug hunting might be of some value. Yes, sure. While we encourage volunteers to help in an organized way, brave users or bug hunters are welcome too. The main problem I see is to provide them with a clear channel for bug reporting/triaging: some of them will report bugs on a mailing list, but won't bother filing a Bugzilla issue. For localized QA the localized mailing lists could do the job, for general QA would it make sense to refer users to the newly created QA list? (Of course the best solution would be to have everybody file their issues properly in Bugzilla, but we can't expect this from everybody). Howdy, Or is there something we can do to make BZ bug reporting easier? Certainly.. different message thread, I think, but I like web forms. Any volunteers? QA list is definitely *not* for reporting bugs. Maybe ooo-users? I'd agree, though I would encourage those folks directly active with user communication (on the different user ML/Forums) to subscribe to it, so that information does get out efficiently. For right now, for myself, I ran across the wiki page: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/QA That's gotta get fixed - I'll work on this tonight, the support page and docs page on the main site also, can't be put off longer, if others start great but either way I'll try start on those here directly, also. //drew -Rob Regards, Andrea
Re: CWS licensing query ...
On 19 April 2012 17:24, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote: 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of them ? The SGAs signed by Oracle are, to the best of my knowledge, unmodified. The source text can be found at http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt The scope does not extend beyond the listed files. If there are files you think are needed we can talk to Oracle to see if we can have those too. I'm not sure whether it covers just one version or all versions, my guess is if we were given history then it would extend to that history too but that is my *guess* only. What is certain is that the grant covers all IP in the files listed and supplied to us. 2. Is the text of these SGA's made public somewhere ? (prolly a FAQ) I'm confused by this 'Members only' restriction that is presumed. The signed documents are private because they contain private contact details, however the text is at http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt. This is the text of the SGA signed by Oracle as I note above. It'd be really useful to have a statement on that - or perhaps I just missed an existing one, help appreciated ! If you need a firmer/clearer statement than that (i.e. from someone on the legal committee rather than an observer like me) then feel free to post to legal-disc...@apache.org where our VP Legal Affairs will be happy to respond. Ross
Re: mirrors, release publishing...again
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/19/2012 02:19 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all-- Please see: http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html esp the paragraph on Distribution sentence... === Distribution The Apache infrastructure must be the primary source for all artifacts officially released by the ASF. The Apache Infrastructure team maintains the Apache release distribution infrastructure. This infrastructure has two parts: the mirrored directories on www.apache.org and the Maven repository on repository.apache.org. = To me, this means we will use Apache infra and mirrors for the distribution of release 3.4, when that happens. But in our case Apache Infra has agreed that we could/should accept help from SourceForge due to the size and volume involved in this release. I think this statement from Joe is the most recent and authoritative statement from Infra on this specific topic: http://markmail.org/message/quwkdctro7dpzyly -Rob Rob--Thanks for pointing this out and pinning this down. Despite the fact that I read through this thread, I obviously missed this --and it was just a few days ago! ack! (I will now file this in a safe place.) OK, but it is not clear to me at all how to incorporate more than one mirror system (automatically), and like others I don't think it can be done really. So Joe's statement-- Infra's position is currently that, for the upcoming release ONLY, continuing to use the legacy mirrorbrain system in conjunction with ASF mirrors and SF downloads is A-OK is a big ??? for me. How would in conjunction work? Maybe Joe or one of the other infra staff have some ideas about this. Change the current DL script to present the user with a choice of download options? ASF or MirrorBrain/SourceForge? We could do this I think. Also, it would be difficult to keep actual DL statistics if we split things up. Thoughts? A few ways, some worse than others: 1) Offer several download links: Download from Apache, from SourceForge, from MirrorBrain. Of course that doesn't balance the load, but maybe it would if we randomized the order that they are listed. 2) Have a single link, but it is JavaScript that then directs to one of the three mirrors systems. This is easy to distribute the load according to a defined schedule. Marcus prototyped an approach like this. It looked like it was working. I'm not sure, however, whether it handled fallbacks. For example, you randomly select to use the Apache mirror, but the particular operator chosen is down. User experience for backing out of that and repeating was as nice as it could be. 3) Some variation on 3 where we handle the fallbacks better, or at least handle failures better, so the user just needs to click again. From a download tracking perspective, we can get these numbers if we have a single script entry point we use. In that script we can code a Google Analytics event, which is like a pseudo page that indicates the user clicked a link that took them to a mirror outside of our website. We could track how many users went to each mirror network, as well as what platform and language they downloaded. (Well, not really downloaded. We only know that they requested the download. Whether they waited for it to complete is unknown) -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 dogs should relax and get used to the idea. -- Robert Heinlein
[QA Wiki page update]Re: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?
snip QA list is definitely *not* for reporting bugs. Maybe ooo-users? I'd agree, though I would encourage those folks directly active with user communication (on the different user ML/Forums) to subscribe to it, so that information does get out efficiently. For right now, for myself, I ran across the wiki page: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/QA made changes to the above wiki page. Added a link to this page http://www.openoffice.org/qa/issue_handling/submission_gateway.html#application which now adds an item for fixing (the rest of the page seems to work but)..the search box leads to a dead link at http://www.openoffice.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=criteria //drew snip
Re: Grouptweet on twitter account
Facebook gives you unique email accounts to post to the wall. I am not sure if this functionality is in pages yet and is filtered from a manager list. On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: I am testing this service called grouptweet, seems they could provide a good interface for group collaboration on the account. The site is http://grouptweet.com Do you know of anything that could work well with setting up a group account on Facebook? We could really use some help with that, if you have any insights there. Regards, -Rob Seems this could work as a replacement for cotweet. So far I will need to add some twitter accounts that want to get on this testing phase. The way to publish tweets is rather simpler, since it just need to add @openofficeorg to the message to get it re-published under the @openofficeorg account. There are other messaging methods, lets see which is the best one. -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español http://es.openoffice.org -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español http://es.openoffice.org
Re: [Proposal] Official Google+ Page for Apache OpenOffice
Pls add me yanji...@gmail.com 在 2012年4月19日 下午7:40，Rob Weir robw...@apache.org写道： Like Twitter and Facebook, Google+ is a good way to engage with users and the larger OpenOffice ecosystem. Unlike Twitter, Google+ has some enhanced capabilities, such as ease of sharing pictures and video and chat hangouts. The user base is slightly different as well. Google+ is more cutting edge at present, compared to Twitter, and has more early adopters. An important capability from the perspective of the PPMC is that Google+ has built in support for allowing multiple account managers, allowing us to put an account under PPMC control and share responsibilities for maintaining it. I'm proposing that we make this Google+ account into the official Google+ account for the project. I'd be happy to add any PPMC members who are willing to help me with it. Just send me your Google ID and I will add you. https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/114598373874764163668/114598373874764163668/about -Rob -- Thanks Best Regards, Yan Ji
Re: Grouptweet on twitter account
Hoodsuite can add pages and collaborators but only in their pro accounts. On 4/19/12, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: Facebook gives you unique email accounts to post to the wall. I am not sure if this functionality is in pages yet and is filtered from a manager list. On 4/19/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@apache.org wrote: I am testing this service called grouptweet, seems they could provide a good interface for group collaboration on the account. The site is http://grouptweet.com Do you know of anything that could work well with setting up a group account on Facebook? We could really use some help with that, if you have any insights there. Regards, -Rob Seems this could work as a replacement for cotweet. So far I will need to add some twitter accounts that want to get on this testing phase. The way to publish tweets is rather simpler, since it just need to add @openofficeorg to the message to get it re-published under the @openofficeorg account. There are other messaging methods, lets see which is the best one. -- 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
Google CSE question
Hi, The documentation page on the main site contains a set of CSE boxes. The actual Google CSE's behind those, such as: http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=008361175193398611882:u9pfxpvxmte Who has the ability to update these? Thanks, //drew
Re: [Proposal] Official Google+ Page for Apache OpenOffice
Please add me chao.de...@gmail.com Thanks! 在 2012年4月20日 上午8:30，Ji Yan yanji...@gmail.com 写道： Pls add me yanji...@gmail.com 在 2012年4月19日 下午7:40，Rob Weir robw...@apache.org写道： Like Twitter and Facebook, Google+ is a good way to engage with users and the larger OpenOffice ecosystem. Unlike Twitter, Google+ has some enhanced capabilities, such as ease of sharing pictures and video and chat hangouts. The user base is slightly different as well. Google+ is more cutting edge at present, compared to Twitter, and has more early adopters. An important capability from the perspective of the PPMC is that Google+ has built in support for allowing multiple account managers, allowing us to put an account under PPMC control and share responsibilities for maintaining it. I'm proposing that we make this Google+ account into the official Google+ account for the project. I'd be happy to add any PPMC members who are willing to help me with it. Just send me your Google ID and I will add you. https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/114598373874764163668/114598373874764163668/about -Rob -- Thanks Best Regards, Yan Ji -- Chao Huang
Re: mirrors, release publishing...again
A few ways, some worse than others: 1) Offer several download links: Download from Apache, from SourceForge, from MirrorBrain. Of course that doesn't balance the load, but maybe it would if we randomized the order that they are listed. 2) Have a single link, but it is JavaScript that then directs to one of the three mirrors systems. This is easy to distribute the load according to a defined schedule. Marcus prototyped an approach like this. It looked like it was working. I'm not sure, however, whether it handled fallbacks. For example, you randomly select to use the Apache mirror, but the particular operator chosen is down. User experience for backing out of that and repeating was as nice as it could be. 3) Some variation on 3 where we handle the fallbacks better, or at least handle failures better, so the user just needs to click again. I would be in favor of a forth option suggested by Andreas in another thread: * Route autoupdater traffic through one system (MirrorBrain) * Route web based traffic through another (SF as primary, and Apache mirrors as secondary) This eliminates potential problems with which mirror network is having a problem kinds of debugging which would be particularly pernicious if we randomized anything about the process. It also has the benefit of most closely matching Joe's original suggestion of how to use SF.net, and provides a clear accountability/support chain for users when downloads fail. SF.net will as previously mentioned provide an API to collect stats on downloads from our system, and we'd be happy to help host a bouncer that forwards requests to a MirrorBrain server so that updater stats can be collected as well if that helps the team measure the release download volume more effectively. --Mark Ramm This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
Re: OOo / zlib license oddness ...
Thanks Michael for your analysis. I dont't think that copying the files is a problem. After all we are already unzipping the zlib tar ball to a location of our choosing. Why should copying some of the files to yet another location change anything? They are not part of the source package and the binary packages will contain the resulting zlib library anyway, regardless of the location of any of its source files. But, of course, I am not a laywer. Regarding the license issue: I agree that the licensing may appear to be confusing because the LICENSE file referenced in unzip.c is missing. But if you look closely at the text, it says that the license text is also included in zip.h, and that file exists and contains the same license text that is also listed in MiniZip64_info.txt (in the same directory.) That license is Condition of use and distribution are the same than zlib : This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software. Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions: 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required. 2. Altered source versions must source/current/git/main/zlib/be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution. This text is contained in main/LICENSE at around line 2017. I see no problem with this. More comments inline. On 20.04.2012 00:14, Michael Meeks wrote: Hi guys, I've been meaning to poke you guys about this; but perhaps your RAT scan found it already[1]. If you poke in zlib/ there is a patch[2] (to create a makefile), that looks just fine on the first few reads: zlib/zlib-1.2.5.patch ... +SLOFILES= $(SLO)$/adler32.obj \ + $(SLO)$/unzip.obj \ Modules that seem to come from the same (sane) zlib directory, but then there is this: +$(MISC)$/%.c : contrib$/minizip$/%.c + @echo -- + @echo Making: $@ +@$(COPY) $ $@ which copies files out of the contrib/minizip/ directory into there. Their headers appear uniformly licensed, -but- the .c files that are copied in have confusing licensing eg. unzip.c ... See the accompanying file LICENSE, version 2000-Apr-09 or later (the contents of which are also included in zip.h) for terms of use. If, for some reason, all these files are missing, the Info-ZIP license also may be found at: ftp://ftp.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/license.html ... So - I was wondering: do you guys have the Info-ZIP license in your notices / documentation etc. ? not sure which category it is ? I believe it's used by spotlight and some windows integration but not on Linux etc. Hopefully it's in time to get right in your release. Absolutely. But it is good that you finished your analysis of the source code before the RC and not after so that people don't get the wrong impression about your intentions. Best regards, Andre ATB, Michael. [1] - IMHO, only a compiler/pre-processor can -really- get to the bottom of this kind of deep badness, no idea how that rat thing works. [2] - interestingly it is flagged: Copyright according the GNU Public License seemingly nonsensical; though there are another 5x extant instances of that string.
Re: mirrors, release publishing...again
On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 21:57 -0400, Mark Ramm wrote: A few ways, some worse than others: 1) Offer several download links: Download from Apache, from SourceForge, from MirrorBrain. Of course that doesn't balance the load, but maybe it would if we randomized the order that they are listed. 2) Have a single link, but it is JavaScript that then directs to one of the three mirrors systems. This is easy to distribute the load according to a defined schedule. Marcus prototyped an approach like this. It looked like it was working. I'm not sure, however, whether it handled fallbacks. For example, you randomly select to use the Apache mirror, but the particular operator chosen is down. User experience for backing out of that and repeating was as nice as it could be. 3) Some variation on 3 where we handle the fallbacks better, or at least handle failures better, so the user just needs to click again. I would be in favor of a forth option suggested by Andreas in another thread: * Route autoupdater traffic through one system (MirrorBrain) * Route web based traffic through another (SF as primary, and Apache mirrors as secondary) Well, that sure looks like to most sane way to go from what I've seen described - seems the cleanest way. //drew This eliminates potential problems with which mirror network is having a problem kinds of debugging which would be particularly pernicious if we randomized anything about the process. It also has the benefit of most closely matching Joe's original suggestion of how to use SF.net, and provides a clear accountability/support chain for users when downloads fail. SF.net will as previously mentioned provide an API to collect stats on downloads from our system, and we'd be happy to help host a bouncer that forwards requests to a MirrorBrain server so that updater stats can be collected as well if that helps the team measure the release download volume more effectively. --Mark Ramm This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
