Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community
When we have something to announce you can expect to read it in official places. It won't be something we'll be hiding in strange corners of the web. That means if an employee identifies proposals on XING does not correspond to the opinion of the IBM? Not officially? I think that's a strange point of view. I think sentences like: heute mal eine ganz andere Anfrage, IBM als eine der Firmen, die sich im Apache OpenOffice Projekt engagiert, macht sich auch über ein Service Support Konzept im Rahmen von Apache OpenOffice Gedanken. [...] Ich würde gerne mehr darüber erfahren, wer im OpenOffice Umfeld aktiv ist und an einer Partnerbeziehung auf dieser Ebene mit IBM interessiert ist. are absolutely clear. But no problem, I will contact IBM directly. Thanks for your clarification. Greetings, Jörg
Re: crash with debug build of r1403340
Hi Regina, On 29.10.2012 22:26, Regina Henschel wrote: I get an immediately crash, when I try to switch to presentation mode (=F5) in Impress. It is a debug build of r1403340 on WinXP. But I'm not sure, whether there is something wrong in my build and I need to make a new, clean build. It would be nice, if someone can test it. [The downloaded r1400866 is OK.] FWIW our aoo-win7 buildbot tonight produced its weekly clean build of almost that revision (1403177), which can be downloaded from http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#win It doesn't show the reported problem here. Our nightly aoo-win7 builds are usually incremental only, so we were a bit lucky that this close match was the weekly clean build. Herbert
Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1
On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: ... it would probably allow to skip the release process and voting, since we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for different platforms). It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source releases. Certainly these are the only official release. I think that the practice is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a different bar. It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that we do need to VOTE on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a certain level of trust for the packager and translations. But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries depend on, where that source is from this project. It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port of existing source packages. But we're not. We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to build the localized binaries. No downstream consumer of the source will be able to build these localizations without having access to the translated resources. Therefore these resources should be reviewed, voted on and released. Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works, translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from the help files. They are under copyright and made available under license. So we need to do our due diligence via the release process before we distribute such materials. Should say, before we distribute such materials in source OR source and binary form. The issues are the same. Remember, the source package is canonical. I'm surprised to hear talk now of releasing only binaries. I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to make new translations available as soon as possible. What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included automatically. The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are not officially released and are available via the snapshot page. When we reach a state where we have release build bots, we can probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product version but based on a new revision number including the new translations. Juergen -Rob -Rob Regards, Dave
Re: [APEU2012] Schedule on 11/5
On 10/26/12 7:25 PM, imacat wrote: Dear all, I will arrive Hotel Sinsheim at noon, 11/5. You may find me in the afternoon, 11/5, if you want to discuss with me about forum, wiki or anything. We do not have a scheduled Hackathon, but we may still work on something. See you there. ^_*' P.S. Do we have anyone that is local at Sinsheim or will arrive earlier? Hi imacat, we will also arrive Monday afternoon. I am looking forward to meet as many as possible people already on Monday and we can have dinner together or some drinks. But we are staying not directly in Sinsheim. I will be on IRC channel #dev.oepnoffice.org for easy communication via my smartphone. Looking forward to meet all or many of you next week Juergen
Re: AOO volunteers: essential skills and tasks
Hi Andrea, Hi all, 2012/10/28 Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org On 23/10/2012 Rob Weir wrote: New Volunteer Orientation root page: http://incubator.apache.org/**openofficeorg/orientation/http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/orientation/ This is an excellent resource. But we received a few requests from prospective volunteers this weekend and I'm believing it would be overwhelming to point them there. I still believe these documents are excellent, but probably they are assuming our volunteer is above average, or at least willing to engage deeply with the project. They would be perfect for me, for you, or for a newcomer like Jan who has the skills and the mindset to understand in detail how things work. But we will also have (and we do have: most volunteers I see on the mailing lists in Italian fall in this category) volunteers who don't care that much about OpenOffice as a project: they use the product and just want to give something back. They want to scratch an itch, or just to do something, but they are very task-oriented: they want something to do rather than something to read. For example, we may have translation volunteers who would be perfectly satisfied if we e-mail them a PO file and tell them to grab POEdit and send the file back; and then they would consider a deeper engagement, but not earlier. For people willing deeply be involved in the project, the Rob's way is certainly the good one. But for other people who will occasionally participate, why not a Post Office where they could register (for security reasons, acceptation of the license, etc.). When they have time, they can visit the Post Office to see the list of to do tasks, and they can download for instance a translation job. If they think they have the skill to do it, they do the job and send it in the pipeline. The Post Office managers collect the files and can propose them for review before posting them to the right place in the project. So people who not have necessary the skill or the necessary time to be involved deeply in the structure can also participate in the area where they are competent and are not lost for the project. Just an idea. A+ -- gw
Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community
On Oct 30, 2012, at 4:19 AM, Jörg Schmidt joe...@j-m-schmidt.de wrote: When we have something to announce you can expect to read it in official places. It won't be something we'll be hiding in strange corners of the web. That means if an employee identifies proposals on XING does not correspond to the opinion of the IBM? Not officially? I think that's a strange point of view. I think sentences like: heute mal eine ganz andere Anfrage, IBM als eine der Firmen, die sich im Apache OpenOffice Projekt engagiert, macht sich auch über ein Service Support Konzept im Rahmen von Apache OpenOffice Gedanken. [...] Ich würde gerne mehr darüber erfahren, wer im OpenOffice Umfeld aktiv ist und an einer Partnerbeziehung auf dieser Ebene mit IBM interessiert ist. are absolutely clear. This sounds like research to me. But no problem, I will contact IBM directly. Thanks for your clarification. If everything is absolutely clear to you then I don't know what you want clarifications on. But if you do have a question then just ask it, here or via private email if that is your preference. But I speak honestly when I say that I cannot figure out what your theory is here and what you think is occurring. Rob Greetings, Jörg
Re: [PROPOSAL] Initiate a Contest for Branding of 4.0
On Oct 29, 2012, at 6:37 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 October 2012 10:19, Kevin Grignon kevingrignon...@gmail.com wrote: KG01 - see comments inline. On Oct 27, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 26/10/2012 Ian Lynch wrote: I arranged one for the OOo schools mascot ... The winner was clear-cut. A 16 year old Italian boy who aspired to be a graphic designer. Here he is (by chance, he's called Andrea too): http://www.openoffice.org/editorial/interview_andrea_maggioni.html (EN) http://www.openoffice.org/it/stampa/comunicati/avv12.html (IT) A quick web search shows that in the end he managed to become a graphic designer indeed! The mascot is at the end of http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/education/schools/ but it didn't have that much recognition in the end. Indeed, as Ian pointed out, the main value of that competition was in getting media exposure; KG - Wouldn't the value in the contest be the new branding elements? I'm not sure that this is the best way to hold a marketing event. Maybe not the best, but will it help? Question is not perfection but is it better to do it than not to do it. Why not add value with a multi-dimensional approach rather than fix to only one thing? Especially if the additional effort is minimal. From a UX design perspective, this approach presents risk. The branding is bound to the UI, and other supporting visual elements. All approaches present risk. There is no obligation on the PMC to adopt any branding that it does not see as appropriate for whatever reason so the risk of getting a brand that causes UI problems is no higher than if it is done entirely in house. We are just starting to explore the AOO branding and UX enhancements for AOO 4.0. I'd prefer we explore this in house first. We don't have our full inventory of requirements yet. Why not do both? Crowd sourcing ideas is no real disadvantage if there is no requirement to adopt any of the specific proposals. It might be that only a logo is used, or a packaging presentation from the competition, or all of it or none of it. Even just framing the competition scope and rules helps provide some focus for development. Putting it out to art and design colleges and universities will raise our profile and tap into resources and expertise we currently don't have. KG02 - ok, I like this. I've been looking for ways to engage design schools from both a UX and visual design perspective And in the end we don't have to adopt any of the entries if we don't want to, they could just help stimulate ideas. KG02 - Ok, this is less risky. I was concerned that we would be bound to the winning entry. I prefer that we defer this proposal. KG02 - ok, changing my position from -1 to neutral. I'm warming up :) Regards, Kevin while in this (OpenOffice 4.0 visual identity) competition we will probably want both media exposure and a professional outcome, so a clear RFP (Request for proposal) as Graham proposes will help and it is an excellent first step. Regards, Andrea. -- 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: [PROPOSAL] Initiate a Contest for Branding of 4.0
KG02 03 - see comments inline On Oct 30, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Kevin Grignon kevingrignon...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 29, 2012, at 6:37 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 October 2012 10:19, Kevin Grignon kevingrignon...@gmail.com wrote: KG01 - see comments inline. On Oct 27, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 26/10/2012 Ian Lynch wrote: I arranged one for the OOo schools mascot ... The winner was clear-cut. A 16 year old Italian boy who aspired to be a graphic designer. Here he is (by chance, he's called Andrea too): http://www.openoffice.org/editorial/interview_andrea_maggioni.html (EN) http://www.openoffice.org/it/stampa/comunicati/avv12.html (IT) A quick web search shows that in the end he managed to become a graphic designer indeed! The mascot is at the end of http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/education/schools/ but it didn't have that much recognition in the end. Indeed, as Ian pointed out, the main value of that competition was in getting media exposure; KG - Wouldn't the value in the contest be the new branding elements? I'm not sure that this is the best way to hold a marketing event. Maybe not the best, but will it help? Question is not perfection but is it better to do it than not to do it. Why not add value with a multi-dimensional approach rather than fix to only one thing? Especially if the additional effort is minimal. From a UX design perspective, this approach presents risk. The branding is bound to the UI, and other supporting visual elements. All approaches present risk. There is no obligation on the PMC to adopt any branding that it does not see as appropriate for whatever reason so the risk of getting a brand that causes UI problems is no higher than if it is done entirely in house. We are just starting to explore the AOO branding and UX enhancements for AOO 4.0. I'd prefer we explore this in house first. We don't have our full inventory of requirements yet. Why not do both? Crowd sourcing ideas is no real disadvantage if there is no requirement to adopt any of the specific proposals. It might be that only a logo is used, or a packaging presentation from the competition, or all of it or none of it. Even just framing the competition scope and rules helps provide some focus for development. Putting it out to art and design colleges and universities will raise our profile and tap into resources and expertise we currently don't have. KG02 - ok, I like this. I've been looking for ways to engage design schools from both a UX and a visual design perspective. And in the end we don't have to adopt any of the entries if we don't want to, they could just help stimulate ideas. KG02 - Ok, this is less risky. I was concerned that we would be bound to the winning entry. I prefer that we defer this proposal. KG02 - ok, changing my position from -1 to neutral. I'm warming up :) Regards, Kevin while in this (OpenOffice 4.0 visual identity) competition we will probably want both media exposure and a professional outcome, so a clear RFP (Request for proposal) as Graham proposes will help and it is an excellent first step. KG03 - Agreed. Regards, Andrea. -- 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: proposal for new l10n workflow
On 10/27/12 10:51 PM, jan iversen wrote: Based on the comments I have received, I have updated the document. The major changes are: - removed l10n web page tools - no auto-commit in any tools - proposed changes to pootle server (based on request from andrea, to use/change existing tools) - added more text on the translation workflow, inkl. local teams The document is available as pdf: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10procNew2.pdf and (due to a polite hint) as a wiki page: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/new_proposal Furthermore a projectplan is available as a wiki page: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/workPlan this mail is posted on both ooo-L10n and ooo-dev, but please use ooo-dev for discussions. I noticed that somebody put an outdated template on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers which I think is a little bit early. The new page is a great resource to discuss a new workflow and necessary improvements. But the currently Localization for developers page describes how it works today. We should avoid confusion here, the new process is under development yet but not available yet. Juergen Andrea: I hope you have time to see if your suggestions are well represented now, so this document could be used as discussion basis when you meet the pootle people. Have a nice evening. jan I.
Re: proposal for new l10n workflow
I just double checked: the pointer is: Localization AOOhttp://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO, which clearly stated (the very first lines of the document) This document is based on and extents Localization_for_developershttp://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers. The document is work in progress showing the result of a detailed technical analysis of the current process (version 3.4.1) . As such this document should be seen as a replacement of Localization_for_developershttp://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers . But I will happely remove it if you prefer, but then where do I put a link to the more detailed description of the CURRENT process. jan. On 30 October 2012 13:30, jan iversen jancasacon...@gmail.com wrote: I am guilty. see below. On 30 October 2012 13:22, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/27/12 10:51 PM, jan iversen wrote: Based on the comments I have received, I have updated the document. The major changes are: - removed l10n web page tools - no auto-commit in any tools - proposed changes to pootle server (based on request from andrea, to use/change existing tools) - added more text on the translation workflow, inkl. local teams The document is available as pdf: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10procNew2.pdf and (due to a polite hint) as a wiki page: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/new_proposal Furthermore a projectplan is available as a wiki page: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/workPlan this mail is posted on both ooo-L10n and ooo-dev, but please use ooo-dev for discussions. I noticed that somebody put an outdated template on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers which I think is a little bit early. The new page is a great resource to discuss a new workflow and necessary improvements. But the currently Localization for developers page describes how it works today. The page it points to, is NOT the new proposal, that would be wrong, but the first I made with a more detailed description of how it works today. I hope that is ok ? We should avoid confusion here, the new process is under development yet but not available yet. I totally agree, and I have not made links that suggest otherwise. Juergen Andrea: I hope you have time to see if your suggestions are well represented now, so this document could be used as discussion basis when you meet the pootle people. Have a nice evening. jan I.
Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1
2012/10/30 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: ... it would probably allow to skip the release process and voting, since we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for different platforms). It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source releases. Certainly these are the only official release. I think that the practice is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a different bar. It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that we do need to VOTE on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a certain level of trust for the packager and translations. But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries depend on, where that source is from this project. It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port of existing source packages. But we're not. We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to build the localized binaries. No downstream consumer of the source will be able to build these localizations without having access to the translated resources. Therefore these resources should be reviewed, voted on and released. Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works, translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from the help files. They are under copyright and made available under license. So we need to do our due diligence via the release process before we distribute such materials. Should say, before we distribute such materials in source OR source and binary form. The issues are the same. Remember, the source package is canonical. I'm surprised to hear talk now of releasing only binaries. I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to make new translations available as soon as possible. What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included automatically. The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are not officially released and are available via the snapshot page. When we reach a state where we have release build bots, we can probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product version but based on a new revision number including the new translations. Juergen +1. I like the idea. We can put on the download page a link to additional untested language packs and add these language packs are being prepared for the next AOO version, but you can use them right now or something like that. Regards Ricardo -Rob -Rob Regards, Dave
Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1
+1, such a download page additional untested language packs would allow us to make a translation official immediately with a limited responsibility, just like the snapshots. jan On 30 October 2012 14:02, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/10/30 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: ... it would probably allow to skip the release process and voting, since we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for different platforms). It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source releases. Certainly these are the only official release. I think that the practice is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a different bar. It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that we do need to VOTE on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a certain level of trust for the packager and translations. But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries depend on, where that source is from this project. It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port of existing source packages. But we're not. We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to build the localized binaries. No downstream consumer of the source will be able to build these localizations without having access to the translated resources. Therefore these resources should be reviewed, voted on and released. Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works, translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from the help files. They are under copyright and made available under license. So we need to do our due diligence via the release process before we distribute such materials. Should say, before we distribute such materials in source OR source and binary form. The issues are the same. Remember, the source package is canonical. I'm surprised to hear talk now of releasing only binaries. I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to make new translations available as soon as possible. What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included automatically. The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are not officially released and are available via the snapshot page. When we reach a state where we have release build bots, we can probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product version but based on a new revision number including the new translations. Juergen +1. I like the idea. We can put on the download page a link to additional untested language packs and add these language packs are being prepared for the next AOO version, but you can use them right now or something like that. Regards Ricardo -Rob -Rob Regards, Dave
Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community
If everything is absolutely clear to you then I don't know what you want clarifications on. But if you do have a question then just ask it, here or via private email if that is your preference. Hello Rob, Ok, thank you, I will send you a private email. Greetings, Jörg
Re: proposal for new l10n workflow
On 10/30/12 1:33 PM, jan iversen wrote: I just double checked: the pointer is: Localization AOOhttp://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO, which clearly stated (the very first lines of the document) This document is based on and extents Localization_for_developershttp://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers. The document is work in progress showing the result of a detailed technical analysis of the current process (version 3.4.1) . As such this document should be seen as a replacement of Localization_for_developershttp://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers . I simply missed some basic info how the tools have to be used etc.. I was confused... But I will happely remove it if you prefer, but then where do I put a link to the more detailed description of the CURRENT process. no need to remove it now, I know whats behind and as long as nobody delete it I am fine Juergen jan. On 30 October 2012 13:30, jan iversen jancasacon...@gmail.com wrote: I am guilty. see below. On 30 October 2012 13:22, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/27/12 10:51 PM, jan iversen wrote: Based on the comments I have received, I have updated the document. The major changes are: - removed l10n web page tools - no auto-commit in any tools - proposed changes to pootle server (based on request from andrea, to use/change existing tools) - added more text on the translation workflow, inkl. local teams The document is available as pdf: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10procNew2.pdf and (due to a polite hint) as a wiki page: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/new_proposal Furthermore a projectplan is available as a wiki page: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/workPlan this mail is posted on both ooo-L10n and ooo-dev, but please use ooo-dev for discussions. I noticed that somebody put an outdated template on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers which I think is a little bit early. The new page is a great resource to discuss a new workflow and necessary improvements. But the currently Localization for developers page describes how it works today. The page it points to, is NOT the new proposal, that would be wrong, but the first I made with a more detailed description of how it works today. I hope that is ok ? We should avoid confusion here, the new process is under development yet but not available yet. I totally agree, and I have not made links that suggest otherwise. Juergen Andrea: I hope you have time to see if your suggestions are well represented now, so this document could be used as discussion basis when you meet the pootle people. Have a nice evening. jan I.
Re: proposal for new l10n workflow
If my page needs updating, feel free to do so, I actually copied all the scripts things from the other page. jan. On 30 October 2012 14:28, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/30/12 1:33 PM, jan iversen wrote: I just double checked: the pointer is: Localization AOOhttp://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO, which clearly stated (the very first lines of the document) This document is based on and extents Localization_for_developers http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers. The document is work in progress showing the result of a detailed technical analysis of the current process (version 3.4.1) . As such this document should be seen as a replacement of Localization_for_developers http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers . I simply missed some basic info how the tools have to be used etc.. I was confused... But I will happely remove it if you prefer, but then where do I put a link to the more detailed description of the CURRENT process. no need to remove it now, I know whats behind and as long as nobody delete it I am fine Juergen jan. On 30 October 2012 13:30, jan iversen jancasacon...@gmail.com wrote: I am guilty. see below. On 30 October 2012 13:22, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/27/12 10:51 PM, jan iversen wrote: Based on the comments I have received, I have updated the document. The major changes are: - removed l10n web page tools - no auto-commit in any tools - proposed changes to pootle server (based on request from andrea, to use/change existing tools) - added more text on the translation workflow, inkl. local teams The document is available as pdf: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10procNew2.pdf and (due to a polite hint) as a wiki page: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/new_proposal Furthermore a projectplan is available as a wiki page: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/workPlan this mail is posted on both ooo-L10n and ooo-dev, but please use ooo-dev for discussions. I noticed that somebody put an outdated template on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers which I think is a little bit early. The new page is a great resource to discuss a new workflow and necessary improvements. But the currently Localization for developers page describes how it works today. The page it points to, is NOT the new proposal, that would be wrong, but the first I made with a more detailed description of how it works today. I hope that is ok ? We should avoid confusion here, the new process is under development yet but not available yet. I totally agree, and I have not made links that suggest otherwise. Juergen Andrea: I hope you have time to see if your suggestions are well represented now, so this document could be used as discussion basis when you meet the pootle people. Have a nice evening. jan I.
Re: [RELEASE]: new snapshot base don revision r1400866
Hi, On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 01:40:53PM +0800, Li Feng Wang wrote: Hi,all, I already run BVT on OO snapshot r1400866 Result: Passed with known issue. Details: http://people.apache.org/~liuzhe/testdashboard/#bvt Detail in 350m1(Build:9611)-2012-10-23 and 350m1(Build:9611)-2012-10-22, total 10 platforms Known Issues: Bug 119525 - AOo doesn't work with Java 1.7 on Windows https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119525 This issue should be fixed, as long as you have a 32 bits JRE on your Windows 64 bits. What remains is that OpenOffice does not work with a 64 bits JRE, but this is no issue: OpenOffice is a 32 bits application on Windows. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpiRxIzxpd8o.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1
On 10/30/12 2:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:03 AM, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/10/30 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: ... it would probably allow to skip the release process and voting, since we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for different platforms). It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source releases. Certainly these are the only official release. I think that the practice is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a different bar. It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that we do need to VOTE on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a certain level of trust for the packager and translations. But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries depend on, where that source is from this project. It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port of existing source packages. But we're not. We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to build the localized binaries. No downstream consumer of the source will be able to build these localizations without having access to the translated resources. Therefore these resources should be reviewed, voted on and released. Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works, translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from the help files. They are under copyright and made available under license. So we need to do our due diligence via the release process before we distribute such materials. Should say, before we distribute such materials in source OR source and binary form. The issues are the same. Remember, the source package is canonical. I'm surprised to hear talk now of releasing only binaries. I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to make new translations available as soon as possible. What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included automatically. The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are not officially released and are available via the snapshot page. When we reach a state where we have release build bots, we can probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product version but based on a new revision number including the new translations. Juergen +1. I like the idea. We can put on the download page a link to additional untested language packs and add these language packs are being prepared for the next AOO version, but you can use them right now or something like that. Even beta releases are still releases from the Apache perspective and still require that we go through a release vote. Why are we trying so hard to avoid this process? It isn't that hard. And it is important that we follow the procedures before putting the Apache label on software we make available to the public. I don't see that we try to avoid this process. But with with a certain level of QA we have to test the new language builds anyway. Means in detail we can start with the snapshot builds and can test it. If we get no complains we can create a new src release (a respin if possible) where the new translations are included. And we upload only the new src release and the new language packs. I would be also fine with uploading full install sets but this is matter of taste and space. Juergen -Rob Regards Ricardo -Rob -Rob Regards, Dave
Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1
Question: Is there a rule in the apache way defining who can do QA, or is it totally up to the single teams ? Do we use the review statistic in pootle to anything, it seems actually quite clever. Jan. On 30 October 2012 16:17, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/30/12 2:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:03 AM, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/10/30 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: ... it would probably allow to skip the release process and voting, since we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for different platforms). It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source releases. Certainly these are the only official release. I think that the practice is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a different bar. It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that we do need to VOTE on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a certain level of trust for the packager and translations. But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries depend on, where that source is from this project. It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port of existing source packages. But we're not. We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to build the localized binaries. No downstream consumer of the source will be able to build these localizations without having access to the translated resources. Therefore these resources should be reviewed, voted on and released. Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works, translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from the help files. They are under copyright and made available under license. So we need to do our due diligence via the release process before we distribute such materials. Should say, before we distribute such materials in source OR source and binary form. The issues are the same. Remember, the source package is canonical. I'm surprised to hear talk now of releasing only binaries. I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to make new translations available as soon as possible. What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included automatically. The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are not officially released and are available via the snapshot page. When we reach a state where we have release build bots, we can probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product version but based on a new revision number including the new translations. Juergen +1. I like the idea. We can put on the download page a link to additional untested language packs and add these language packs are being prepared for the next AOO version, but you can use them right now or something like that. Even beta releases are still releases from the Apache perspective and still require that we go through a release vote. Why are we trying so hard to avoid this process? It isn't that hard. And it is important that we follow the procedures before putting the Apache label on software we make available to the public. I don't see that we try to avoid this process. But with with a certain level of QA we have to test the new language builds anyway. Means in detail we can start with the snapshot builds and can test it. If we get no complains we can create a new src release (a respin if possible) where the new translations are included. And we upload only the new src release and the new language packs. I would be also fine with uploading full install sets but this is matter of taste and space. Juergen -Rob Regards Ricardo -Rob -Rob Regards, Dave
Re: Apache Asia Roadshow 2012 - Dec 13th Beijing
Peter, Please see my comments below: 2012/10/29 Peter Junge peter.ju...@gmx.org Hi Simon, On 10/26/2012 9:48 PM, Shenfeng Liu wrote: Don Peter, I think it is a very good opportunity to promote Apache OpenOffice in China marketing through Apache Asia Roadshow 2012. And from another side, the wide influence of OpenOffice can also help to promote Apache. I'd like to work with Peter together on it. The target can be not only attract individual volunteers to participate the community, but also demonstrate the business opportunities and attract local business partners. While first of all, I'd like to know more details about this event. Perhaps Jimmy is the right contact? Agree with you! Per check with Jimmy, we need to give a outline draft now. indeed, let's put together such a session for the Roadshow. A possible brief outline would be: - Introduction to and history of OpenOffice +1, history and latest status. - I think you are the best one in Beijing to present this topic. So I wonder if you can prepare for an outline? - What's happening around AOO in Beijing respectively China. Engineers of IBM and of CS2C could share what they are working on. +1 again. The UOF contribution, fidelity improvement, quality improvement efforts... I can check with Ji Yan, WeiKe or Liu Tao to see if we can work together on it. - How businesses and users can benefit from AOO, ways to join the AOO community. I think firstly CS2C can share their experience on building the business on AOO. Secondly, since the theme of this Roadshow is cloud, we can share the topic of Social Integration with AOO. I will work with Da Li to prepare for the outline. How much time we can spend on the parts would depend on how much time we would get in total. I'm still checking with Jimmy for how much time can we get. But basically I think we can start and propose the topics above. Any suggestion? - Shenfeng Liu (Simon) BTW, I just took a small surgery yesterday, and in the following week I have to spend most of the daytime in hospital for subsequent treatment. So my response to the mail threads may be slow. But I will try to catch up on this topic. Get well soon! Best regards, peter - Shenfeng Liu (Simon) 2012/10/26 Peter Junge peter.ju...@gmx.org Hi Don, thanks for the notice. Unfortunately, the Apache Asia Roadshow 2012 seem to lack of promoting the event. I only heard about it by coincidence a couple of days ago. (more inline) On 10/25/2012 9:47 PM, Donald Harbison wrote: On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com wrote: [...] we plan the main topic around cloud computing: open source really produce a basement to the cloud computing, like Apache Hadoop and cloudstack; welcome any open source topic in or out of this area. The Apache OpenOffice community has a significant local representation in Beijing. I'm cc'ing the community to alert our Chinese contributors to reach out to you and explore the possibility of adding an Apache OpenOffice session to increase its visibility. We just graduated to an Apache TLP, so we have a solid foundation upon which to build with a strong global community. The Chinese community is very important and making a large contribution. As I seem to be the only one in Beijing who's with OpenOffice from the beginning, I'd like to offer a talk about the history of OOo, if that is of interest. As the 13th is a weekday, I just have to find out if I can take a day off my daily job. @concom: I cannot find anything about the Apache Asia Roadshow 2012 at http://wiki.apache.org/apachecon/http://wiki.apache.org/**apachecon/ http://wiki.apache.org/**apachecon/ http://wiki.apache.org/apachecon/ Do you have a link to the Apache Asia Roadshow 2012 for me? I want to write an event announcement at the homepage of the Beijing Linux User Group (http://blug.chinalug.org/). We're reaching quite a few geeks. Best regards, Peter
Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/30/12 2:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:03 AM, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/10/30 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: ... it would probably allow to skip the release process and voting, since we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for different platforms). It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source releases. Certainly these are the only official release. I think that the practice is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a different bar. It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that we do need to VOTE on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a certain level of trust for the packager and translations. But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries depend on, where that source is from this project. It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port of existing source packages. But we're not. We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to build the localized binaries. No downstream consumer of the source will be able to build these localizations without having access to the translated resources. Therefore these resources should be reviewed, voted on and released. Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works, translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from the help files. They are under copyright and made available under license. So we need to do our due diligence via the release process before we distribute such materials. Should say, before we distribute such materials in source OR source and binary form. The issues are the same. Remember, the source package is canonical. I'm surprised to hear talk now of releasing only binaries. I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to make new translations available as soon as possible. What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included automatically. The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are not officially released and are available via the snapshot page. When we reach a state where we have release build bots, we can probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product version but based on a new revision number including the new translations. Juergen +1. I like the idea. We can put on the download page a link to additional untested language packs and add these language packs are being prepared for the next AOO version, but you can use them right now or something like that. Even beta releases are still releases from the Apache perspective and still require that we go through a release vote. Why are we trying so hard to avoid this process? It isn't that hard. And it is important that we follow the procedures before putting the Apache label on software we make available to the public. I don't see that we try to avoid this process. But with with a certain level of QA we have to test the new language builds anyway. Means in detail we can start with the snapshot builds and can test it. If we get no complains we can create a new src release (a respin if possible) where the new translations are included. And we upload only the new src release and the new language packs. I would be also fine with uploading full install sets but this is matter of taste and space. It may be worth reviewing this section on test packages versus releases: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#release-types It is possible to have something less than a release. We do that, for example, with snapshots and release candidates. We could do something similar with a language pack as well. But it would need to be an internal only distribution, meaning we do not advertise it with the user community. It is just for internal testing. But if we want to have something available for the public at large to use, even if we indicate it is beta quality, then that is still a release. Specific example: We have 3 or so people helping with the Danish translation on the L10N list. If we make a snapshot build for them, full install or language pack, and advertise it only on that list and ooo-dev, then I don't think that is a problem. But we should not make any user-facing announcements, or website changes to point the public to the new language pack, until it
Re: proposal for new l10n workflow
On 10/30/12 2:45 PM, jan iversen wrote: If my page needs updating, feel free to do so, I actually copied all the scripts things from the other page. I see it now, I must have been blind earlier, sorry for the confusion Juergen jan. On 30 October 2012 14:28, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/30/12 1:33 PM, jan iversen wrote: I just double checked: the pointer is: Localization AOOhttp://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO, which clearly stated (the very first lines of the document) This document is based on and extents Localization_for_developers http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers. The document is work in progress showing the result of a detailed technical analysis of the current process (version 3.4.1) . As such this document should be seen as a replacement of Localization_for_developers http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers . I simply missed some basic info how the tools have to be used etc.. I was confused... But I will happely remove it if you prefer, but then where do I put a link to the more detailed description of the CURRENT process. no need to remove it now, I know whats behind and as long as nobody delete it I am fine Juergen jan. On 30 October 2012 13:30, jan iversen jancasacon...@gmail.com wrote: I am guilty. see below. On 30 October 2012 13:22, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/27/12 10:51 PM, jan iversen wrote: Based on the comments I have received, I have updated the document. The major changes are: - removed l10n web page tools - no auto-commit in any tools - proposed changes to pootle server (based on request from andrea, to use/change existing tools) - added more text on the translation workflow, inkl. local teams The document is available as pdf: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10procNew2.pdf and (due to a polite hint) as a wiki page: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/new_proposal Furthermore a projectplan is available as a wiki page: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/workPlan this mail is posted on both ooo-L10n and ooo-dev, but please use ooo-dev for discussions. I noticed that somebody put an outdated template on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers which I think is a little bit early. The new page is a great resource to discuss a new workflow and necessary improvements. But the currently Localization for developers page describes how it works today. The page it points to, is NOT the new proposal, that would be wrong, but the first I made with a more detailed description of how it works today. I hope that is ok ? We should avoid confusion here, the new process is under development yet but not available yet. I totally agree, and I have not made links that suggest otherwise. Juergen Andrea: I hope you have time to see if your suggestions are well represented now, so this document could be used as discussion basis when you meet the pootle people. Have a nice evening. jan I.
Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1
Hi Speaking for myself and the other 2 in the teamwe do the translation to get AOO available in denmark (again). Right now another openSource product is using the fact that we cannot release our versions in danish, to their benefit. I do not want to compete (which is why I do not write the name, we all know), but also I want to make that AOO is THE well established, well tested, high quality free Software that the companies want to use. So internal things are handy, when it comes to testing, but not when it comes to showing a danish user commity that we are still alive and kicking. jan. On 30 October 2012 16:48, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/30/12 2:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:03 AM, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/10/30 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: ... it would probably allow to skip the release process and voting, since we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for different platforms). It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source releases. Certainly these are the only official release. I think that the practice is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a different bar. It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that we do need to VOTE on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a certain level of trust for the packager and translations. But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries depend on, where that source is from this project. It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port of existing source packages. But we're not. We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to build the localized binaries. No downstream consumer of the source will be able to build these localizations without having access to the translated resources. Therefore these resources should be reviewed, voted on and released. Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works, translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from the help files. They are under copyright and made available under license. So we need to do our due diligence via the release process before we distribute such materials. Should say, before we distribute such materials in source OR source and binary form. The issues are the same. Remember, the source package is canonical. I'm surprised to hear talk now of releasing only binaries. I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to make new translations available as soon as possible. What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included automatically. The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are not officially released and are available via the snapshot page. When we reach a state where we have release build bots, we can probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product version but based on a new revision number including the new translations. Juergen +1. I like the idea. We can put on the download page a link to additional untested language packs and add these language packs are being prepared for the next AOO version, but you can use them right now or something like that. Even beta releases are still releases from the Apache perspective and still require that we go through a release vote. Why are we trying so hard to avoid this process? It isn't that hard. And it is important that we follow the procedures before putting the Apache label on software we make available to the public. I don't see that we try to avoid this process. But with with a certain level of QA we have to test the new language builds anyway. Means in detail we can start with the snapshot builds and can test it. If we get no complains we can create a new src release (a respin if possible) where the new translations are included. And we upload only the new src release and the new language packs. I would be also fine with uploading full install sets but this is matter of taste and space. It may be worth reviewing this section on test packages versus releases: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#release-types It is possible to have something less than a release. We do that, for
Re: [APEU2012] Schedule on 11/5
Hello guys/gals; From: Jürgen Schmidt On 10/26/12 7:25 PM, imacat wrote: Dear all, I will arrive Hotel Sinsheim at noon, 11/5. You may find me in the afternoon, 11/5, if you want to discuss with me about forum, wiki or anything. We do not have a scheduled Hackathon, but we may still work on something. See you there. ^_*' P.S. Do we have anyone that is local at Sinsheim or will arrive earlier? Hi imacat, we will also arrive Monday afternoon. I am looking forward to meet as many as possible people already on Monday and we can have dinner together or some drinks. But we are staying not directly in Sinsheim. I will be on IRC channel #dev.oepnoffice.org for easy communication via my smartphone. Looking forward to meet all or many of you next week I will arrive on Saturday but I will be busy taking care of jet lag :). On Sunday I will likely be extremely busy looking for the nearest Catholic Church. The rest of the week I will be available in Hotel Bär or in the conference. Hopefully we can make a nice group to visit the Sinsheim Museum too. Looking forward to see you all there, Pedro. ps. I will also unsubscribe from -dev before travelling.
Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community
On 2012/10/29 23:26, Rob Weir said: Then there is the secondary question of network effect and value of the network. The more AOO users there are they greater the value of skills in AOO extension development, of AOO training and certification skills, and of migration and deployment services, etc. These business interests all become more valuable the more users we have. Although nothing requires that business built on AOO contribute back to the project, in practice they often will, since helping to sustain the project helps their business as well. So aside from the volunteer pyramid we set up a second virtuous cycle with business interests. Unfortunately, in the few cases I've seen, this is just negative. In practice many of these business just don't help to sustain the project. I suppose many of them do help to sustain the project. Why some do and some don't is another interesting issue to be investigated further. I occasionally hear some local business doing OpenOffice support, but I cannot reach them. They just don't respond to us, and have no interests to connect to the open source community. (Afraid of us stealing their business? Afraid of us sharing their profit? Just afraid of communication trouble? Being conservative for Asian culture?) This inference is basically great, but there are some potential holes in it. -- 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/ OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community
It's a long list of discussion to read. There seems to be a lot to discuss in our BoF session. So, what is the help we need for our BoF session now? -- 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/ OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community
Am 30.10.12 17:41, schrieb imacat: On 2012/10/29 23:26, Rob Weir said: Then there is the secondary question of network effect and value of the network. The more AOO users there are they greater the value of skills in AOO extension development, of AOO training and certification skills, and of migration and deployment services, etc. These business interests all become more valuable the more users we have. Although nothing requires that business built on AOO contribute back to the project, in practice they often will, since helping to sustain the project helps their business as well. So aside from the volunteer pyramid we set up a second virtuous cycle with business interests. Unfortunately, in the few cases I've seen, this is just negative. In practice many of these business just don't help to sustain the project. I suppose many of them do help to sustain the project. Why some do and some don't is another interesting issue to be investigated further. I occasionally hear some local business doing OpenOffice support, but I cannot reach them. They just don't respond to us, and have no interests to connect to the open source community. (Afraid of us stealing their business? Afraid of us sharing their profit? Just afraid of communication trouble? Being conservative for Asian culture?) I beleve the main problem is that consultants see a product, and not a project. Same for big companies. I often hear from consultants I don't care about development. They also don't have the time to join a project, and if, then they join the marketing. I have had a load of talk with consultants, and showed the way for verry simple work like testing snapshots and duing bug reports. No one of them ever particip. What could work is if OpenOffice Committers start to sell a development packages We have to put our work into a service product. But this is not samthing that we do at Apache, it's samething for outside the ASF. Greetings Raphael
Re: [PROPOSAL] Initiate a Contest for Branding of 4.0
On 10/26/12, Graham Lauder y...@apache.org wrote: On Friday 26 Oct 2012 11:04:46 Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Graham Lauder g.a.lau...@gmail.com wrote: The launch of 4.0 is a unique opportunity in the life of AOO both now and far into the future. The branding needs to position us in the market place, be distinctive and unique and makes a statement about the product. The creation of this requires a skillset that we do not have an over abundance of in the project. The proposal therefore is to initiate a contest to create this new branding, this would have multiple benefits in terms of community outreach, marketing and raising brand awareness. The contest would be source of the eventual branding of AOO 4.0 +1 The devil is in the details, but I think a contest can be a great way of getting many ideas, but also promoting AOO 4.0. It makes it an event. I think Dave mentioned that another Apache project had a logo contest and received a large number of entries. Which is why we go with Branding, it's much broader than just a graphic logo. there's color pallet, overall style, message, tenor, presentation. Those who just present a logo in isolation will be filtered early. Those that have a grasp of the full depth of the brand but without the whole package will show early which is why we go back to the responders for more detail later on. Initial proposals will to show understanding of the task first up. Should we have some kind of documentation for proposals, something like a template. I agree with this concept to understand branding to its full extend and not just a logo. But is also true that design is a work in progress and sometimes you get more by presenting different proposals and styles. Key here, is where is one aware of this in relation to the contest? The process would be: Formulate a RFP with contest details and guidelines (these would include the product name and a reasonable outline of our target markets), timeframe, methodologies of presentation and breadth of branding elements. Perhaps sound out some sponsors for a prize Filter responses for eligibility according to the initial criteria Filter responses for global appropriateness Filter responses for target market relevance It will be important that this filtering is done in a way that everyone sees as fair. Who judges global appropriateness, for example? One way might be to appoint a judging panel. Indeed, although judging is probably not the best description, I just can't think of a better one. The initial filtering is done on purely objective criteria laid out in the RFP. Global appropriateness is a minefield I agree, but hopefully we have a broad enough cultural awareness on our L10n list to help us avoid any clumsy gaffs. Clumsy is a very subjective term, is there a criteria that needs to be followed? Communicate with the creators of this first shortlist to get them to sell their idea Shortlist to a dozen or less based on function (ie usability across multiple media) For maximum impact we could have blog post and social media campaign to promote the short list of logos and drive traffic to the survey. +1 good plan, as Ian was saying initial target will be Design Colleges and oither such educational institutions. Any others that may be interested could +1 be reached by community contact. The initial contact will ideally be concentrated, so we publicise that the RFP will be available on a specific date and the submissions will close on another date. Otherwise it will drag on. Experience shows however that logos will continue to come long past the closing as people seem to think that their new version is greater than anything that has come before and that the whole process will be dumped just so we can bathe in the light at the feet of the new Michaelangelo! :) +1 Cheers GL Create a survey to gauge general public impressions/feelings with regard to certain branding criteria: Uniqueness, Impact, Impression and Representation. Reduce and Repeat. If no clear winner emerges then PMC becomes the tiebreaker Lazy consensus 5 days seeing as how the weekend is nearly upon us Cheers GL -- Alexandro Colorado PPMC Apache OpenOffice http://es.openoffice.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Initiate a Contest for Branding of 4.0
On 10/30/12, Graham Lauder g.a.lau...@gmail.com wrote: 5 days is about up and we have no -1so I've started a page for creating of the proposed RFP on the confluence wiki here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Brand+Contest+RFP Discussion on the marketing list? I think this should be in marketing list. I'm travelling for the next two days, connection may be intemittent Cheers GL -- Alexandro Colorado PPMC Apache OpenOffice http://es.openoffice.org
[DISCUSS] IDE, comment translation, debugging, documentation and other development issues
Hi AOO is by far the biggest and most complex code I have ever hacked on, and I have many questions... What IDE do you guys use to develop AOO? Eclipse CDT runs out of memory indexing the code :-(. Many comments are in German. Are translations to English welcome or should we leave them as is? Debugging is such a pain. Why do binaries get stripped when the tar.gz is built even though debugging has been enabled (build debug=true dbglevel=2 --all)? The layout of the source code tree is incredibly complex, with eg. confusing duplication of CSV parsing between binfilter/ and sc/. Is there somewhere I should document the structure of various modules? http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Source_code_directories seems like a good place to start but I would add a lot more detail. Searching with grep takes forever. I've tried indexing the source tree with Lucene, but it doesn't find everything. Is there a better tool? Thank you Damjan
Re: [DISCUSS] IDE, comment translation, debugging, documentation and other development issues
Am 30.10.12 18:44, schrieb Damjan Jovanovic: Hi AOO is by far the biggest and most complex code I have ever hacked on, and I have many questions... What IDE do you guys use to develop AOO? Eclipse CDT runs out of memory indexing the code :-(. Many comments are in German. Are translations to English welcome or should we leave them as is? Debugging is such a pain. Why do binaries get stripped when the tar.gz is built even though debugging has been enabled (build debug=true dbglevel=2 --all)? The layout of the source code tree is incredibly complex, with eg. confusing duplication of CSV parsing between binfilter/ and sc/. Is there somewhere I should document the structure of various modules? http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Source_code_directories seems like a good place to start but I would add a lot more detail. Searching with grep takes forever. I've tried indexing the source tree with Lucene, but it doesn't find everything. Is there a better tool? http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/ use this one for search. Thank you Damjan
Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM, imacat ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw wrote: On 2012/10/29 23:26, Rob Weir said: Then there is the secondary question of network effect and value of the network. The more AOO users there are they greater the value of skills in AOO extension development, of AOO training and certification skills, and of migration and deployment services, etc. These business interests all become more valuable the more users we have. Although nothing requires that business built on AOO contribute back to the project, in practice they often will, since helping to sustain the project helps their business as well. So aside from the volunteer pyramid we set up a second virtuous cycle with business interests. Unfortunately, in the few cases I've seen, this is just negative. In practice many of these business just don't help to sustain the project. I suppose many of them do help to sustain the project. Why some do and some don't is another interesting issue to be investigated further. Been there; done that. You didn't see IBM very active in OpenOffice.org years ago, did you? There is a huge difference between a corporate-lead and a community-led open source one. A community-led one is much more welcoming to other large companies.. If a company wanted to get involved with OpenOffice.org before then there was all the messiness with dealing with Sun and wondering about whether Sun's priorities would dominate over everything else. Look at the constant battles Novell and Sun had, for example. This changes with the move to Apache. So I'd recommend that we point this out to companies, small and large. We shouldn't let past failures in this area discourage us too much. It is a new situation now. Now sure, some companies will just be interested in training or whatever, and have zero interest in participating. However, those companies will be at a disadvantage compared to competing companies that are participate. There is a level of information, skill, expertise, even influence that comes from participating on the inside, rather than watching from the outside. I occasionally hear some local business doing OpenOffice support, but I cannot reach them. They just don't respond to us, and have no interests to connect to the open source community. (Afraid of us stealing their business? Afraid of us sharing their profit? Just afraid of communication trouble? Being conservative for Asian culture?) A trainer can easily switch to training users for Google Docs, or Microsoft Office, if they need to. So they are not as dependent on the success of our project. -Rob This inference is basically great, but there are some potential holes in it. -- 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/ OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
[Call-for-Review][Basic] Bug 76852: incorrect conversions Single to String and Double to String
Hi all Can you please help review my patch (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=79839action=diff) to bug 76852 (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=76852)? A detailed analysis of the problem and explanation of the solution is given in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=76852#c11 Thank you Damjan
Re: crash with debug build of r1403340
Hi all, thanks for looking. Herbert Duerr schrieb: Hi Regina, On 29.10.2012 22:26, Regina Henschel wrote: I get an immediately crash, when I try to switch to presentation mode (=F5) in Impress. It is a debug build of r1403340 on WinXP. But I'm not sure, whether there is something wrong in my build and I need to make a new, clean build. It would be nice, if someone can test it. [The downloaded r1400866 is OK.] FWIW our aoo-win7 buildbot tonight produced its weekly clean build of almost that revision (1403177), which can be downloaded from http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#win It doesn't show the reported problem here. Our nightly aoo-win7 builds are usually incremental only, so we were a bit lucky that this close match was the weekly clean build. Yes, that build works well for me too. So a problem with my build was likely. Therefore I have made a totally clean build, starting with 'clone'. I'm now on r1403730 and all is OK. Kind regards Regina
Re: OpenOffice Developer Room (devroom) at FOSDEM
On 26/10/2012 Andrea Pescetti wrote: There is another opportunity not to miss: we can propose a (technical) talk about Apache OpenOffice as a Main Track Talk, see the same page. Deadline 31 October. It would be good if Juergen, or another developer, took the occasion to show something about OpenOffice and the challenges ahead. Updates: 1) Deadline for Main Track Talks extended to 1 Dec, see https://fosdem.org/2013/ ; any high-profile developer willing to propose something? By the way, these are the only sponsored speakers. 2) Call for stands is open until 28 Nov: https://fosdem.org/2013/call_for_stands.html ; stands are not that big (a table with 2 chairs) and the requirement is that they are manned by at least 2 persons on Saturday and Sunday; so, while we will obviously ask around at ApacheCon EU to see if other Apache projects need a stand at FOSDEM, we could probably manage an Apache OpenOffice stand. About sharing it with non-Apache projects, see below. Here's a brief recap of the FOSDEM facts concerning us (I've already forwarded everything anyway): - Apache OpenOffice applied for a devroom; since the call for devrooms stated that projects with similar goals/domains will be asked to co-organize a devroom we agreed here on the list and stated explicitly in our application that we were willing to share a devroom with similar projects. - The organizers received a separate application from LibreOffice and asked Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice to actually share a devroom, saying they were very reluctant to assign separate devrooms. - Apache OpenOffice confirmed it was OK to share a devroom. - In the end we won't share a devroom, so it should be a matter of very simple logic to understand who said no; but I've never seen the LibreOffice answer or the reasons for it. - Apache OpenOffice has a devroom with capacity for about 80 people for the full day of Saturday 2 February; we should issue a call for talks around mid-November, to have the time to discuss it after ApacheCon. - The Main Track Talks and stands are independent from the devrooms: the first one is an opportunity to have an extra talk featured in the main auditorium; the second one is simply a small booth available for meeting people, answering questions, merchandising and so on. Here the FOSDEM organizers do not make explicit recommendations to share tables, so I would save the effort, while still hoping that cross-project cooperation will be better in future occasions. Regards, Andrea.
Re: volunteering
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Prabha Chidambaran prabha.chidamba...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Apache folks: My name is Prabha Chidambaran and I am an aspiring technical writer living in New Jersey. I have a journalism background, good with computer applications and would love to help you all out with documentation. Please tell me where to get started as the Apache website is very large. Thank you very much, Prabha Hello again Prabha -- First off, it would be best if you subscribed to ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org if you intend to continue discussions with Apache OpenOffice. see information at: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html#development-mailing-list We can always use help with the web site, which is quite large. For the time being, I would suggest doing some investigation on your own, and seeing what areas YOU think need more work. Recently, we've been discussing the support page -- http://www.openoffice.org/support/index.html but there are likely manner areas that need some attention. Thanks again for volunteering. -- MzK Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat. -- Robert Heinlein
Re: [PROPOSAL] Initiate a Contest for Branding of 4.0
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Graham Lauder g.a.lau...@gmail.com wrote: 5 days is about up and we have no -1so I've started a page for creating of the proposed RFP on the confluence wiki here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Brand+Contest+RFP +1, maybe put draft in a prominent place until the details are worked out. Discussion on the marketing list? +1, but when draft is done, we should run it by the dev list. -Rob I'm travelling for the next two days, connection may be intemittent Cheers GL
Re: [PROPOSAL] Initiate a Contest for Branding of 4.0
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Graham Lauder g.a.lau...@gmail.com wrote: The launch of 4.0 is a unique opportunity in the life of AOO both now and far into the future. Perhaps sound out some sponsors for a prize The Fedora Design Bounties have done really well using this model, where the prize is to become a member of the Fedora design team. They've had several successful projects completed, and by making inclusion the prize, they've gotten new contributors to stick around too. See http://mairin.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/fedora-design-bounty-f13-feature-profiles/ for an example of one. Noirin
Re: [DISCUSS] IDE, comment translation, debugging, documentation and other development issues
Hi Damjan, On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 07:44:06PM +0200, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: Hi AOO is by far the biggest and most complex code I have ever hacked on, and I have many questions... true, but you managed to get your first patch out of it! Congratulations :) What IDE do you guys use to develop AOO? Eclipse CDT runs out of memory indexing the code :-(. I guess you cannot index the whole source tree with an IDE. It may work to just index the modules you are working with, no need to add all the dependencies, if a module depends on trunk/main/foo, simply add to the parser path trunk/main/foo/inc, and for the offapi/offuh header, you can point the parser to an SDK installation, or even point it to the solver include dir (but this might be too consuming). I used this approach with some IDEs and worked. Many comments are in German. Are translations to English welcome or should we leave them as is? Of course they are welcome. Better if done by a native speaker or someone in the know (not google translate). Debugging is such a pain. Why do binaries get stripped when the tar.gz is built even though debugging has been enabled (build debug=true dbglevel=2 --all)? they are striped when delivered to the solver. You have to configure with --disable-strip-solver. I'm not sure a dbglevel=2 is good for all the modules, you will get too much debug output may be missing what you want to catch. An interesting switch when developing is --enable-dbgutil that build a NON-PRO build http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Non_Product_Build The layout of the source code tree is incredibly complex, with eg. confusing duplication of CSV parsing between binfilter/ and sc/. binfilter is dead code, soon to be removed when trunk is in AOO4 there somewhere I should document the structure of various modules? http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Source_code_directories seems like a good place to start but I would add a lot more detail. Searching with grep takes forever. I've tried indexing the source tree with Lucene, but it doesn't find everything. Is there a better tool? Use opengrok from adfinis http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpPwy5S91c0U.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: old business...old OpenOffice domain names registered by Oracle (primarily)
On 10/30/2012 1:39 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: Looking at old threads, I'm a bit confused about the outcome of this one: http://markmail.org/message/ldigtivvyy2su62u Currently some of the .com domains don't even show up on the DNS radar, and on the others remaining registered by Oracle. Was it the outcome of this discussion to have Oracle transfer the registrations to the ASF? I thought that was perhaps what we wanted to do, but ti doesn't seem to have happened yet. Andrew, can you shed some light? Thanks. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4906 I guess it's not been on the top of any of our lists. The domains were opened up for transfer on the Oracle side (not sure if that times out). Andrew
Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community
I will not be in person in Sinsheim, hence we'll need one, better two moderators for that BoF session. The initial tasks seems quite simple. It's just saying hello to the attendees, making a short statement what the session is about, then kicking off the discussion with throwing in some key issues, e.g. collected from this discussion. After that it's a moderators job like any other. On 10/31/2012 1:06 AM, imacat wrote: It's a long list of discussion to read. There seems to be a lot to discuss in our BoF session. So, what is the help we need for our BoF session now?
Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community
On 10/29/2012 10:16 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: About Peter's point #2...I suppose this is getting kind of abstract, but what is the payoff from expanding AOO's community? Typically marketing is performed to increase sales, which earns money; AOO has no sales, so what should the intended benefit from marketing be? I think this is not abstract for those who have been part of the former OOo community. In a typical Apache project you have developers, testers, people working on documentation. They join for different reason, some are delegated by their employers, some are freelancers who want to sharpen their profile as an expert for that project (among many other possible reasons) and some are volunteers who join for fun. With an end-user projects the same reasons apply for the marketing people. At OOo we had contributors who wrote a detailed business plan, just for fun. I, for instance, coordinated the efforts for OOo booth at the CeBIT in 2011 as volunteer, just because I enjoyed doing it. How does Apache gain from a larger user base for AOO? More users - more traffic - more demand for resources - more demand for people that maintain infrastructure and the money to pay for said infrastructure. What is Apache's interest in promoting its offering of AOO? I cannot speak for Apache, but as the ASF had accepted Oracle's grant, they now have the responsibility to deal with it. How does AOO gain from a larger user base? More beta-testing, more word-of-mouth exposure, more potential donors? More representative clout for acquiring resources from Apache? Did no one consider that? I'm not saying -- I would never say -- that making AOO available to the world is a bad or unnecessary thing. Given monopolistic business practices and commercialization of software available, it's important for there to be freely available alternatives to such things as an office productivity suite. But if marketing is going to occur, it would be good to know what said marketing is meant to accomplish, other than promotion for promotion's sake. Promotion for promotion's sake is the organizational manifestation of a viral idea. Many (unpaid) volunteers are working on such a viral idea successfully at LO and they are rewarded with a fair amount of donations from people who honor the efforts. But, doesn't a similar idea apply for Apache's HTTP server? Why does Apache produce it, isn't it simply production for production's sake? If there's to be a discussion on marketing, perhaps it should include a manifesto that's more concrete and strategic than Don't you think this is great? Let's throw money at it until you do. That's why it should be discussed in that BoF session we're talking about.
Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community
On 2012/10/31 08:35, Peter Junge said: I will not be in person in Sinsheim, hence we'll need one, better two moderators for that BoF session. The initial tasks seems quite simple. It's just saying hello to the attendees, making a short statement what the session is about, then kicking off the discussion with throwing in some key issues, e.g. collected from this discussion. After that it's a moderators job like any other. If we still need one moderator, I suppose I can help. ^_*' On 10/31/2012 1:06 AM, imacat wrote: It's a long list of discussion to read. There seems to be a lot to discuss in our BoF session. So, what is the help we need for our BoF session now? -- 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/ OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community
On 2012/10/31 01:59, Rob Weir said: On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM, imacat ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw wrote: On 2012/10/29 23:26, Rob Weir said: Then there is the secondary question of network effect and value of the network. The more AOO users there are they greater the value of skills in AOO extension development, of AOO training and certification skills, and of migration and deployment services, etc. These business interests all become more valuable the more users we have. Although nothing requires that business built on AOO contribute back to the project, in practice they often will, since helping to sustain the project helps their business as well. So aside from the volunteer pyramid we set up a second virtuous cycle with business interests. Unfortunately, in the few cases I've seen, this is just negative. In practice many of these business just don't help to sustain the project. I suppose many of them do help to sustain the project. Why some do and some don't is another interesting issue to be investigated further. Been there; done that. You didn't see IBM very active in OpenOffice.org years ago, did you? There is a huge difference between a corporate-lead and a community-led open source one. A community-led one is much more welcoming to other large companies.. If a company wanted to get involved with OpenOffice.org before then there was all the messiness with dealing with Sun and wondering about whether Sun's priorities would dominate over everything else. Look at the constant battles Novell and Sun had, for example. This changes with the move to Apache. So I'd recommend that we point this out to companies, small and large. We shouldn't let past failures in this area discourage us too much. It is a new situation now. Yap. I mean, your business theory is great. But there are some holes in it on the reality side that we need to overcome. It may work for IBM, but not all the other business. Maybe some more mails? Some more talks with people? Some other strategy? Now sure, some companies will just be interested in training or whatever, and have zero interest in participating. However, those companies will be at a disadvantage compared to competing companies that are participate. There is a level of information, skill, expertise, even influence that comes from participating on the inside, rather than watching from the outside. I occasionally hear some local business doing OpenOffice support, but I cannot reach them. They just don't respond to us, and have no interests to connect to the open source community. (Afraid of us stealing their business? Afraid of us sharing their profit? Just afraid of communication trouble? Being conservative for Asian culture?) A trainer can easily switch to training users for Google Docs, or Microsoft Office, if they need to. So they are not as dependent on the success of our project. I do not know if they are trainers or else. Someone refer me to them that they are doing OpenOffice jobs (technical? training? application development? anything else? I don't know.) and they may need my help. They never respond. That said, there are some holes in your theory. -- 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/ OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Apache Asia Roadshow 2012 - Dec 13th Beijing
Hi Simon, On 10/30/2012 11:25 PM, Shenfeng Liu wrote: Peter, Please see my comments below: 2012/10/29 Peter Junge peter.ju...@gmx.org Hi Simon, On 10/26/2012 9:48 PM, Shenfeng Liu wrote: Don Peter, I think it is a very good opportunity to promote Apache OpenOffice in China marketing through Apache Asia Roadshow 2012. And from another side, the wide influence of OpenOffice can also help to promote Apache. I'd like to work with Peter together on it. The target can be not only attract individual volunteers to participate the community, but also demonstrate the business opportunities and attract local business partners. While first of all, I'd like to know more details about this event. Perhaps Jimmy is the right contact? Agree with you! Per check with Jimmy, we need to give a outline draft now. I will work on it in the evening, when I'm home from work. Do you know --e.g. from Jimmy-- if the outline needs to meet certain requirements? indeed, let's put together such a session for the Roadshow. A possible brief outline would be: - Introduction to and history of OpenOffice +1, history and latest status. - I think you are the best one in Beijing to present this topic. So I wonder if you can prepare for an outline? Yes. - What's happening around AOO in Beijing respectively China. Engineers of IBM and of CS2C could share what they are working on. +1 again. The UOF contribution, fidelity improvement, quality improvement efforts... I can check with Ji Yan, WeiKe or Liu Tao to see if we can work together on it. That would be great. - How businesses and users can benefit from AOO, ways to join the AOO community. I think firstly CS2C can share their experience on building the business on AOO. Secondly, since the theme of this Roadshow is cloud, we can share the topic of Social Integration with AOO. I will work with Da Li to prepare for the outline. Sounds excellent. How much time we can spend on the parts would depend on how much time we would get in total. I'm still checking with Jimmy for how much time can we get. But basically I think we can start and propose the topics above. The amount of time we have would be great to know. Any suggestion? Not yet, maybe later, e.g. after drafting that outline. Peter - Shenfeng Liu (Simon) BTW, I just took a small surgery yesterday, and in the following week I have to spend most of the daytime in hospital for subsequent treatment. So my response to the mail threads may be slow. But I will try to catch up on this topic. Get well soon! Best regards, peter - Shenfeng Liu (Simon) 2012/10/26 Peter Junge peter.ju...@gmx.org Hi Don, thanks for the notice. Unfortunately, the Apache Asia Roadshow 2012 seem to lack of promoting the event. I only heard about it by coincidence a couple of days ago. (more inline) On 10/25/2012 9:47 PM, Donald Harbison wrote: On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com wrote: [...] we plan the main topic around cloud computing: open source really produce a basement to the cloud computing, like Apache Hadoop and cloudstack; welcome any open source topic in or out of this area. The Apache OpenOffice community has a significant local representation in Beijing. I'm cc'ing the community to alert our Chinese contributors to reach out to you and explore the possibility of adding an Apache OpenOffice session to increase its visibility. We just graduated to an Apache TLP, so we have a solid foundation upon which to build with a strong global community. The Chinese community is very important and making a large contribution. As I seem to be the only one in Beijing who's with OpenOffice from the beginning, I'd like to offer a talk about the history of OOo, if that is of interest. As the 13th is a weekday, I just have to find out if I can take a day off my daily job. @concom: I cannot find anything about the Apache Asia Roadshow 2012 at http://wiki.apache.org/apachecon/http://wiki.apache.org/**apachecon/ http://wiki.apache.org/**apachecon/ http://wiki.apache.org/apachecon/ Do you have a link to the Apache Asia Roadshow 2012 for me? I want to write an event announcement at the homepage of the Beijing Linux User Group (http://blug.chinalug.org/). We're reaching quite a few geeks. Best regards, Peter
Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012, imacat wrote: On 2012/10/31 01:59, Rob Weir said: On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM, imacat ima...@mail.imacat.idv.twjavascript:; wrote: On 2012/10/29 23:26, Rob Weir said: Then there is the secondary question of network effect and value of the network. The more AOO users there are they greater the value of skills in AOO extension development, of AOO training and certification skills, and of migration and deployment services, etc. These business interests all become more valuable the more users we have. Although nothing requires that business built on AOO contribute back to the project, in practice they often will, since helping to sustain the project helps their business as well. So aside from the volunteer pyramid we set up a second virtuous cycle with business interests. Unfortunately, in the few cases I've seen, this is just negative. In practice many of these business just don't help to sustain the project. I suppose many of them do help to sustain the project. Why some do and some don't is another interesting issue to be investigated further. Been there; done that. You didn't see IBM very active in OpenOffice.org years ago, did you? There is a huge difference between a corporate-lead and a community-led open source one. A community-led one is much more welcoming to other large companies.. If a company wanted to get involved with OpenOffice.org before then there was all the messiness with dealing with Sun and wondering about whether Sun's priorities would dominate over everything else. Look at the constant battles Novell and Sun had, for example. This changes with the move to Apache. So I'd recommend that we point this out to companies, small and large. We shouldn't let past failures in this area discourage us too much. It is a new situation now. Yap. I mean, your business theory is great. But there are some holes in it on the reality side that we need to overcome. It may work for IBM, but not all the other business. Maybe some more mails? Some more talks with people? Some other strategy? Now sure, some companies will just be interested in training or whatever, and have zero interest in participating. However, those companies will be at a disadvantage compared to competing companies that are participate. There is a level of information, skill, expertise, even influence that comes from participating on the inside, rather than watching from the outside. I occasionally hear some local business doing OpenOffice support, but I cannot reach them. They just don't respond to us, and have no interests to connect to the open source community. (Afraid of us stealing their business? Afraid of us sharing their profit? Just afraid of communication trouble? Being conservative for Asian culture?) A trainer can easily switch to training users for Google Docs, or Microsoft Office, if they need to. So they are not as dependent on the success of our project. I do not know if they are trainers or else. Someone refer me to them that they are doing OpenOffice jobs (technical? training? application development? anything else? I don't know.) and they may need my help. They never respond. That said, there are some holes in your theory. -- Best regards, imacat ^_*' ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw javascript:; 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/ OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/ Great thread. So many interesting topics to explore at a BoF. Here are some thoughts related to broadening our skills set and transforming the project from open source development to open source product design and development. In support of the community development goals, perhaps the discussion could also explore academic partnerships. A strong academic partner can bring a variety of skills to the effort: business, technical and design. Could be a great win win relationship. Regards, Kevin
Re: [ApacheCon] BoF session on AOO community
On 10/31/2012 11:11 AM, Kevin Grignon wrote: [...] Great thread. So many interesting topics to explore at a BoF. Here are some thoughts related to broadening our skills set and transforming the project from open source development to open source product design and development. In support of the community development goals, perhaps the discussion could also explore academic partnerships. A strong academic partner can bring a variety of skills to the effort: business, technical and design. Could be a great win win relationship. Great point. Certainly worth including it in the discussion. Peter
