Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
What I like most about mailing lists is the ability to tightly focus the topics. What I like about forums is the large number of categorizations possible. My main platform allows threading of headers in email, but it fails when threads are forked or subject/title is changed. I am strongly in favour of putting general and support lists on forum mostly, and lower-volume action-based stuff mostly in mailing lists. It has not been mentioned, or I missed the comment, but I am not a fan of irc as an interface. Just my 2 cents. I guess forums with an autosubscribe feature for questions a user has originated or replied to works great for most things.
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
On Jun 26, 2011, at 8:21 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > We have three basic options for legacy content: > > 1) Migrate it to a dynamic equivalent, e.g. form to forum, list to > list, wiki to wiki. This might be using the same software or a > different one, though obviously migration is more difficult cross > apps, especially in the absence of standard formats. > > 2) Archive the content statically, e..g., wget the entire wiki, forum > or list and store the static pages for reference. Ideally, search > engines and external links don't notice the change. > > 3) Ignore the legacy content and let it disappear. > > I think this is a case-by-case decision that we'll want to make, based > at least partially on how how active the existing service is. If it > gets no writes, but many reads, then #2 might be appropriate. If it > is active with both reads and writes then that would recommend #1. The content won't disappear, existing mailing lists are archived externally here gmane.org[1] and markmail.org[2] (I would suggest nabble as well, but I always find it hard to access mailing lists from their home page.) From MarkMail I see that Louis Saurez-Potts has sent 10,984 emails to the archived openoffice mailing lists. Regards, Dave [1] http://gmane.org/find.php?list=openoffice [2] http://markmail.org/search/?q=openoffice > > > -Rob > > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> On 25 Jun 2011, at 12:23, Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project >>> members on the Apache list asking for new list. >>> >>> I think I like approach #3 better. There are downsides to having more >>> lists than we need. It fragments the discussion. If we have 93 >>> language projects with each one having dev/marketing/user, etc., >>> lists, then we have 500 or so mailing lists, most of which see little >>> or no traffic. Do we really want to recreate that at Apache? >> >> If this approach was taken, what would you propose should happen to the >> "history" for all the lists that had not been migrated here by the time the >> Oracle-hosted servers were turned off? >> >> S. >> >>
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
We have three basic options for legacy content: 1) Migrate it to a dynamic equivalent, e.g. form to forum, list to list, wiki to wiki. This might be using the same software or a different one, though obviously migration is more difficult cross apps, especially in the absence of standard formats. 2) Archive the content statically, e..g., wget the entire wiki, forum or list and store the static pages for reference. Ideally, search engines and external links don't notice the change. 3) Ignore the legacy content and let it disappear. I think this is a case-by-case decision that we'll want to make, based at least partially on how how active the existing service is. If it gets no writes, but many reads, then #2 might be appropriate. If it is active with both reads and writes then that would recommend #1. -Rob On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On 25 Jun 2011, at 12:23, Rob Weir wrote: > >> 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project >> members on the Apache list asking for new list. >> >> I think I like approach #3 better. There are downsides to having more >> lists than we need. It fragments the discussion. If we have 93 >> language projects with each one having dev/marketing/user, etc., >> lists, then we have 500 or so mailing lists, most of which see little >> or no traffic. Do we really want to recreate that at Apache? > > If this approach was taken, what would you propose should happen to the > "history" for all the lists that had not been migrated here by the time the > Oracle-hosted servers were turned off? > > S. > >
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
On 25 Jun 2011, at 12:23, Rob Weir wrote: > 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project > members on the Apache list asking for new list. > > I think I like approach #3 better. There are downsides to having more > lists than we need. It fragments the discussion. If we have 93 > language projects with each one having dev/marketing/user, etc., > lists, then we have 500 or so mailing lists, most of which see little > or no traffic. Do we really want to recreate that at Apache? If this approach was taken, what would you propose should happen to the "history" for all the lists that had not been migrated here by the time the Oracle-hosted servers were turned off? S.
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Dick Groskamp wrote: > Op 25-6-2011 18:36, Rob Weir schreef: > >> I hope you don't get that impression. Language is one cross-cutting >> [snip] >> >> I understand that when it comes to the translation of individual UI >> strings, that the discussion then becomes very narrow and specialized >> and that this will not be of interest to everyone. But that is no >> different than a discussion that is only relevant to 64bit Windows. >> >> I don't think we should hold a gun to people's head to join a ML that >>> they >>> might not be interested on the first place. Even if it's just to request >>> a >>> new one. >>> >> Well, I can only talk for Dutch OOo community but this is how it worked in > the past for us. > > We had a userlist inside nl.openoffice.org where all was discussed > on/about localisation ( level of Native Language) > > If we found issues or problems we couldn't realize within that area, we > went over to the userllist L10n from OOo (worldwide level) > > On the L10n all issues from all NLC came together but they merely concerned > localization as is. > It were more technical discussions and issues that arose during > translations. (like for instance adjustments to GUI if a string was too > long) > > On L10n we also monitored status of translations and work to come and so > forth. > > So in our case it was more a two step ladder, keeping small issues on low > level and the rest up to L10n Similar process took for things like Documentation with the OOoAuthors list at the documentation project. Also some marketing prospects (specially budget related) > > > -- > DiGro > > Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 > Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure) > > -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Op 25-6-2011 18:36, Rob Weir schreef: I hope you don't get that impression. Language is one cross-cutting [snip] I understand that when it comes to the translation of individual UI strings, that the discussion then becomes very narrow and specialized and that this will not be of interest to everyone. But that is no different than a discussion that is only relevant to 64bit Windows. I don't think we should hold a gun to people's head to join a ML that they might not be interested on the first place. Even if it's just to request a new one. Well, I can only talk for Dutch OOo community but this is how it worked in the past for us. We had a userlist inside nl.openoffice.org where all was discussed on/about localisation ( level of Native Language) If we found issues or problems we couldn't realize within that area, we went over to the userllist L10n from OOo (worldwide level) On the L10n all issues from all NLC came together but they merely concerned localization as is. It were more technical discussions and issues that arose during translations. (like for instance adjustments to GUI if a string was too long) On L10n we also monitored status of translations and work to come and so forth. So in our case it was more a two step ladder, keeping small issues on low level and the rest up to L10n -- DiGro Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
On Jun 25, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Alexandro Colorado >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Rob Weir wrote: >>> Thanks for the list. I looked around. Some lists are very active. Some have not seen activity for a year or more. Some seem to never have been active. And some are just full of spam :-( I can see three ways to decide what to do (but maybe someone has other ideas?): 1) Recreate the structure of the OOo lists, making lists for all language groups, whether or not they are active. 2) Define activity criteria for what we will create, such as number of posts in last 12 months. Create lists of whatever was active (by an agreed on definition). 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project members on the Apache list asking for new list. I think I like approach #3 better. There are downsides to having more lists than we need. It fragments the discussion. If we have 93 language projects with each one having dev/marketing/user, etc., lists, then we have 500 or so mailing lists, most of which see little or no traffic. Do we really want to recreate that at Apache? Right now we have just a single discussion pubic list, ooo-dev. I can easily imagine, that once we have some code checked in and start actively working on making our first release, that the traffic in that one list will be larger enough that we'll want to split into specialized functional lists, maybe: ooo-general == general project discussion that crosses over functional areas of project. Everything that doesn't fit elsewhere goes here. ooo-user == user discussion threads ooo-dev == programming, including QA, UI design, accessibility, etc. ooo-doc == help and documentation ooo-translate == translation I don't think we're there yet, but I can certainly see that happening in the next few weeks/months. It is also possible that when we get very active, that the conversation level on ooo-translate becomes so high that we need to split some language discussions into their own list: ooo-translate-jp, ooo-translate-es, ooo-translate-pt, etc. I think we might want that to be driven by actual observed demand. We can always create new lists when they are actually needed. But I think for now we want to keep the discussion together in larger groups. For example, before we think of having a detailed group on Japanese translation, we should probably have higher level discussions in common, like: 1) Do we want Apache to host a Pootle server? If so, we need to put together that request and make it happen. 2) Did the Oracle SGA include all of the language translation sources? If not, we need to identify what is missing. Another thing to consider is this. We've all heard the complaints about Sun/Oracle and how they managed the OOo project. Maybe the core development project was not as open as it could have been to outside contributions. Maybe the project leadership was centralized with their employees. Maybe the power was not shared broadly. These are all valid criticisms of *that* project. The natural tendency of this was to create satellite power centers in the language projects, because that was the primary place where you were permitted a sphere of influence and control. I don't think the new Apache project needs to be, or should be, the same way. There is no central corporate control. Volunteers from all former OOo language projects are welcome, and are even encouraged, to participate directly in all functions of the project. I'd like OOo to be a strong *global* open source project. I guess I'm saying this: Let's not automatically create the same project structures as OOo had. Those were partially created to work within a corporate-led open source project that distributed power in a very different way. Some of the hierarchical structures of that project were made to deal with that power arrangement and the friction is produced. Apache is different. Of course, language differences and the need to encourage participation by all is critical as well. We may all speak C++ very well, but not all speak English well. But I wonder if things like Google translate are now good enough that we could manage, with a little patience and understanding, to have multilingual conversations on a single list, at least until the traffic is so high that we need to split the lists? >>> >>> Wow I am getting a very bleak view of all
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Reizinger Zoltán wrote: > 2011.06.24. 23:44 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta: > > Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of >> technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being >> used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways >> of doing the same things? >> > > The user downloaded OOo from OOo site can be aware of OOo mailing lists if > met some problems - users with some knowledge. > If user get OOo without his knowledge, some admin installed on computer, > this happens in small companies or public administration, > This user - average Joe, has knowledge in other software, when met specific > problems, in most cases use some search engine to find answer, then the > forum could came first. > The second type of user prefer forums, and the first type possibly mailing > lists. > > My practice on user forums and Base user and developer mailing list have > differences, in the forums core developers never posts, questions answered > by volunteers or other users. > (It takes time to crawl through all posts, the developers time worth more > than spend reading questions, easily answerable ones.) > In users mailing lists, half answers came from core developers, if they > think, the problem is real. "Easily answerable questions" answered by > volunteers. > In developer mailing list users mostly ISVs or power users use, when met > specific problems, in specific database drivers, or with programming OOo, > and answered usually by developers. > > Zoltan > > +1 this explains better the situation. ML where never popular on the mainstream and very rare to find a traditional user ackowledge or be attracted to ML. -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: > > Do we know how many language-specific user lists we have at OOo today? > > Not forums, but user mailing lists. > > I don't know the total figures, but the Italian N-L project has 10, 5 of > which active: > - utenti (generic users list, about 500 subscribers) > - discussioni (for discussions not related to user support) > - qa (to coordinate QA activities) > - localizzazione (to coordinate localization activities) > - dev (user support for macros/extensions; not core development) > > Other major N-L projects (around 10-20) probably have a similar > structure. The remaining N-L projects probably only have one user list. > > Regards, > Andrea. > > In ES we actually make a pretty controvertial push to move our ML to our own servers. We got much heat from it, but in the end we enjoy a more autonomous system. localizac...@oooes.org and sopo...@oooes.org -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Alexandro Colorado > wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > > > >> Thanks for the list. I looked around. Some lists are very active. > >> Some have not seen activity for a year or more. Some seem to never > >> have been active. And some are just full of spam :-( > >> > >> I can see three ways to decide what to do (but maybe someone has other > >> ideas?): > >> > >> 1) Recreate the structure of the OOo lists, making lists for all > >> language groups, whether or not they are active. > >> > >> 2) Define activity criteria for what we will create, such as number of > >> posts in last 12 months. Create lists of whatever was active (by an > >> agreed on definition). > >> > >> 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project > >> members on the Apache list asking for new list. > >> > >> I think I like approach #3 better. There are downsides to having more > >> lists than we need. It fragments the discussion. If we have 93 > >> language projects with each one having dev/marketing/user, etc., > >> lists, then we have 500 or so mailing lists, most of which see little > >> or no traffic. Do we really want to recreate that at Apache? > >> > >> Right now we have just a single discussion pubic list, ooo-dev. I can > >> easily imagine, that once we have some code checked in and start > >> actively working on making our first release, that the traffic in that > >> one list will be larger enough that we'll want to split into > >> specialized functional lists, maybe: > >> > >> ooo-general == general project discussion that crosses over functional > >> areas of project. Everything that doesn't fit elsewhere goes here. > >> > >> ooo-user == user discussion threads > >> > >> ooo-dev == programming, including QA, UI design, accessibility, etc. > >> > >> ooo-doc == help and documentation > >> > >> ooo-translate == translation > >> > >> I don't think we're there yet, but I can certainly see that happening > >> in the next few weeks/months. > >> > >> It is also possible that when we get very active, that the > >> conversation level on ooo-translate becomes so high that we need to > >> split some language discussions into their own list: > >> > >> ooo-translate-jp, ooo-translate-es, ooo-translate-pt, etc. > >> > >> I think we might want that to be driven by actual observed demand. We > >> can always create new lists when they are actually needed. > >> > >> But I think for now we want to keep the discussion together in larger > >> groups. For example, before we think of having a detailed group on > >> Japanese translation, we should probably have higher level discussions > >> in common, like: > >> > >> 1) Do we want Apache to host a Pootle server? If so, we need to put > >> together that request and make it happen. > >> > >> 2) Did the Oracle SGA include all of the language translation sources? > >> If not, we need to identify what is missing. > >> > >> Another thing to consider is this. We've all heard the complaints > >> about Sun/Oracle and how they managed the OOo project. Maybe the core > >> development project was not as open as it could have been to outside > >> contributions. Maybe the project leadership was centralized with > >> their employees. Maybe the power was not shared broadly. These are > >> all valid criticisms of *that* project. The natural tendency of this > >> was to create satellite power centers in the language projects, > >> because that was the primary place where you were permitted a sphere > >> of influence and control. > >> > >> I don't think the new Apache project needs to be, or should be, the > >> same way. There is no central corporate control. Volunteers from all > >> former OOo language projects are welcome, and are even encouraged, to > >> participate directly in all functions of the project. I'd like OOo to > >> be a strong *global* open source project. > >> > >> I guess I'm saying this: Let's not automatically create the same > >> project structures as OOo had. Those were partially created to work > >> within a corporate-led open source project that distributed power in a > >> very different way. Some of the hierarchical structures of that > >> project were made to deal with that power arrangement and the friction > >> is produced. Apache is different. > >> > >> Of course, language differences and the need to encourage > >> participation by all is critical as well. We may all speak C++ very > >> well, but not all speak English well. But I wonder if things like > >> Google translate are now good enough that we could manage, with a > >> little patience and understanding, to have multilingual conversations > >> on a single list, at least until the traffic is so high that we need > >> to split the lists? > >> > > > > Wow I am getting a very bleak view of all this, maybe I have just watched > > too many world wide II movies recently. But this s
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> Thanks for the list. I looked around. Some lists are very active. >> Some have not seen activity for a year or more. Some seem to never >> have been active. And some are just full of spam :-( >> >> I can see three ways to decide what to do (but maybe someone has other >> ideas?): >> >> 1) Recreate the structure of the OOo lists, making lists for all >> language groups, whether or not they are active. >> >> 2) Define activity criteria for what we will create, such as number of >> posts in last 12 months. Create lists of whatever was active (by an >> agreed on definition). >> >> 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project >> members on the Apache list asking for new list. >> >> I think I like approach #3 better. There are downsides to having more >> lists than we need. It fragments the discussion. If we have 93 >> language projects with each one having dev/marketing/user, etc., >> lists, then we have 500 or so mailing lists, most of which see little >> or no traffic. Do we really want to recreate that at Apache? >> >> Right now we have just a single discussion pubic list, ooo-dev. I can >> easily imagine, that once we have some code checked in and start >> actively working on making our first release, that the traffic in that >> one list will be larger enough that we'll want to split into >> specialized functional lists, maybe: >> >> ooo-general == general project discussion that crosses over functional >> areas of project. Everything that doesn't fit elsewhere goes here. >> >> ooo-user == user discussion threads >> >> ooo-dev == programming, including QA, UI design, accessibility, etc. >> >> ooo-doc == help and documentation >> >> ooo-translate == translation >> >> I don't think we're there yet, but I can certainly see that happening >> in the next few weeks/months. >> >> It is also possible that when we get very active, that the >> conversation level on ooo-translate becomes so high that we need to >> split some language discussions into their own list: >> >> ooo-translate-jp, ooo-translate-es, ooo-translate-pt, etc. >> >> I think we might want that to be driven by actual observed demand. We >> can always create new lists when they are actually needed. >> >> But I think for now we want to keep the discussion together in larger >> groups. For example, before we think of having a detailed group on >> Japanese translation, we should probably have higher level discussions >> in common, like: >> >> 1) Do we want Apache to host a Pootle server? If so, we need to put >> together that request and make it happen. >> >> 2) Did the Oracle SGA include all of the language translation sources? >> If not, we need to identify what is missing. >> >> Another thing to consider is this. We've all heard the complaints >> about Sun/Oracle and how they managed the OOo project. Maybe the core >> development project was not as open as it could have been to outside >> contributions. Maybe the project leadership was centralized with >> their employees. Maybe the power was not shared broadly. These are >> all valid criticisms of *that* project. The natural tendency of this >> was to create satellite power centers in the language projects, >> because that was the primary place where you were permitted a sphere >> of influence and control. >> >> I don't think the new Apache project needs to be, or should be, the >> same way. There is no central corporate control. Volunteers from all >> former OOo language projects are welcome, and are even encouraged, to >> participate directly in all functions of the project. I'd like OOo to >> be a strong *global* open source project. >> >> I guess I'm saying this: Let's not automatically create the same >> project structures as OOo had. Those were partially created to work >> within a corporate-led open source project that distributed power in a >> very different way. Some of the hierarchical structures of that >> project were made to deal with that power arrangement and the friction >> is produced. Apache is different. >> >> Of course, language differences and the need to encourage >> participation by all is critical as well. We may all speak C++ very >> well, but not all speak English well. But I wonder if things like >> Google translate are now good enough that we could manage, with a >> little patience and understanding, to have multilingual conversations >> on a single list, at least until the traffic is so high that we need >> to split the lists? >> > > Wow I am getting a very bleak view of all this, maybe I have just watched > too many world wide II movies recently. But this seems a lot like the > hanging of the Japanese military generals after the war. Or to quote one of > the classics: > > "Do they speak English in What?" -- Pulp fiction > I hope you don't get that impression. Language is one cross-cutting concern. Anot
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > wrote: > > I think this is extremely important and I'm embarrassed that I missed it. > > > > I'm also thinking that we need an ooo-user list pretty soon. > > > > In the incubation proposal we said that we would not be requesting a > ooo-user list, but would instead be going for phpBB user forums. But > that was then, now is now. > > OOo has a user list and a user forum, which you can find here: > > http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/ (That is just the > English language one. There are others ) > > and here: > > http://openoffice.org/projects/www/lists/users/archive > > It looks like the forums get the far greater level of activity. But > it would be good to quantify that. In any case, I think the activity > level is high enough (forums claim 97 users online at the forums at > this instant, and 42 active threads today alone) that I think it > would be inappropriate for users who want to post a questions and > check back the next day for an answer. > > But lists might be good for other kinds of things. > > Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of > technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being > used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways > of doing the same things? > > -Rob > People use the forum and lists sometimes for different things. New users don't really know any difference so they might submit a bug report on the list or forum even if neither of them is for that. However in my experience users have different prefferences of communication and alternative communities form regarding each channel. ie. ML users don't participate much in the forum and viceversa. I see more a cultural difference than a real difference. Certainly both present technological advantages, I can use my email search which is faster to find things than the forum search. But I get swamp by conversations in which I am not interested. Which many new users specially are turned off. -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Dick Groskamp wrote: > Op 25-6-2011 17:23, Rob Weir schreef: > >> Thanks for the list. I looked around. Some lists are very active. >> Some have not seen activity for a year or more. Some seem to never >> have been active. And some are just full of spam :-( >> >> I can see three ways to decide what to do (but maybe someone has other >> ideas?): >> >> 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project >> members on the Apache list asking for new list. >> > +1 > >> Right now we have just a single discussion pubic list, ooo-dev. I can >> easily imagine, that once we have some code checked in and start >> actively working on making our first release, that the traffic in that >> one list will be larger enough that we'll want to split into >> specialized functional lists, maybe: >> [snip] >> >> >> I don't think we're there yet, but I can certainly see that happening >> in the next few weeks/months. >> > I can surely agree with that > > 1) Do we want Apache to host a Pootle server? If so, we need to put >> together that request and make it happen. >> > O yes please.. (but I was the main cinbtributor for that on the "old" > project for the Dutch language.) > > But there was another reason. SUN/Oracle made the builds with about 8 > langiages EMBEDDED in them. > Yes, indeed one of them was Dutch. :-) > > Furthermore the proces was more and more set to be automated. Source > strings were fed to POOTLE. > The translators for each language could then do their job in POOTLE and > engineers from SUN/Oracle > pulled, when they could use them in htier proces, the strings from POOTLE > and proces them towards the build. > Last minute translations could mostly be delivered on time for the final > pull for releases > > Since localization seemed to be always at the end of the proces translators > had to work under duress. > This way the pressure was less at the end of the proces since strings were > already for the biggest part already > translated. > At the same time, there was efforts to do the continuos l10n which was meant to have localization at any time of the process. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ContinuousL10n server for the continuos l10n will give out reports on false strings. ftp://qa-upload.services.openoffice.org/l10n/download/ There was also special KeID builds to do QA on the locale which ease the context of the locale: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/KeyID_Build > If not using POOTLE you will have to think of a way to collect the > tranlations to put them into the build. > Will APACHE build the same EMBEDDED builds as SUN/Oracle did or willl there > only be languagepacks. > If the latter who will make them ? > >> 2) Did the Oracle SGA include all of the language translation sources? >> If not, we need to identify what is missing >> [snip] >> Apache is different. >> > No problem with that at all. Most of us just want to produce a nice working > officesuite > > > -- > DiGro > > Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 > Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure) > > -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Op 25-6-2011 17:23, Rob Weir schreef: Thanks for the list. I looked around. Some lists are very active. Some have not seen activity for a year or more. Some seem to never have been active. And some are just full of spam :-( I can see three ways to decide what to do (but maybe someone has other ideas?): 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project members on the Apache list asking for new list. +1 Right now we have just a single discussion pubic list, ooo-dev. I can easily imagine, that once we have some code checked in and start actively working on making our first release, that the traffic in that one list will be larger enough that we'll want to split into specialized functional lists, maybe: [snip] I don't think we're there yet, but I can certainly see that happening in the next few weeks/months. I can surely agree with that 1) Do we want Apache to host a Pootle server? If so, we need to put together that request and make it happen. O yes please.. (but I was the main cinbtributor for that on the "old" project for the Dutch language.) But there was another reason. SUN/Oracle made the builds with about 8 langiages EMBEDDED in them. Yes, indeed one of them was Dutch. :-) Furthermore the proces was more and more set to be automated. Source strings were fed to POOTLE. The translators for each language could then do their job in POOTLE and engineers from SUN/Oracle pulled, when they could use them in htier proces, the strings from POOTLE and proces them towards the build. Last minute translations could mostly be delivered on time for the final pull for releases Since localization seemed to be always at the end of the proces translators had to work under duress. This way the pressure was less at the end of the proces since strings were already for the biggest part already translated. If not using POOTLE you will have to think of a way to collect the tranlations to put them into the build. Will APACHE build the same EMBEDDED builds as SUN/Oracle did or willl there only be languagepacks. If the latter who will make them ? 2) Did the Oracle SGA include all of the language translation sources? If not, we need to identify what is missing [snip] Apache is different. No problem with that at all. Most of us just want to produce a nice working officesuite -- DiGro Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > Thanks for the list. I looked around. Some lists are very active. > Some have not seen activity for a year or more. Some seem to never > have been active. And some are just full of spam :-( > > I can see three ways to decide what to do (but maybe someone has other > ideas?): > > 1) Recreate the structure of the OOo lists, making lists for all > language groups, whether or not they are active. > > 2) Define activity criteria for what we will create, such as number of > posts in last 12 months. Create lists of whatever was active (by an > agreed on definition). > > 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project > members on the Apache list asking for new list. > > I think I like approach #3 better. There are downsides to having more > lists than we need. It fragments the discussion. If we have 93 > language projects with each one having dev/marketing/user, etc., > lists, then we have 500 or so mailing lists, most of which see little > or no traffic. Do we really want to recreate that at Apache? > > Right now we have just a single discussion pubic list, ooo-dev. I can > easily imagine, that once we have some code checked in and start > actively working on making our first release, that the traffic in that > one list will be larger enough that we'll want to split into > specialized functional lists, maybe: > > ooo-general == general project discussion that crosses over functional > areas of project. Everything that doesn't fit elsewhere goes here. > > ooo-user == user discussion threads > > ooo-dev == programming, including QA, UI design, accessibility, etc. > > ooo-doc == help and documentation > > ooo-translate == translation > > I don't think we're there yet, but I can certainly see that happening > in the next few weeks/months. > > It is also possible that when we get very active, that the > conversation level on ooo-translate becomes so high that we need to > split some language discussions into their own list: > > ooo-translate-jp, ooo-translate-es, ooo-translate-pt, etc. > > I think we might want that to be driven by actual observed demand. We > can always create new lists when they are actually needed. > > But I think for now we want to keep the discussion together in larger > groups. For example, before we think of having a detailed group on > Japanese translation, we should probably have higher level discussions > in common, like: > > 1) Do we want Apache to host a Pootle server? If so, we need to put > together that request and make it happen. > > 2) Did the Oracle SGA include all of the language translation sources? > If not, we need to identify what is missing. > > Another thing to consider is this. We've all heard the complaints > about Sun/Oracle and how they managed the OOo project. Maybe the core > development project was not as open as it could have been to outside > contributions. Maybe the project leadership was centralized with > their employees. Maybe the power was not shared broadly. These are > all valid criticisms of *that* project. The natural tendency of this > was to create satellite power centers in the language projects, > because that was the primary place where you were permitted a sphere > of influence and control. > > I don't think the new Apache project needs to be, or should be, the > same way. There is no central corporate control. Volunteers from all > former OOo language projects are welcome, and are even encouraged, to > participate directly in all functions of the project. I'd like OOo to > be a strong *global* open source project. > > I guess I'm saying this: Let's not automatically create the same > project structures as OOo had. Those were partially created to work > within a corporate-led open source project that distributed power in a > very different way. Some of the hierarchical structures of that > project were made to deal with that power arrangement and the friction > is produced. Apache is different. > > Of course, language differences and the need to encourage > participation by all is critical as well. We may all speak C++ very > well, but not all speak English well. But I wonder if things like > Google translate are now good enough that we could manage, with a > little patience and understanding, to have multilingual conversations > on a single list, at least until the traffic is so high that we need > to split the lists? > Wow I am getting a very bleak view of all this, maybe I have just watched too many world wide II movies recently. But this seems a lot like the hanging of the Japanese military generals after the war. Or to quote one of the classics: "Do they speak English in What?" -- Pulp fiction I don't think we should hold a gun to people's head to join a ML that they might not be interested on the first place. Even if it's just to request a new one. So I am gonna partially play devils advocate and partially push some things I have considered a
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
2011.06.25. 17:23 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta: ... Of course, language differences and the need to encourage participation by all is critical as well. We may all speak C++ very well, but not all speak English well. But I wonder if things like Google translate are now good enough that we could manage,... May be it is true for some "big" language - in case of Hungarian it is create a more a crap, than usable translations at least in present state. Zoltan
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Kazunari Hirano wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Thanks. > > I said, "Make sure we set them up on request." > > And Marcus said, "But only when it's requested. We can start with the > normal one in English and see which other languages are requested > again and again." > I have my questions regarding this method, just because I have seen them before. Usually the admin has to lock himself on a rehabilitation center after the initital 3 waves of request and angry people because they requested and no action was followed. The opposite effect is to just migrate them all 100% with users and archieved, and then strip the ones that have never been active or are just full of spam. Sure I agree it fragment the discussion, the question is if the swahilli discussion was meant to be in the general list on the first place or not? > > I agree with him. > :) > Thanks, > khirano > -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Hi Rob, Thanks. I said, "Make sure we set them up on request." And Marcus said, "But only when it's requested. We can start with the normal one in English and see which other languages are requested again and again." I agree with him. :) Thanks, khirano
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Thanks for the list. I looked around. Some lists are very active. Some have not seen activity for a year or more. Some seem to never have been active. And some are just full of spam :-( I can see three ways to decide what to do (but maybe someone has other ideas?): 1) Recreate the structure of the OOo lists, making lists for all language groups, whether or not they are active. 2) Define activity criteria for what we will create, such as number of posts in last 12 months. Create lists of whatever was active (by an agreed on definition). 3) Create lists only when there is a sufficient number of project members on the Apache list asking for new list. I think I like approach #3 better. There are downsides to having more lists than we need. It fragments the discussion. If we have 93 language projects with each one having dev/marketing/user, etc., lists, then we have 500 or so mailing lists, most of which see little or no traffic. Do we really want to recreate that at Apache? Right now we have just a single discussion pubic list, ooo-dev. I can easily imagine, that once we have some code checked in and start actively working on making our first release, that the traffic in that one list will be larger enough that we'll want to split into specialized functional lists, maybe: ooo-general == general project discussion that crosses over functional areas of project. Everything that doesn't fit elsewhere goes here. ooo-user == user discussion threads ooo-dev == programming, including QA, UI design, accessibility, etc. ooo-doc == help and documentation ooo-translate == translation I don't think we're there yet, but I can certainly see that happening in the next few weeks/months. It is also possible that when we get very active, that the conversation level on ooo-translate becomes so high that we need to split some language discussions into their own list: ooo-translate-jp, ooo-translate-es, ooo-translate-pt, etc. I think we might want that to be driven by actual observed demand. We can always create new lists when they are actually needed. But I think for now we want to keep the discussion together in larger groups. For example, before we think of having a detailed group on Japanese translation, we should probably have higher level discussions in common, like: 1) Do we want Apache to host a Pootle server? If so, we need to put together that request and make it happen. 2) Did the Oracle SGA include all of the language translation sources? If not, we need to identify what is missing. Another thing to consider is this. We've all heard the complaints about Sun/Oracle and how they managed the OOo project. Maybe the core development project was not as open as it could have been to outside contributions. Maybe the project leadership was centralized with their employees. Maybe the power was not shared broadly. These are all valid criticisms of *that* project. The natural tendency of this was to create satellite power centers in the language projects, because that was the primary place where you were permitted a sphere of influence and control. I don't think the new Apache project needs to be, or should be, the same way. There is no central corporate control. Volunteers from all former OOo language projects are welcome, and are even encouraged, to participate directly in all functions of the project. I'd like OOo to be a strong *global* open source project. I guess I'm saying this: Let's not automatically create the same project structures as OOo had. Those were partially created to work within a corporate-led open source project that distributed power in a very different way. Some of the hierarchical structures of that project were made to deal with that power arrangement and the friction is produced. Apache is different. Of course, language differences and the need to encourage participation by all is critical as well. We may all speak C++ very well, but not all speak English well. But I wonder if things like Google translate are now good enough that we could manage, with a little patience and understanding, to have multilingual conversations on a single list, at least until the traffic is so high that we need to split the lists? -Rob On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Kazunari Hirano wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Please take a look at the Native Language Confederation Projects of > OpenOffice.org page. > http://projects.openoffice.org/native-lang.html > > Every language project has mailing lists. > You can check which list is active or not. > > 1 - Afar - http://openoffice.org/projects/aa/lists > 2 - Albanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sq/lists > 3 - Afrikaans - http://openoffice.org/projects/af/lists > 4 - Amharic - http://openoffice.org/projects/am/lists > 5 - Arabic - http://openoffice.org/projects/ar/lists > 6 - Armenian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hy/lists > 7 - Asturian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ast/lists > 8 - Azeri - http://openoffice.org/projects/az/lists
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Hi Rob, Please take a look at the Native Language Confederation Projects of OpenOffice.org page. http://projects.openoffice.org/native-lang.html Every language project has mailing lists. You can check which list is active or not. 1 - Afar - http://openoffice.org/projects/aa/lists 2 - Albanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sq/lists 3 - Afrikaans - http://openoffice.org/projects/af/lists 4 - Amharic - http://openoffice.org/projects/am/lists 5 - Arabic - http://openoffice.org/projects/ar/lists 6 - Armenian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hy/lists 7 - Asturian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ast/lists 8 - Azeri - http://openoffice.org/projects/az/lists 9 - Balochi - http://openoffice.org/projects/bal/lists 10 - Basque - http://openoffice.org/projects/eu/lists 11 - Bengali - http://openoffice.org/projects/bn/lists 12 - Bosnian - http://openoffice.org/projects/bs/lists 13 - Breton - http://openoffice.org/projects/bre/lists 14 - Bulgarian - http://openoffice.org/projects/bg/lists 15 - Burmese - http://openoffice.org/projects/my/lists 16 - Catalan - http://openoffice.org/projects/ca/lists 17 - ChiNyanja - http://openoffice.org/projects/ny/lists 18 - Chinese - http://openoffice.org/projects/zh/lists 19 - Czech - http://openoffice.org/projects/cs/lists 20 - Croatian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hr/lists 21 - Danish - http://openoffice.org/projects/da/lists 22 - Dutch - http://openoffice.org/projects/nl/lists 23 - Dzongkha - http://openoffice.org/projects/dz/lists 24 - Esperanto - http://openoffice.org/projects/eo/lists 25 - Estonian - http://openoffice.org/projects/et/lists 26 - Finnish - http://openoffice.org/projects/fi/lists 27 - French - http://openoffice.org/projects/fr/lists 28 - Friulian - http://openoffice.org/projects/fur/lists 29 - Galician - http://openoffice.org/projects/gl/lists 30 - Gaelic Irish - http://openoffice.org/projects/ga/lists 31 - Gaelic Scottish - http://openoffice.org/projects/gd/lists 32 - Georgian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ka/lists 33 - German - http://openoffice.org/projects/de/lists 34 - Greek - http://openoffice.org/projects/el/lists 35 - Gujarati - http://openoffice.org/projects/gu/lists 36 - Haitian Creole - http://openoffice.org/projects/ht/lists 37 - Hebrew - http://openoffice.org/projects/he/lists 38 - Hindi - http://openoffice.org/projects/hi/lists 39 - Hungarian - http://openoffice.org/projects/hu/lists 40 - Icelandic - http://openoffice.org/projects/is/lists 41 - Indonesian - http://openoffice.org/projects/id/lists 42 - Irish Gaelic - http://openoffice.org/projects/ga/lists 43 - Italiano - http://openoffice.org/projects/it/lists 44 - Japanese - http://openoffice.org/projects/ja/lists 45 - Khmer - http://openoffice.org/projects/km/lists 46 - Korean - http://openoffice.org/projects/ko/lists 47 - Kurdish - http://openoffice.org/projects/ku/lists 48 - Lao - http://openoffice.org/projects/lo/lists 49 - Latvian - http://openoffice.org/projects/lv/lists 50 - Lithuanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/lt/lists 51 - Macedonian - http://openoffice.org/projects/mk/lists 52 - Malayalam - http://openoffice.org/projects/ml/lists 53 - Marathi - http://openoffice.org/projects/mr/lists 54 - Malagasy - http://openoffice.org/projects/mg/lists 55 - Malaysian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ms/lists 56 - Miskito - http://openoffice.org/projects/miq/lists 57 - Mongolian - http://openoffice.org/projects/mn/lists 58 - Nepali - http://openoffice.org/projects/ne/lists 59 - Norwegian - http://openoffice.org/projects/no/lists 60 - Oromoo - http://openoffice.org/projects/om/lists 61 - Papmiento - http://openoffice.org/projects/pa/lists 62 - Pashto - http://openoffice.org/projects/ps/lists 63 - Persian - http://openoffice.org/projects/fa/lists 64 - Polish - http://openoffice.org/projects/pl/lists 65 - Portuguese - http://openoffice.org/projects/pt/lists 66 - Portuguese of Brasil - http://openoffice.org/projects/br-pt/lists 67 - Punjabi - http://openoffice.org/projects/pa/lists 68 - Romanian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ro/lists 69 - Russian - http://openoffice.org/projects/ru/lists 70 - Sängö - http://openoffice.org/projects/sg/lists 71 - Serbian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sr/lists 72 - Shuswa - http://openoffice.org/projects/shs/lists 73 - Sidama - http://openoffice.org/projects/dm/lists 74 - Sinhala - http://openoffice.org/projects/si/lists 75 - Slovenian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sl/lists 76 - Slovakian - http://openoffice.org/projects/sk/lists 77 - Somali - http://openoffice.org/projects/so/lists 78 - Spanish - http://openoffice.org/projects/es/lists 79 - Swedish - http://openoffice.org/projects/sv/lists 80 - Tajik - http://openoffice.org/projects/tg/lists 81 - Tamil - http://openoffice.org/projects/ta/lists 82 - Tatar - http://openoffice.org/projects/tt-crh/lists 83 - Telugu - http://openoffice.org/projects/te/lists 84 - Tetum - http://openoffice.org/projects/tet/lists 85 - Thai - http://openoffice.org/projects/th/lists 86 - Tibetan - http://openoffice.org/project
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Op 25-6-2011 15:05, Andrea Pescetti schreef: Rob Weir wrote: Do we know how many language-specific user lists we have at OOo today? Not forums, but user mailing lists. I don't know the total figures, but the Italian N-L project has 10, 5 of which active: Dutch NL-project just cleaned up the number of mailinglists It is now four; annou...@nl.openoffice.org gebruik...@nl.openoffice.org (=users) discus...@nl.openoffice.org d...@nl.openoffice.org traffic is low lately -- DiGro Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Rob Weir wrote: > Do we know how many language-specific user lists we have at OOo today? > Not forums, but user mailing lists. I don't know the total figures, but the Italian N-L project has 10, 5 of which active: - utenti (generic users list, about 500 subscribers) - discussioni (for discussions not related to user support) - qa (to coordinate QA activities) - localizzazione (to coordinate localization activities) - dev (user support for macros/extensions; not core development) Other major N-L projects (around 10-20) probably have a similar structure. The remaining N-L projects probably only have one user list. Regards, Andrea.
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Do we know how many language-specific user lists we have at OOo today? Not forums, but user mailing lists. -Rob On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: > Yes, IMHO we must have user mailing lists for their native languages. > Otherwise we cannot bring them onboard. > > But only when it's requested. We can start with the normal one in English > and see which other languages are requested again and again. > > If the user forums can be migrated then we have some language from the > beginning. > > Marcus > > > > Am 06/25/2011 06:37 AM, schrieb Kazunari Hirano: >> >> Hi Dennis and all, >> >> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton >> wrote: >>> >>> I agree about both. >> >> +1 >> >> And they should be multilingual. >> >> With regard to forums, they are OK so far, I think. >> http://user.services.openoffice.org/ >> 1.EN OpenOffice.org Community Forum, 2.ES OpenOffice.org Foro de la >> comunidad, 3.FR Forum francophone OpenOffice.org, HU OpenOffice.org >> Közösségi fórum, 4.IT Forum della comunità OpenOffice.org, 5.JA >> OpenOffice.org コミュニティーフォーラム, 6.NL Nederlandstalige Gemeenschap, 7.PL >> Forum społeczności OpenOffice.org, 8.VI Diễn đàn viOOo, 9.ZH >> OpenOffice.org 中文社区论坛. >> Nine languages look good. I hope these forums be migrated on to >> Apache infrastructure safe :) >> >> With regard to mailing lists, can we set up a user list if there is a >> request from a certain language user? >> If there are requests, can we set up, for example, nine user lists >> such as 1.ooo-en-us...@incubator.apache.org, >> 2.ooo-es-us...@incubator.apache.org, >> 3.ooo-fr-us...@incubator.apache.org, >> 4.ooo-hu-us...@incubator.apache.org, >> 5,ooo-it-us...@incubator.apache.org, >> 6.ooo-ja-us...@incubator.apache.org, >> 7.ooo-pl-us...@incubator.apache.org, >> 8.ooo-vi-us...@incubator.apache.org, >> 9.ooo-zh-us...@incubator.apache.org? >> Make sure we set them up on request. >
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Hi Dick, Sorry. My mistake. On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Dick Groskamp wrote: > However, you seemed to have missed the most important one :-) > > 10.ooo-nl-us...@incubator.apache.org for 6.NL Nederlandstalige Gemeenschap > (=Dutch language Community) http://user.services.openoffice.org/ You are right! We have forums supporting 10 languages! :) Thanks, khirano
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Op 25-6-2011 9:49, Reizinger Zoltán schreef: 2011.06.24. 23:44 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta: Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways of doing the same things? The user downloaded OOo from OOo site can be aware of OOo mailing lists if met some problems - users with some knowledge. If user get OOo without his knowledge, some admin installed on computer, this happens in small companies or public administration, This user - average Joe, has knowledge in other software, when met specific problems, in most cases use some search engine to find answer, then the forum could came first. The second type of user prefer forums, and the first type possibly mailing lists. My practice on user forums and Base user and developer mailing list have differences, in the forums core developers never posts, questions answered by volunteers or other users. (It takes time to crawl through all posts, the developers time worth more than spend reading questions, easily answerable ones.) In users mailing lists, half answers came from core developers, if they think, the problem is real. "Easily answerable questions" answered by volunteers. In developer mailing list users mostly ISVs or power users use, when met specific problems, in specific database drivers, or with programming OOo, and answered usually by developers. Zoltan I agree with Zoltan. This is my experience too I think a forum is better for the end-users. Particpants (like me who are merely contributing solely translations) might find use for a mailinglist to discuss about how to spell / wording / upcoming work to translate (for instance the online Help) in the native language -- DiGro Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Op 25-6-2011 6:37, Kazunari Hirano schreef: Hi Dennis and all, On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I agree about both. +1 And they should be multilingual. With regard to forums, they are OK so far, I think. http://user.services.openoffice.org/ 1.EN OpenOffice.org Community Forum, 2.ES OpenOffice.org Foro de la comunidad, 3.FR Forum francophone OpenOffice.org, HU OpenOffice.org Közösségi fórum, 4.IT Forum della comunità OpenOffice.org, 5.JA OpenOffice.org コミュニティーフォーラム, 6.NL Nederlandstalige Gemeenschap, 7.PL Forum społeczności OpenOffice.org, 8.VI Diễn đàn viOOo, 9.ZH OpenOffice.org 中文社区论坛. Nine languages look good. I hope these forums be migrated on to Apache infrastructure safe :) With regard to mailing lists, can we set up a user list if there is a request from a certain language user? If there are requests, can we set up, for example, nine user lists such as 1.ooo-en-us...@incubator.apache.org, 2.ooo-es-us...@incubator.apache.org, 3.ooo-fr-us...@incubator.apache.org, 4.ooo-hu-us...@incubator.apache.org, 5,ooo-it-us...@incubator.apache.org, 6.ooo-ja-us...@incubator.apache.org, 7.ooo-pl-us...@incubator.apache.org, 8.ooo-vi-us...@incubator.apache.org, 9.ooo-zh-us...@incubator.apache.org? Make sure we set them up on request. Thanks, khirano +1 Khirano-san, thanks for this. However, you seemed to have missed the most important one :-) 10.ooo-nl-us...@incubator.apache.org for 6.NL Nederlandstalige Gemeenschap (=Dutch language Community) Greetings all from rainy Holland -- DiGro Windows 7 and OpenOffice.org 3.3 Scanned with Ziggo uitgebreide Internetbeveiliging (F-Secure)
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
2011.06.24. 23:44 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta: Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways of doing the same things? The user downloaded OOo from OOo site can be aware of OOo mailing lists if met some problems - users with some knowledge. If user get OOo without his knowledge, some admin installed on computer, this happens in small companies or public administration, This user - average Joe, has knowledge in other software, when met specific problems, in most cases use some search engine to find answer, then the forum could came first. The second type of user prefer forums, and the first type possibly mailing lists. My practice on user forums and Base user and developer mailing list have differences, in the forums core developers never posts, questions answered by volunteers or other users. (It takes time to crawl through all posts, the developers time worth more than spend reading questions, easily answerable ones.) In users mailing lists, half answers came from core developers, if they think, the problem is real. "Easily answerable questions" answered by volunteers. In developer mailing list users mostly ISVs or power users use, when met specific problems, in specific database drivers, or with programming OOo, and answered usually by developers. Zoltan
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Yes, IMHO we must have user mailing lists for their native languages. Otherwise we cannot bring them onboard. But only when it's requested. We can start with the normal one in English and see which other languages are requested again and again. If the user forums can be migrated then we have some language from the beginning. Marcus Am 06/25/2011 06:37 AM, schrieb Kazunari Hirano: Hi Dennis and all, On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I agree about both. +1 And they should be multilingual. With regard to forums, they are OK so far, I think. http://user.services.openoffice.org/ 1.EN OpenOffice.org Community Forum, 2.ES OpenOffice.org Foro de la comunidad, 3.FR Forum francophone OpenOffice.org, HU OpenOffice.org Közösségi fórum, 4.IT Forum della comunità OpenOffice.org, 5.JA OpenOffice.org コミュニティーフォーラム, 6.NL Nederlandstalige Gemeenschap, 7.PL Forum społeczności OpenOffice.org, 8.VI Diễn đàn viOOo, 9.ZH OpenOffice.org 中文社区论坛. Nine languages look good. I hope these forums be migrated on to Apache infrastructure safe :) With regard to mailing lists, can we set up a user list if there is a request from a certain language user? If there are requests, can we set up, for example, nine user lists such as 1.ooo-en-us...@incubator.apache.org, 2.ooo-es-us...@incubator.apache.org, 3.ooo-fr-us...@incubator.apache.org, 4.ooo-hu-us...@incubator.apache.org, 5,ooo-it-us...@incubator.apache.org, 6.ooo-ja-us...@incubator.apache.org, 7.ooo-pl-us...@incubator.apache.org, 8.ooo-vi-us...@incubator.apache.org, 9.ooo-zh-us...@incubator.apache.org? Make sure we set them up on request.
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Hi Dennis and all, On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I agree about both. +1 And they should be multilingual. With regard to forums, they are OK so far, I think. http://user.services.openoffice.org/ 1.EN OpenOffice.org Community Forum, 2.ES OpenOffice.org Foro de la comunidad, 3.FR Forum francophone OpenOffice.org, HU OpenOffice.org Közösségi fórum, 4.IT Forum della comunità OpenOffice.org, 5.JA OpenOffice.org コミュニティーフォーラム, 6.NL Nederlandstalige Gemeenschap, 7.PL Forum społeczności OpenOffice.org, 8.VI Diễn đàn viOOo, 9.ZH OpenOffice.org 中文社区论坛. Nine languages look good. I hope these forums be migrated on to Apache infrastructure safe :) With regard to mailing lists, can we set up a user list if there is a request from a certain language user? If there are requests, can we set up, for example, nine user lists such as 1.ooo-en-us...@incubator.apache.org, 2.ooo-es-us...@incubator.apache.org, 3.ooo-fr-us...@incubator.apache.org, 4.ooo-hu-us...@incubator.apache.org, 5,ooo-it-us...@incubator.apache.org, 6.ooo-ja-us...@incubator.apache.org, 7.ooo-pl-us...@incubator.apache.org, 8.ooo-vi-us...@incubator.apache.org, 9.ooo-zh-us...@incubator.apache.org? Make sure we set them up on request. Thanks, khirano
RE: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
PPS: It is also useful to have a hyperlink to the archive if you want to forward the link to someone's attention rather than include the full text. I also figure if I include a link to the full post in a reply, I can avoid repeating parts of the post I am not responding to and also escape the wrath of bottom-posting-vigilantes and the in-line-posting-hideen. -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 15:38 To: 'ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org' Subject: RE: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS I agree about both. With regard to mailing lists, I am very fond of mailing lists that provide a bottom notice that (1) instructs people in a near-trivial means to unsubscribe and (2) provides a link to the public archive. It removes a lot of mystery, especially because I prune mail folders and often need to go back. - Dennis PS: A bonus that I have not seen is a list server that also includes links to the archives for each post included in a digest or in the bottom-notice of individual list forwardings. -Original Message- From: Andy Brown [mailto:a...@the-martin-byrd.net] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 14:58 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS Rob Weir wrote: > Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of > technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being > used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways > of doing the same things? > > -Rob > There is a big difference from the users stand point. If you want to see how "hot" this topic can get go to [1] and search for forum . As an individual I prefer mailing list but I understand why some prefer forums. For those that do not have high speed connections forums are a bandwidth hog. The disadvantage to a mailing list is most of the time you have to be subscribed or you may miss replies to your question and makes it hard to follow up as needed. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/ For my part we need and can support both. Andy
RE: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
I agree about both. With regard to mailing lists, I am very fond of mailing lists that provide a bottom notice that (1) instructs people in a near-trivial means to unsubscribe and (2) provides a link to the public archive. It removes a lot of mystery, especially because I prune mail folders and often need to go back. - Dennis PS: A bonus that I have not seen is a list server that also includes links to the archives for each post included in a digest or in the bottom-notice of individual list forwardings. -Original Message- From: Andy Brown [mailto:a...@the-martin-byrd.net] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 14:58 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS Rob Weir wrote: > Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of > technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being > used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways > of doing the same things? > > -Rob > There is a big difference from the users stand point. If you want to see how "hot" this topic can get go to [1] and search for forum . As an individual I prefer mailing list but I understand why some prefer forums. For those that do not have high speed connections forums are a bandwidth hog. The disadvantage to a mailing list is most of the time you have to be subscribed or you may miss replies to your question and makes it hard to follow up as needed. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/ For my part we need and can support both. Andy
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Rob Weir wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Andy Brown wrote: >> >> There is a big difference from the users stand point. If you want to >> see how "hot" this topic can get go to [1] and search for forum . As >> an individual I prefer mailing list but I understand why some prefer >> forums. For those that do not have high speed connections forums are a >> bandwidth hog. The disadvantage to a mailing list is most of the time >> you have to be subscribed or you may miss replies to your question and >> makes it hard to follow up as needed. >> >> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/ >> >> For my part we need and can support both. >> > > But do we need a separate thing for both of them? Or would a single > 'place' that supported both forms of access be better? For example, a > forum that allowed mail subscription globally, or per thread? Or a > mailing list with an RSS feed? There are advantages to having a singe > store of information. I agree that having a single point to store questions and answers would be ideal. I do not know enough about the technology to use or suggest RSS or how they could be combined. From my point of view the technology used is to different. > So are they just used for the same things, but accessed differently? > Or have they diverged to separate, perhaps partially overlapping but > still sufficiently distinct different user communities who have > different styles, different tones, different focuses, etc.? Being on both the mailing list and forum, you see some of the same questions and cross references one to the other. The do serve the same purpose but accessed differently. But it is that access that is important to the end user. Andy
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Andy Brown wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: > >> Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of >> technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being >> used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways >> of doing the same things? >> >> -Rob >> > > There is a big difference from the users stand point. If you want to > see how "hot" this topic can get go to [1] and search for forum . As > an individual I prefer mailing list but I understand why some prefer > forums. For those that do not have high speed connections forums are a > bandwidth hog. The disadvantage to a mailing list is most of the time > you have to be subscribed or you may miss replies to your question and > makes it hard to follow up as needed. > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/ > > For my part we need and can support both. > But do we need a separate thing for both of them? Or would a single 'place' that supported both forms of access be better? For example, a forum that allowed mail subscription globally, or per thread? Or a mailing list with an RSS feed? There are advantages to having a singe store of information. So are they just used for the same things, but accessed differently? Or have they diverged to separate, perhaps partially overlapping but still sufficiently distinct different user communities who have different styles, different tones, different focuses, etc.? -Rob
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
My experience is that the user has to a) subscribe to this mailing list and b) he doesn't know how to search for other things like in a FAQ. Of course, you think it's easy to subscribe and I can search in a mail archive. But for the *average* user these are unfamiliar things and IMHO they don't want to go this "complicated" way. That's a reason why the forums are so successful. So, +1 for keeping both. Marcus Am 06/24/2011 11:57 PM, schrieb Andy Brown: Rob Weir wrote: Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways of doing the same things? -Rob There is a big difference from the users stand point. If you want to see how "hot" this topic can get go to [1] and search for forum . As an individual I prefer mailing list but I understand why some prefer forums. For those that do not have high speed connections forums are a bandwidth hog. The disadvantage to a mailing list is most of the time you have to be subscribed or you may miss replies to your question and makes it hard to follow up as needed. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/ For my part we need and can support both.
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
Rob Weir wrote: > Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of > technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being > used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways > of doing the same things? > > -Rob > There is a big difference from the users stand point. If you want to see how "hot" this topic can get go to [1] and search for forum . As an individual I prefer mailing list but I understand why some prefer forums. For those that do not have high speed connections forums are a bandwidth hog. The disadvantage to a mailing list is most of the time you have to be subscribed or you may miss replies to your question and makes it hard to follow up as needed. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/ For my part we need and can support both. Andy
Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I think this is extremely important and I'm embarrassed that I missed it. > > I'm also thinking that we need an ooo-user list pretty soon. > In the incubation proposal we said that we would not be requesting a ooo-user list, but would instead be going for phpBB user forums. But that was then, now is now. OOo has a user list and a user forum, which you can find here: http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/ (That is just the English language one. There are others ) and here: http://openoffice.org/projects/www/lists/users/archive It looks like the forums get the far greater level of activity. But it would be good to quantify that. In any case, I think the activity level is high enough (forums claim 97 users online at the forums at this instant, and 42 active threads today alone) that I think it would be inappropriate for users who want to post a questions and check back the next day for an answer. But lists might be good for other kinds of things. Does anyone see a difference other than the obvious difference of technology, between the OOo user list and the forums? Are they being used for different kinds of things? Or are they just different ways of doing the same things? -Rob
RE: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members - AND USERS
I think this is extremely important and I'm embarrassed that I missed it. I'm also thinking that we need an ooo-user list pretty soon. It should be here, so we can subscribe it or NNTP it and have it appear in the same context in which we observe and participate on ooo-DEV. But it needs to be more comfortable for users and not putting dev-lingo in their face (until, perhaps, they finally nerve up and come over to the dark side). - Dennis Watching the different lists at LibreOffice, I see a different liveliness with the user list (and the usual cacophony too). It is basically where one learns about the difficulties and barriers that users are experiencing at the surface of the software and in their work. Other users and devs can offer workarounds, but it is having the experience of users inside the radar of devs, such as on a companion list, that there can be a big contribution to all of us. -Original Message- From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 07:29 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Contributors versus Committers versus PMC members Am 06/24/2011 03:48 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: > Since almost all of us are new to Apache we're learning a lot about > how Apache projects organize themselves. Based on my reading, I > understand that Apache projects have three degrees of participation: 0) Users that are just working with the software. Since this is the most wanted thing we want to reach, IMHO we shouldn't forget for whom we are doing all this stuff. Especially when these users are also talking about the software (and/or the project, too) and therefor are spreading the word about OOo, we should count them to the circle of participants. > 1) - 3) ACK [ ... ]
