openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + (was branding)
Date Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:54:17 GMT
I'm not sure we are all talking about the same documentation.  I suppose the OOODEV wiki is
the appropriate place to be doing that documentation, whatever it is, that is intended in
the guidelines.

When we see the equivalent on, we should, on a per-case basis, redirect it
to OOODEV perhaps.

But we do need to get to specific cases and handle them individually.

For a general-public editable wiki, I think sticking with the Creative Commons Attribution
license should be just fine where it is already supplied.  More people seem to know what that
is, and it is fully permissive without what appears to be such high ceremony as the ALv2.

And we should look around at some of the TLP project wikis that allow public contributions.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 09:28
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + (was branding)

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Andy Brown <> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>> At Apache, every committer has the ability to veto a change.  Not just
>> me.  Far from it.
> True.
>> In any case, in order to move the argument forward, I'd like to
>> reiterate thecific concerns that I have, to which I've seen no
>> response other than "we don't want to change".  But no one is
>> addressing the fundamental questions:
>> 1) How do we ensure that the future documentation is under the Apache
>> 2.0 license so that it can be copied, modified and redistributed
>> freely by others?
> If you talking the wiki, instead of requiring an ICLA as a person has to
> create an account, why not make it part of that process that "All submitted
> contributions are under AL2 license".  Would that not be sufficient?

The IPMC guidance, via the Podling Guide that they have published [1] is:

"Podlings may use a wiki to create documentation (including the
website) providing that follow the guidelines. In particular, care
must be taken to ensure that access to the wiki used to create
documentation is restricted to only those with filed CLAs. The PPMC
MUST review all changes and ensure that trust is not abused."

I personally like your idea of having a click-through-license grant on
the wiki itself, either as part of account creation or on the edit
page itself.  But if we did that, I'd suggest some related issues to

1) We shouldn't just ignore IPMC guidance.  There may be some
allowance for variation in procedures, but that should not be assumed.
 If we want to do something differently, then we need to write up that
proposal, get consensus here among PPMC members, and then take it to
the IPMC and probably Apache Legal Affairs (to review whatever
language we use).  I'd gladly support that.

2) We need a credible security mechanism for the wiki.  Today, for
example, it is not required for a user to give their real name (the
field is optional).  And the password can be as little as 1 character.
 (Yup, I just created an account with password="x").  With 15,000
zombie accounts, lack of real names and the ability for users to
create trivially crackable accounts, it would be hard to really
identify a change to a particular person.


>> 2) How do we ensure that the documentation is under PPMC oversight and
>> remains high quality?
> I received a daily report of all changes to the wiki, there is also the
> option for "as done" report.  It would only take a few minutes to do a quick
> review of those changes, an revert them if needed.

OK.  Maybe that report could be directed to the ooo-commits list as well?

>> I'm open to discussions of various technical and procedural means to
>> achieve these goals.  But I am adamant in achieving them one way or
>> another.
> Would the above listed work?

I think that takes us in the right direction.  Thanks.

> Andy

View raw message