openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexandro Colorado <>
Subject Re: [REVIEW] Staged Migration of OO.o domain properties (long)
Date Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:50:16 GMT
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Shane Curcuru <> wrote:

> On 10/17/2011 10:32 AM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Shane Curcuru<>
>>  wrote:
>>  On 10/14/2011 7:56 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>> I've been pondering what it takes to choreograph migration of the live
>>>> properties into Apache custodianship.
>>> ...snip...
>>> Great starts all.
>>> Where is the noodling and proposed list of what domains we want to keep
>>> (i.e. host as *.oo.o to keep links, or host at ooo.a.o/* because it's
>>> project oriented information) and what ones we're not going to keep?
>> I would preffer an *.oo.o is easier to manage and recognized, create
>> shorter
>> URLs and also reinforce branding.
> I would prefer an ooo.a.o, since that reinforces the Apache branding. Note
> that the primary homepage for the project - at least in terms of anyone
> interested in participating in the project (i.e. any potential contributors)
> - will be the ooo.a.o page.

Sorry I got distracted by the question mark and thought you were asking for

> oo.o can be used as an overall informational portal, to maintain some
> end-user facing services that have high visibility/links, and as a way to
> drive people to the relevant ooo.a.o pages.  Plain end users could get all
> of their basic work done on the oo.o pages, but we need to ensure that
> they're also aware that this is a new, Apache project (which is continuing
> much of the old OOo project they probably know).
>>> In particular, other than keeping some of the highly linked informational
>>> domains from oo.o, I would expect that there would be significantly fewer
>>> major domain names being used in the future project.  But maybe that's
>>> just
>>> me.
>> Surely many projects are not mantained anymore or their existance could be
>> reincorporated into larger projects like as
>> you
>> could see on the traffic of the mailing list some components experience a
>> low volume of traffic that could be re-incorporated into a larger project.
>> Example the CD-ROM project back into distribution.
> Here's where it will be helpful to have a shared understanding of
> terminology.  For example, for me, there is a single project: Apache
> OpenOffice.  There are no other projects (at least, not at Apache). That's
> OK, and I understand what you mean.  But I'm also urging the PPMC to push as
> hard as possible to get to a much flatter structure than the legacy OOo
> project had.
> In particular, I strongly urge the PPMC to start with fewer mailing lists -
> on the order of 10-15 *total*, presuming the forums migrate over to serve as
> a major end-user support service.  If, in the future, some of the mailing
> lists are truly overloaded, then consider - carefully - adding more mailing
> lists.  Given the amount of community building it feels is needed for the
> Apache OOo project, it's better to have fewer lists rather than more.
> - Shane

*Alexandro Colorado*
** EspaƱol
fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message