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 Fri, 21 Oct 2011 02:19:46 GMT
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Kay Schenk <> wrote:

> On 10/17/2011 07:32 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 *thought* sometime back we'd had the discussion on the "user" facing area
> -- along with whatever subdomains we wanted to use
> there -- vs the development portion currently on Apache -- e.g
> (or currently
> There was some need (reason)
> to separate these as I recall.

There was some ideas but they were all hard sales because they want the
domain name to be exact to the brand (for some reason). The idea was like they have with the wiki and other domains

The next idea is having but this idea would
involve eliminate the dot, which I didnt thought it was a big deal but the
person opposed unless we change the actual brand in itself. In other words,
a name like ".net" would never be possible under apache because they have a
strict policy of matching a brand with the domain name.  Which in all
honestly I dont see a relationship.

> 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.

> for some recommendations/observations I had made a while back.
> We really DO need to discuss combining "projects" from the "old" world vs
> the new. Especially with regard to the development areas I would think.
> Maybe I'll start that discussion. It  could be that all previous area having
> to do with development should just be linked to the "development" web site.
> ALL the web areas have been moved over to our temporary holding area but
> nothing has been done with them currently.
>>> A parallel discussion might be how we use oo.o versus ooo.a.o in the
>>> future.  The development core of the project needs to be on ooo.a.o (or
>>> whatever name y'all choose), as do the actual future download sites.
> yes... this needs better definition.
>>> I'm thinking of oo.o as an informational portal, mostly with either
>>> immediate redirects or with informational pages that point people towards
>>> the appropriate ooo.a.o pages.  Then we can in the future consider adding
>>> additional user-based information on the whole OOo ecosystem to the oo.o
>>> site.
Most of the visits from users are to simply download the app, they need a
quick link like the domain. Everything besides that would
be hard for the user. Even Mozilla has two domains for their products, the
core Firefox like
and a more user friendly domain: which works as a re-director like and others.

there are micro-sites like which serves as a
marketing e-flyer for users of different markets.

>>> One important aspect is to ensure that user expectations for Apache
>>> software are met.  That means anything served off of an
>>> *.apache.orgdomain must meet the project branding requirements, be under the
>>> Apache
>>> license, etc.  For normal projects, we'd ask that oo.o redirect to the
>>> ooo.a.o domain, but in this case, with the huge and valuable history of
>>> the
>>> OOo project, I think we'll end up treating oo.o subtly different than
>>> other
>>> Apache domains in terms of what content we're comfortable hosting there.
>>> - Shane
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
> "There is no such thing as coincidence."
>           -- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39

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

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