openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From drew <>
Subject Re: Friendly Web
Date Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:54:11 GMT
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 11:06 -0400, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> On 2012-05-31, at 10:09 , drew wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 09:20 -0400, drew wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 20:53 +0800, bjcheny wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> 
> >>> When I go through some links from Office OpenXML, I find this:
> >>>
> >>> It's aimed to bring news/tips/howtos for And it was ever
> >>> maintained by  Andrew Ziem <>
> >>>
> >>> I guess it's close with our community, and is there any story? Maybe we
> >>> take it back, and post our news/articles there.
> >> 
> >> It was not, maintained by, Andrew it is Andrew's personal blog, there is
> >> nothing to take back. There is a story why it has gone silent, not
> >> appropriate for, or related to, here.
> >> 
> >> Andrew also worked with Fridrich on BTW.
> > 
> > Hi again,
> > 
> > 
> > As a project (OO.o) there was some precedent for handing off private
> > resources from one member to another - such happened twice that I can
> > think of.
> At least. Actually, "precedent' is a glorification of series of mistakes and oopses,
but in the end, the conclusion, which I think antedated the formation of the Community Council,
I and a few others came to was*:
> || private sites voluntarily donated and maintained unless publicly backed by policy
and institution representatives (i.e., the OOo community council, at the time; now, the PMC),
are always more vulnerable than those arranged for by contract, simply because the latter
works to secure the future and eliminate the uncertainty of the market, at least in theory,
if not always in practice, of course.
> || any donated site (whatever that means), must comply with the policy (or come up with
a better one that the governing body can adopt), and part of that policy really ought to have
provisions for hand-over. 
> *  [We—mostly Sun/Hamburg--never implemented these points in full b/c of corporate
resistance and never really scripted them; they existed more as conversations, and that's
a pity. The consequences of that failure of policy writing can be seen here and there. ]
> My take is that little is lost by having policy guidelines and if those guidelines need
amendment or outright expunging, fine: do it. No policy ought to be thought of as cut into
stone—that's what makes it a policy and not a law or even commandment.
> Of course, any policy pertaining to something like the Ninja site or any other promotional
site personally maintained ought to be, logically, consistent with any mirrors site or any
other public site representing OOo, yes?

Hi Louis,

IMO - the individual supporter sites were and are a very real asset.

The examples I mentioned where example of an open community working.
Someone did something good, they wanted to discontinue and came to the
mailing list, at the project and asked if there was anyone interested in
continuing. There was and they do. In both cases if you, as an
individual, think they could have newer and or better content then help
make some - they both take contributions from anyone interested.

In some other cases sites may have come and gone but even contracting
(whatever that really means beyond a rather informal nod) do the same

Sure I completely agree that a supporter site must track the projects
desires with regards to branding, in these cases they were certainly
recognized as acceptable by the community.

There is also nothing stopping others from offering sites with
overlapping services - the user base is sizable and certainly benefits,
IMO, from a more networked info/support environment, with providers of
all sorts.

Where the project can improve is in how it presents to users what is
available in that universe. 


View raw message