El 23/09/2012 6:41, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak escribió:
Disclaimer: I am tired, I don't feel well, and I did not follow the
precursors in detail, so this is the tired faulty memories of me.
On 09/22/2012 05:17 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<[email protected]> wrote:
I am not clear what the lazy consensus is about.
Clearly, there is no restriction on anyone contributing to User
Guides for Apache OpenOffice on ODFAUthors, beyond the
terms/conventions/what-ever that apply to contributions there.
So I suppose what is being asked for is consensus that there will
not, at this time, be any separate effort inside of the Apache
OpenOffice project and the project will look to relying on the
ODFAuthors site for emergence of updated User Guides. Contributions
should be made there.
In other words, that a non-existent effort in the project not be
started to compete with the non-existent effort at ODFAuthors? IMHO
this not the ideal use of lazy consensus. You should seek lazy
consensus for what you want to do, not what you want someone else not
to do. In the end, if someone came to the project with documentation
to contribute, I think we would be happy accept it under ALv2 and not
turn them away and tell them to go elsewhere. Or are you suggesting
that we would reject such contributions?
This is my understanding, which may be completely wrong:
1. I thought that ODF Authors operated independently of Libre (LO) or
Apache (AOO).
2. ODF Authors was creating documentation for both LO and AOO.
3. Not many people were contributing to the documentation from the AOO
camp.
4. A request was made for help (probably from Jean).
5. There were no positive responses and some that sounded a bit
negative (this is where my memory is really fuzzy). I think it was
something like.... not on our radar yet, focusing on other stuff, find
your own people to do it. (was it Rob that said that??)
6. Primary ODF lead stopped working on AOO documentation.
I assumed that Scenario 2 likely kept the resulting documentation at
ODF Authors. It would be difficult to move it without some level of
approval for them to license it with something that Apache would allow
(although I vaguely remember seeing that perhaps this has been done).
In other words, there won't be any forking of ODFAuthors work into
the project. I assume that means avoidance of duplicate effort as
well.
I'm aligned with that direction.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 07:47
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [User Docs] What do we as a community want for user
documentation or AOO
Keith N. McKenna wrote:
Greetings All;
In order to stimulate some discussion on user documentation I have
added
the hollowing page to the User Documentation Plan on the Plannig Wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/User+Guides+Revisted.
It offers 3 scenarios or the creation of the docs. I believe that
we can
no longer put this issue aside.
Please take a look at the page and feel free to comment there and
on this
list. Also feel free to add to or change any content there.
Regards
Keith N. McKenna
Based on the discussion in this thread and on the wiki page it appears
for the short term that Scenario 2 is the best way to go. At this point
I would like to ask for lazy consensus to use ODFAuthors site and the
3.4 documents already there to create and publish updated
documentation.
I will leave this open until 2012-09-26 at 05:45 UTC.
Regards
Keith N. McKenna
I am not sufficiently aware of how much (if any) code sharing occurs
between AOO and LO. I expect that if there is no code sharing, then
the two products will diverge, and there will be no ability to
remotely keep the documentation related. I expect the differences to
start small with things such as what charts are supported, what
happens when you try to search (LO uses a Firefox type search in the
status bar, AOO does not), etc.
AFAIK at ODFAuthors there were (there are) two different branches, one
for LO and another for AOO, and the only related thing between them were
the authors and the origin of both branches (OOo 3.3 documentation). I
think the branches were created because it was difficult to maintain one
documentation for both products because the increasing differences.
I do remember that someone said something that implied to me that
either code sharing was occurring, or that it was plausible to do. In
my tired stupor, I would guess that it might have Juergen Schmidt, but
that is a real reach (so I should probably just apologize to Juergen
now and offer to buy him a beer).
