On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Keith N. McKenna <keith.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Keith N. McKenna >> <keith.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rob Weir wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna >>>>>> <keith.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regina Henschel wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Jürgen, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for >>>>>>>>> our >>>>>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 on that from me also >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will >>>>>>>>> be. >>>>>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and >>>>>>>>> also at >>>>>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have >>>>>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as >>>>>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a >>>>>>> comfortable >>>>>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak >>>>>>> out of >>>>>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is expected >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for >>>>>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being >>>>>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should >>>>>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it >>>>>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to >>>>>> own testing and release management for 3.5. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Rob >>>>>> >>>>> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to Juergen >>>>> for >>>>> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering >>>>> for a 4.0 release Juergan? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of >>>> March or April we will have more time. >>>> >>>> Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in the >>>> next release. >>>> >>>> Juergen >>>> >>> This sounds like a good idea. My concern is that we have enough time to >>> adequately the changes, especially the potential UI changes, and that we >>> address the end of life issues with the 3.x.x line. We do not want to >>> spring >>> possibly major UI changes on end users without adequate warning. >>> >> >> Is there something users need to do to prepare for UI changes ? ;-) >> > Rob, have you ever been involved in direct user support? When you make major > UI changes your support structure is going to be inundated with questions > under the best of situations. When you spring them on users unawares you > unleash the tirade of "change for the sake of change" potentially getting > bad publicity for the product. >
Actually, I was involved in direct user support for office smart suite. For several years I did direct phone support for users of Lotus SmartSuite, 40 calls per day. So I have actually done this, as a professional, thousands of times. And I was very good at it. Also note that this was during the transition from DOS to Windows, so I know quite a bit about how users handle UI changes. Any changes we're proposing for AOO 4.0 are miniscule compared to the DOS to Windows transition. > While it is true that an amount of this is inevitable, a good marketing and > communication campaign can go a long way towards minimizing it. We cannot > loose sight of the act that we are an end user project and not just for the > techie types. > Yes, marketing needs to accompany any user-visible changes, not just UI changes. But the need for marketing should be expressed as helping support our current call for marketing volunteers: https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/call_for_marketing_volunteers. It should not (IMHO) be expressed by denigrating the proposed UI changes. Regards, -Rob > >> IMHO, if the changes are a bad idea we should never do them. But if >> the changes are a good idea then let's get them done, tested and >> released without delay. Yes, it will be a surprise for many end >> users. As far as I can tell most users still don't know we've moved >> to Apache either. > > > Whether we have moved to Apache or not is of little concern to the general > user. Changing the look and feel of the product he or she is familiar and > comfortable with is. > > Do not get me wrong, I am not against change. I am simply adding a voice of > caution that we not inadvertently shoot ourselves in the foot (figuratively > to be sure). The UX work that Kevin and others are going and the push by you > and others for greater marketing presence are all good things and need to be > given sufficient time to have a good impact. > > If in the considered judgement of the community the March/April timeframe is > sufficient that is great and we should do it. All I am doing is raising some > considerations that may not always be thought of. > > Regards > Keth > >> >> -Rob >> >>> Regards >>> Keith >>> >> > >
