On 12-12-02, at 05:10 , Guy Waterval <waterval....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Louis, > > I just wanted to say that the situation in which were Keith and Prabha was > not sustainable in the long term, they merit to be recognized for their > efforts and not to be frustrated. So, perhaps a group here is a better way > to support the efforts in the documentation area. There is no attack > against odf authors. I just wanted to say that if you are favorable to the > creation of a doclist here, it's a good thing for us. > The reason to support an online doc under ALv2.0 is the necessity to have > an official documentation easy to update and allowing derivated works > (printed documentation, ebooks, ....). So, such a documentation appears to > me as a priority and has to be absolutely supported, because we have > already an existing work and a competent team working on it. > But actually the great challenge seems to me how to help this team in a > productive manner, avoiding that the help becomes a lost of time for them. You seem to be misunderstanding what I am writing. But, not matter. I am not by any means nor have I ever been opposed to the establishment of what is being proposed here; quite the contrary. Louis > > A+ > -- > gw > > 2012/12/2 Louis Suárez-Potts <lui...@gmail.com> > >> Hi Guy, >> >> On 12-12-01, at 19:35 , Guy Waterval <waterval....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Louis, >>> >>> 2012/12/1 Louis Suárez-Potts <lui...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> Hi >>>> On 12-12-01, at 15:52 , Guy Waterval <waterval....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> A new doc mailing list is absolutely necessary. It could offer an >>>>> alternative to the odf authors solution, as this group is the >>>> documentation >>>>> area of LibreOffice. Even if people are totally correct there, we have >> to >>>>> be realistic, the conditions are not good there for people working on >> an >>>>> apache documentation project. >>>> >>>> From prior experience and also from current, I'd submit that a new list >>>> for this purpose is needed. I'd also see if former OO documentation >> writers >>>> want to participate. Of course, to hit my usual refrain, I'm also as >> always >>>> interested to learn if we can work with other implementations of ODF >> based >>>> on OO code. >>>> >>>> FWIW, when Sun was sponsoring OOo, the Doc project gained productive >>>> vigour under Frank Peters, of Sun/Oracle. He brought to bear his >>>> professional abilities. He also sought out non-Sun/Oracle community >>>> members. It was a good, multilingual project. Clayton worked with him >> on it. >>>> >>> >>> Happy to see that you support the creation of a doclist. By the way, it's >>> not my intention to criticize the work accomplished by Keith and Prabha >> on >>> the odf authors website. My personal preference is also definitly a >> printed >>> documentation, but I think that an online doc under ALV2.0 is obligatory, >>> we have no choice, and if we support and help the team of Ricardo, we >> have >>> a real chance to get it. If we had a dedicated list for the >> documentation, >>> it would be also more easy to support a printed variant with people who >> as >>> me are interested by this way. >>> >>> A+ >>> -- >>> gw >>> >>>> >>>> >> >> I think you are responding to things I did not write nor intend. My fault. >> Let me clarify…. >> >> First, my connection with OOo and the documentation project, which I >> initiated with Scott Carr back in 2002, giving it to him upon his request, >> is of long standing. Second, I quite support the current license regime and >> structure. My point about former doc. writers was not to reach out to >> Authors; I actually had not considered that construal. I did not really >> think of them as being part of the Documentation project in the same way >> that Frank was, or earlier, Scott—or as many others were. But of course, >> I'm an idiot, as there were many who very happily worked with Authors, and >> they had by far the greater shine, so I can see where you are coming from. >> However…. >> >> Neither Frank nor Clayton had anything to do with Authors group; nor did >> I. In fact, I had a long historical friction with them for reasons of >> license and approach. But that's ancient history and in the sum, I was >> happier to see them contribute and to add to the OOo ecosystem; so was >> Frank and so was, I believe, Clayton. The Authors group did not include >> anyone from Sun or Oracle. But again, this is ancient history best left >> done. >> >> Frank was quite committed to online work, too, and there was, in fact, a >> lot of done by Oracle under his leadership. It's Oracle property. I asked >> when AOO was just newborn—last year—if Oracle, my former employer, would >> have those files available for us. My hope was that as the work was >> proprietary and owned by Oracle, it might be made open and donated to the >> OO community. Or bought. But nothing came of that entreaty. >> >> Louis
