On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Donald Whytock <dwhyt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Coming into this way late, but... > > Perhaps you shouldn't even use the word "supported". How about > "validated"? As in, "We can say that we tested this software under > this environment, and it worked for us. We will be receptive of > reports to the contrary." "We have developed for and validated on the > following platforms..." >
We could use another word, certainly, but users will still ask if X is "supported", so we cannot escape the term entirely. -Rob > Don > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >>> When a commercial software vendor says a configuration is "supported" >>> it means something, typically that to the extent the software license >>> includes an entitlement to support, that the vendor will provide that >>> service for that configuration. So saying something is "supported" is >>> essentially an obligation. >>> >>> With a volunteer-run, open source project, "supported" cannot mean >>> quite the same thing. We're not obligated, in any contractual sense, >>> to provide anyone with anything. That's the nature of a volunteer >>> effort. >>> >> >> For comparison, I came across this page for GNU Octave, where it >> defines "Support Expectations": >> http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/support-expectations.html >> >> Maybe that is a good way to think of it, defining expectations? >> >> -Rob >> >>> However, users and organizations considering OpenOffice will naturally >>> think in terms of "support", even if they user that term loosely. We >>> use that term as well, in our release notes, etc. But I think we >>> ought to have a more precise definition of what we mean when we say >>> something is "supported", in order to avoid any confusion. This >>> question has come up recently, with regards to the status of Windows >>> 8, where that OS had not been released at the time AOO 3.4.1 was >>> released. >>> >>> So here's a strawman proposal for what "supported" means for us. >>> >>> 1) "Supported" is a statement we make about a specific version of AOO >>> used with a specific platform, e.g., AOO 3.4.1 with Windows XP SP3 or >>> AOO 3.4 with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. >>> >>> 2) "Supported" means we encourage use of AOO in that configuration. >>> We have high confidence that the combination is stable, that it works >>> well and is safe. >>> >>> 3) Our confidence in stating something is supported should have a >>> solid basis in testing. Something is not "supported" by us guessing >>> it should work. It is supported only after we have successfully >>> completed testing of that release with that platform. We probably >>> should define exactly what level of testing is required. >>> >>> 4) "Supported" also implies that the supported configuration is >>> sufficiently available and there is sufficient expertise that we have >>> confidence that users will have a high quality experience seeking >>> support on the forums and user list. >>> >>> 5) "Supported" also implies that we stand behind that release and will >>> take necessary steps to correct *critical* bugs, especially security >>> flaws, via rapidly produced point releases where necessary. >>> >>> Note that these are all expectations that a user might have, though >>> any given user might think that "supported" means only a subset of >>> these. >>> >>> What we probably really need is more of a lifecycle statement, >>> including when support for a configuration ends. >>> >>> -Rob
