There was a minor skirmish last week over it. Looks like there'll be one this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes <motley.crue....@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page. You're right, > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading. > > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2 > release schedule that Andrea just provided. I just hope there aren't > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around > planning to start a revert war over this. :-( > > > Phil > > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald <max.merb...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > Hi Phil, > > > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations. > The > > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in > > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" > they'll > > start looking for different office software. > > > > Max > > > > > > > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes: > > > >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's - > >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations. IOW, I don't see > any > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article. > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition. > >> > >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled > "Should I > >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office". > >> > >> > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office > >> > >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's > >> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or > how > >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this > >> kind of stuff spread around so widely. :-( > >> > >> > >> Phil > >> > >> > >> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lui...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Max, > >>> > >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald <max.merb...@gmx.de> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi there, > >>>> > >>>> the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where > they > >>>> > >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think > >>> it's > >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about > it. > >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0 > >>> and > >>> is getting ahead of us. > >>> > >>> thanks for the alert. > >>> > >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the > entry > >>> to reflect the facts. > >>> > >>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not > >>> arduous. > >>> > >>> Louis > >>> > >>>> Max > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > >
