On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > >> > >>> I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of > >> telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe > there's > >> a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer > >> deliverable from Day One. > >> > >> Agreed. And that's why I suggested that that would be an > >> excellent initial part of cooperation between the ASF and > >> TDF, where they could provide the build/distribution. > >> > > > > Didn't I suggest that first? :-) > > I took your "business as usual" meaning that TDF simply > continued doing their dev/build/release. My point, and > maybe you meant it as well, is that they also take on > the build/release of OOo on our behalf. > In fact, on Day One of the podling, you could even redirect download.openoffice.org to download.libreoffice.org temporarily if they would agree to include suitable explanatory information. Anything to make sure the consumer downloads (a) are there and (b) are sustained. > > > > > I think it is for you and I, yes, but the proposal itself isn't there > yet. > > There's still no section discussing how the project will handle its > > inherited end-user binary commitments or the consumer brand, especially > on > > Day One. I suggest this needs addressing if ASF is to be able to > > confidently +1 it. > > > > Not strictly replying to the above point, but no proposal is > expected to have every possible contingency planned... That > is so the podling has the flexibility to determine what needs > to be done. TrafficServer, for example, noted the TM issue but > the proposal didn't (iirc) determine *what* to do; subversion > and spamassissin also had to worry about continuation of code > and releases, but again, the proposal didn't define a specific > course of action. The intent is to start a podling so *it* can > work those issues, handle pre-existing commitments, etc... > Again, completely understood and very reasonable. I'm just suggesting gaining assurance that the magnitude of servicing the consumer brand and binary is understood and not just dismissed as SMOP. As of right now the text in the wiki doesn't give that assurance. I'm also suggesting it's /such/ a big deal for the open source community at large that openoffice.orgresolve to a working and current site without interruption that it deserves a mention (preferably a plan - yes, unusual for an incubator proposal) too. S.
