Re: [steering-discuss] LibO registration page gone?
On Sat, 2010-10-30 at 00:11 +0200, Christoph Noack wrote: > Personally, I don't like the "register" approach, but I do like good > ways of gathering helpful information that isn't available elsewhere. We > can be sure that the structure of people using OOo/LibO isn't identical > to those we get direct feedback from. So the question is (as you stated > it), if there is nothing in the product ... what would be our approach > to let our users help us to better shape LibO? > > The idea "User Feedback" / "Improvement Program" / "Usage Tracking" that > is available in OOo is one puzzle piece. All these are good things, but not provided by the infamous registration dialogs IMO. If someone wants to stick a menu entry in to enable an "improvement program" which tracks what menus, dialogs, buttons, etc. are most used in order to get useful data as to what gets used most then that's a cunning idea. I was greatly impressed by the frequency-use data you were able to present for, say, the printer dialog work. C. -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Chinese mailing lists
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 14:58 +0100, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hello, > > anyone has insight on how that is usually handled? I am aware of the two > Chinese character types, but don't know how that works in practical > terms. :-) Simplified and Traditional scripts. Where the major territory using the traditional script is Taiwan (though other places use it too) and the major Simplified is Mainland China. Personally I suggest "zh-Hans" and "zh-Hant" are the best mailing list/ website names to use to distinguish between Simplex and Traditional rather than zh-CN and zh-TW and side-step the "Taiwan is a temporary breakaway province" blah-blah. *shrug*, I'm no expert however C. -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws, activity-based application limits
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 11:08 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > Last call: are we good on this? Just on the member application process. Why not just leave it as " An applicant preferably should be nominated by an existing Member. The applicant should have earned a good reputation among the existing Community of Members, i.e, by engaging in specific, tangible activities. " Sound good to me, while... "Every membership applicant must have been active for at least three (3) months, and should make a moral commitment to at least six (6) months activity (not counting the first three (3) months of fulfillment of qualification)." Adding in these specific lengths of time would exclude the possibility of fast-tracking someone exceptional to become a member in order to lock them into the organization fast, leaving it as "should have earned a good reputation" grants enough flexibility to handle the case while retaining the ability to hold back membership from someone as yet unproven. No ? I share Michaels concern about the "moral commitment" for another 6 months work. I intend to continue contributing, but can I guarantee out for 6 months that I will be ? And I wouldn't like to stake my honour on it. Why not make it less ethically judgemental and just shift that out into the Continuity of Membership and leave a lack of activity for 6 months or so as the timeout after which membership lapses ? C. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 14:21 +, Michael Meeks wrote: > So - do people have problems with any of that ? Proposed changes look uncontentious to me. C. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] SC Vote on first members of TDF
On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 16:51 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > 1) approve that people listed at > http://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/ are current members > of TDF according to our ByLaws Yes > 2) approve Fridrich Strba as member of TDF Yes. C. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] formal vote on Cor Nouws as deputy in the membership committee
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 20:57 +0100, Florian Effenberger wrote: > unavailable for some time. To avoid the membership committee being > unable to work during this time, Cor Nouws should serve as her deputy, > taking over her responsibility during her time of absence. > > A 2/3 majority out of the eight SC members is needed, so please cast > your vote now. > > For the records: Mine is +1 Sure, +1, I assume this is Sophie's nomination. C. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Formal vote on an online component for LibreOffice as a strategic option
On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 11:38 +0100, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > As described in the last confcall minutes, I would like to call for a formal > > approval from the SC on considering a yet undefined online component for > > LibreOffice as a strategic option. This would not of course diminish our > > present efforts on LibreOffice. > > > +1 >From my side, an online LibreOffice, weboffice or whatever is probably a "good thing" tm, so sure, +1. > There is a GSoC proposal for a HTML5/Canvas renderer for LibreOffice > (http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Gsoc/Ideas#HTML5_.2F_Canvas_Rendering) > which we should base this on. ;) I'm not enthused about strategic options, I'm more of a show me the f**king code kind of a guy, so the approach Thorsten points to is a plausible implementation direction that should be encouraged. C. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Confused by our Trademark Policy ...
On Sun, 2011-03-27 at 15:58 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > So I have replaced trademarks by marks, as well as modified the text > according to some of your corrections above (not all of them). I'd like > to call for a vote (the final one) starting now until Tuesday at noon > Foundation time. Let put this one to bed finally, +1. C. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy
On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 12:47 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote: > The logos that bear the exact mention of > the software name with the mention "The Document Foundation" are > reserved for two purposes: > > * the sole and official use of TDF as an entity, for instance on splash > screens from software builds compiled by the Document Foundation or on > official materials from the legal entity itself hmm... a) "Only the logos that bear the exact mention of the software name with the mention “The Document Foundation” are reserved for the sole and official use of TDF as an entity, for instance on splash screens from software builds compiled by the Document Foundation" b) "You may use the Marks without prior written permission (subject to the following terms): 1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially unmodified form. "Substantially unmodified" means built from the source code provided by TDF, possibly with minor modifications including but not limited to: the enabling or disabling of certain features by default, translations into other languages, changes required for compatibility with a particular operating system distribution, the inclusion of bug-fix patches, or the bundling of additional fonts, templates, artwork and extensions)." So does a packager of LibreOffice, like Red Hat, SuSe, Debian, Ubuntu, etc and so forth who compiles it themselves for their distro, have to change the splashscreen away from the default one which has "The Document Foundation" in it. i.e. a or b ? C. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy
On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 18:43 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > Caolan, > > I think we got that covered already in the text... Or am I wrong? I thought it was such that the default logos (with TDF on it) could be used under the "substantially unchanged" concept. But on re-reading, it reads more like the implication is that it can be called LibreOffice under the "substantially unchanged" concept, but that death to anyone using the TDF tagline ? I'm not super-attached to the TDF tagline for distro/personal builds, but I am attached to using the default logos, whichever they are, for distro/personal builds. C. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 10:25 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hi, > > Andre Schnabel wrote on 2011-08-08 13:17: > > ... our default logos in the source tree use the TDF tagline (at least this > > was when I last did a build from source), but the tagged logo should > > be used for "instance on .. software builds compiled by the Document > > Foundation". > > > > Imho quite easy to resolve: use the community logos per default for builds > > from source. Enable the Logo with TDF tagline on build time and tell people > > to use this only when doing builds that are supposed to be distributed > > via TDF resources. > > that indeed sounds like a senseful idea. What do others think? Its the logical conclusion. Do we think this is a desirable thing however ? rather than a corner the rules paint us into that force maintainable of duplicate logos, etc. C. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 14:31 +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Caolan McNamara wrote: > > > > Imho quite easy to resolve: use the community logos per default for > > > > builds > > > > from source. Enable the Logo with TDF tagline on build time and tell > > > > people > > > > to use this only when doing builds that are supposed to be distributed > > > > via TDF resources. > > > > > > that indeed sounds like a senseful idea. What do others think? > > > > Its the logical conclusion. Do we think this is a desirable thing > > however ? rather than a corner the rules paint us into that force > > maintainable of duplicate logos, etc. > > > It makes the whole thing much more consistent, therefore it makes a > lot of sense to me. > > The tm rule then boils down to: stuff from the official tdf/libo > website - TDF mark permitted. Stuff from elsewhere: TDF mark not > permitted, unless permission explicitely granted. Alright, swap the logos, default to non TDF one. a) The current with TDF logos are the ones in default_images/brand for the about box, the splashscreen and the backing window b) We have a --with-intro-bitmap and --with-about-bitmap for custom splash and about pngs c) So move the current ones to e.g. a TDF brand dir, grab the non-TDF pngs from somewhere and stick those into the generic dir d) Then for all the distro-config/*conf where the vendor is "The Document Foundation" add --with-intro-bitmap/--with-about-bitmap to point them to the TDF branded ones So... a) Where are the appropriate non-TDF about, intro *and* backing window images ? Do they exist somewhere already ? b) Looks like we don't have an option for selecting an alternative set of backing window pngs (default_images/brand/shell) ? Is there another way to do that already, or should we re-work and simplify --with-intro-bitmap and --with-about-bitmap to be a single --with-brand-images which points to a dir that contains a full set of intro, about and backing window images C. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Vote: decision on screenshots
On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 23:54 +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Florian Effenberger wrote: > > "Screenshots for documentation, website and marketing should > > preferably be taken on GNU/Linux, but may also be taken on any other > > operating system. > > > > The Steering Committee recommends a consistent visual appearance > > (e.g. theming and branding) for the screenshots taken on the > > selected operating system. It is up to the LibreOffice community how > > to achieve that consistency." > > > +1 +1 C. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] Vote for MC ...
On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 12:41 +, Michael Meeks wrote: > So I'd love the board to vote to approve (if > I got it right, and the existing MC are generally happy) on: > > Members: (5) > Andre Schnabel > Fridrich Strba > Norbert Thiebaud > Simon Phipps > Sophie Gautier > Deputies: (2) > Cor Nouws > Drew Jensen > > For approval as our initial Membership Committee. sure, +1. C. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
