References to "Apache OpenOffice"

[Nick Kew-3]

I've seen a couple of recent references to "Apache OpenOffice" appearing
in public places.  Places for which Apache committers are responsible.

Have I missed a graduation, or a change in practice concerning use of
the Apache trademark in the context of incubating projects?

--
Nick Kew

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Dennis E. Hamilton-2]

If you identified the public places and were more specific about it, it would help us to clean it up as appropriate.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Kew [mailto:niq@...]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 22:03
To: general@...
Subject: References to "Apache OpenOffice"

I've seen a couple of recent references to "Apache OpenOffice" appearing
in public places.  Places for which Apache committers are responsible.

Have I missed a graduation, or a change in practice concerning use of
the Apache trademark in the context of incubating projects?

--
Nick Kew

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Nick Kew-3]

On 23 Jun 2012, at 06:47, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> If you identified the public places and were more specific about it, it would help us to clean it up as appropriate.

Seen today (posted I think yesterday) on planet apache:
"Perspectives on Apache OpenOffice 3.4 download numbers".

On www.apache.org right now,
@TheASF: Did you know that #Apache #OpenOffice v3.4 was downloaded over 5M times since going live 6 weeks ago? http://t.co/xQ3tpQI8 #TheApacheWay

--
Nick Kew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Nick Kew-3]

On 23 Jun 2012, at 06:47, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> If you identified the public places and were more specific about it, it would help us to clean it up as appropriate.

In fact the word pair "Apache OpenOffice" appears no fewer than three times
on the front page www.apache.org at this moment.  None of those three are
qualified with any hint at its incubating status.

--
Nick Kew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Ross Gardler-5]

Thanks Nick, I'll pick it up with the PPMC.

Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Jun 23, 2012 8:24 AM, "Nick Kew" <niq@...> wrote:

>
> On 23 Jun 2012, at 06:47, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
> > If you identified the public places and were more specific about it, it
> would help us to clean it up as appropriate.
>
> In fact the word pair "Apache OpenOffice" appears no fewer than three times
> on the front page www.apache.org at this moment.  None of those three are
> qualified with any hint at its incubating status.
>
> --
> Nick Kew
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Nick, the AOOi project does not write those tweets from @TheASF and they are not under AOOi control.  

Are these and blog text occurrences the ones that attracted your attention or are there others?

If you follow the links to the referenced blog posts you will see that the full term is used in the blog title.   E.g., <https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache>.

Would it have been sufficient to add it in the title of the individual post, and in the first mention in the opening paragraph?

How many times do you require that the qualifier be used to satisfy the requirement for identifying incubation as the origin of a release, an announcement, etc?

 - Dennis



-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Kew [mailto:niq@...]
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 00:24
To: general@...
Subject: Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"


On 23 Jun 2012, at 06:47, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> If you identified the public places and were more specific about it, it would help us to clean it up as appropriate.

In fact the word pair "Apache OpenOffice" appears no fewer than three times
on the front page www.apache.org at this moment.  None of those three are
qualified with any hint at its incubating status.

--
Nick Kew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Nick Kew-3]

On 23 Jun 2012, at 18:48, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> Nick, the AOOi project does not write those tweets from @TheASF and they are not under AOOi control.  
>
> Are these and blog text occurrences the ones that attracted your attention or are there others?
>
> If you follow the links to the referenced blog posts you will see that the full term is used in the blog title.   E.g., <https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache>.

So what appears on www.apache.org doesn't matter?

Nor what appears on planet.apache.org, featuring the article that first struck me
as using the name in a way I wouldn't expect when I read it in my feed reader:
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/06/pache-openoffice-34-downloads.html

> Would it have been sufficient to add it in the title of the individual post, and in the first mention in the opening paragraph?

I should think so, but that's just me!

> How many times do you require that the qualifier be used to satisfy the requirement for identifying incubation as the origin of a release, an announcement, etc?

If the guidelines are unclear then maybe they need reviewing?
I was just pointing out usage that seems at odds with my understanding
of the incubator rules.

If a blog gets aggregated, then readers will see what appears in their
aggregator, as I did.  That's without the context of the page title in your link!

--
Nick Kew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Nick Kew-3]

On 23 Jun 2012, at 19:37, Nick Kew wrote:

> Nor what appears on planet.apache.org, featuring the article that first struck me
> as using the name in a way I wouldn't expect when I read it in my feed reader:
> http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/06/pache-openoffice-34-downloads.html

Following that link in a browser I see there's also a nice but questionable logo:
http://www.robweir.com/blog/images/get-aoo-300x100-cf.png
If PR are OK with that then fine, but I find it surprising.

--
Nick Kew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[drew (Bugzilla)-2]

On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 19:43 +0100, Nick Kew wrote:

> On 23 Jun 2012, at 19:37, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> > Nor what appears on planet.apache.org, featuring the article that first struck me
> > as using the name in a way I wouldn't expect when I read it in my feed reader:
> > http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/06/pache-openoffice-34-downloads.html
>
> Following that link in a browser I see there's also a nice but questionable logo:
> http://www.robweir.com/blog/images/get-aoo-300x100-cf.png
> If PR are OK with that then fine, but I find it surprising.
>

hmm - I suppose you are correct, it shouldn't have the feather and
should have the incubator tab - right?

//drew



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

@Nick,

Ross offered to come to the AOOi PPMC to fix it.  I'm not clear what the PPMC has to do with it.

Specifically, @TheASF is not of AOOi PPMC origin.  The question is, who is expected to do something about that and how is it to be communicated to them?  Someone else is responsible for those tweets and their aggregation on the ASF home page.

Also, you refer to a blog post by Rob Weir on his own site.  It is true that Rob Weir is a member of the AOOi PPMC, but that blog site is not a product of the AOOi PPMC and its aggregation into Roller is no different than the aggregation of any Apache committer posts that a committer arranges to include in the feed picked-up by Roller.  (I believe the PPMC did authorize that "Get it Here" image and link to be used by sites that wanted to promote the availability of the software.  If there should have been greater formality before doing that, there are places to raise that specific problem.)

My concern is how to determine what the infractions are that someone can do something about and also being clear who that someone is expected to be.  The general claim just has us running around like headless chickens over on ooo-dev.

 - Dennis

PS: I'm now in time-penalty and will check back anon.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Kew [mailto:niq@...]
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:38
To: general@...
Subject: Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"


On 23 Jun 2012, at 18:48, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> Nick, the AOOi project does not write those tweets from @TheASF and they are not under AOOi control.  
>
> Are these and blog text occurrences the ones that attracted your attention or are there others?
>
> If you follow the links to the referenced blog posts you will see that the full term is used in the blog title.   E.g., <https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache>.

So what appears on www.apache.org doesn't matter?

Nor what appears on planet.apache.org, featuring the article that first struck me
as using the name in a way I wouldn't expect when I read it in my feed reader:
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/06/pache-openoffice-34-downloads.html

> Would it have been sufficient to add it in the title of the individual post, and in the first mention in the opening paragraph?

I should think so, but that's just me!

> How many times do you require that the qualifier be used to satisfy the requirement for identifying incubation as the origin of a release, an announcement, etc?

If the guidelines are unclear then maybe they need reviewing?
I was just pointing out usage that seems at odds with my understanding
of the incubator rules.

If a blog gets aggregated, then readers will see what appears in their
aggregator, as I did.  That's without the context of the page title in your link!

--
Nick Kew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Rob Weir-6]

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 2:59 PM, drew <drew@...> wrote:

> On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 19:43 +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
>> On 23 Jun 2012, at 19:37, Nick Kew wrote:
>>
>> > Nor what appears on planet.apache.org, featuring the article that first struck me
>> > as using the name in a way I wouldn't expect when I read it in my feed reader:
>> > http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/06/pache-openoffice-34-downloads.html
>>
>> Following that link in a browser I see there's also a nice but questionable logo:
>> http://www.robweir.com/blog/images/get-aoo-300x100-cf.png
>> If PR are OK with that then fine, but I find it surprising.
>>
>

With reference to the Podling Branding Guide [1] , the requirement is
that the product be called "Apache OpenOffice".  That is the name.
Nothing else.  But we're also required to "mention that the project is
under Incubation".  There is more than one way of doing that.  Also,
"These statements only need to be disclosed upon the first reference
in a document."  IMHO, we've done that for the blog posts as hosted on
ASF servers.  But it is not clear if or how we control other parties
tweeting links.  But I assume if someone feels strongly about
controlling things at that level they will propose a way.

[1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html


> hmm - I suppose you are correct, it shouldn't have the feather and
> should have the incubator tab - right?
>

Actually, we did approve that logo as a PPMC as part of a download
promotion program:

http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-it-here.html

We ran that by VP Branding as well.  I could be wrong, but my
impression was he approved as well.

The PPMC does not control the Apache.org home page.  If the ASF
decides to aggregate posts from the committers planet, then maybe that
should come with a disclaimer?  Or bring in just the project blogs,
not the committer blogs?  I could be talking about anything on my
blog: OpenOffice, beer. satantic rituals, bagpipes, perhaps all at
once.   It probably should not automatically all be promoted to the
ASF home page.

As for the project blogs, maybe we should just enhance the aggregator
logic on the ASF home page?  For example, Google+ gets does it well,
pulling in the blog title along with the post title.  Se here:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/114598373874764163668/posts/ZiRcwog5cDJ  .

If you try to fix it in the content itself, then you end up with
suboptimal results for Google+ and other places that do bring the blog
title along, ending up with something like "5 Million Downloads of
Apache OpenOffice (incubating) : Apache OpenOffice (incubating)" which
looks sloppy.

-Rob

> //drew
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[drew (Bugzilla)-2]

On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 15:42 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 2:59 PM, drew <drew@...> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 19:43 +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
> >> On 23 Jun 2012, at 19:37, Nick Kew wrote:
> >>
> >> > Nor what appears on planet.apache.org, featuring the article that first struck me
> >> > as using the name in a way I wouldn't expect when I read it in my feed reader:
> >> > http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/06/pache-openoffice-34-downloads.html
> >>
> >> Following that link in a browser I see there's also a nice but questionable logo:
> >> http://www.robweir.com/blog/images/get-aoo-300x100-cf.png
> >> If PR are OK with that then fine, but I find it surprising.
> >>
> >
>
> With reference to the Podling Branding Guide [1] , the requirement is
> that the product be called "Apache OpenOffice".  That is the name.
> Nothing else.  But we're also required to "mention that the project is
> under Incubation".  There is more than one way of doing that.  Also,
> "These statements only need to be disclosed upon the first reference
> in a document."  IMHO, we've done that for the blog posts as hosted on
> ASF servers.  But it is not clear if or how we control other parties
> tweeting links.  But I assume if someone feels strongly about
> controlling things at that level they will propose a way.
>
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
>
>
> > hmm - I suppose you are correct, it shouldn't have the feather and
> > should have the incubator tab - right?
> >
>
> Actually, we did approve that logo as a PPMC as part of a download
> promotion program:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-it-here.html
>
> We ran that by VP Branding as well.  I could be wrong, but my
> impression was he approved as well.

So what, it is still wrong and I can fix it easy enough.

>
> The PPMC does not control the Apache.org home page.  If the ASF
> decides to aggregate posts from the committers planet, then maybe that
> should come with a disclaimer?  Or bring in just the project blogs,
> not the committer blogs?  I could be talking about anything on my
> blog: OpenOffice, beer. satantic rituals, bagpipes, perhaps all at
> once.   It probably should not automatically all be promoted to the
> ASF home page.
>
> As for the project blogs, maybe we should just enhance the aggregator
> logic on the ASF home page?  For example, Google+ gets does it well,
> pulling in the blog title along with the post title.  Se here:
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/114598373874764163668/posts/ZiRcwog5cDJ  .
>
> If you try to fix it in the content itself, then you end up with
> suboptimal results for Google+ and other places that do bring the blog
> title along, ending up with something like "5 Million Downloads of
> Apache OpenOffice (incubating) : Apache OpenOffice (incubating)" which
> looks sloppy.
>
> -Rob
>
> > //drew
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Rob Weir-6]

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:55 PM, drew <drew@...> wrote:

> On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 15:42 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 2:59 PM, drew <drew@...> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 19:43 +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
>> >> On 23 Jun 2012, at 19:37, Nick Kew wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Nor what appears on planet.apache.org, featuring the article that first struck me
>> >> > as using the name in a way I wouldn't expect when I read it in my feed reader:
>> >> > http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/06/pache-openoffice-34-downloads.html
>> >>
>> >> Following that link in a browser I see there's also a nice but questionable logo:
>> >> http://www.robweir.com/blog/images/get-aoo-300x100-cf.png
>> >> If PR are OK with that then fine, but I find it surprising.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> With reference to the Podling Branding Guide [1] , the requirement is
>> that the product be called "Apache OpenOffice".  That is the name.
>> Nothing else.  But we're also required to "mention that the project is
>> under Incubation".  There is more than one way of doing that.  Also,
>> "These statements only need to be disclosed upon the first reference
>> in a document."  IMHO, we've done that for the blog posts as hosted on
>> ASF servers.  But it is not clear if or how we control other parties
>> tweeting links.  But I assume if someone feels strongly about
>> controlling things at that level they will propose a way.
>>
>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
>>
>>
>> > hmm - I suppose you are correct, it shouldn't have the feather and
>> > should have the incubator tab - right?
>> >
>>
>> Actually, we did approve that logo as a PPMC as part of a download
>> promotion program:
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-it-here.html
>>
>> We ran that by VP Branding as well.  I could be wrong, but my
>> impression was he approved as well.
>
> So what, it is still wrong and I can fix it easy enough.
>

There is more than one way to make it right, so it might be worth a
quick discuss on ooo-dev.

Or if you are in a JFDI mood, the live copy is here:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/site/trunk/content/openofficeorg/images/get-it-here/en.png

Regards,

-Rob

>
>>
>> The PPMC does not control the Apache.org home page.  If the ASF
>> decides to aggregate posts from the committers planet, then maybe that
>> should come with a disclaimer?  Or bring in just the project blogs,
>> not the committer blogs?  I could be talking about anything on my
>> blog: OpenOffice, beer. satantic rituals, bagpipes, perhaps all at
>> once.   It probably should not automatically all be promoted to the
>> ASF home page.
>>
>> As for the project blogs, maybe we should just enhance the aggregator
>> logic on the ASF home page?  For example, Google+ gets does it well,
>> pulling in the blog title along with the post title.  Se here:
>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/114598373874764163668/posts/ZiRcwog5cDJ  .
>>
>> If you try to fix it in the content itself, then you end up with
>> suboptimal results for Google+ and other places that do bring the blog
>> title along, ending up with something like "5 Million Downloads of
>> Apache OpenOffice (incubating) : Apache OpenOffice (incubating)" which
>> looks sloppy.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> > //drew
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[drew (Bugzilla)-2]

On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 16:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:55 PM, drew <drew@...> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 15:42 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 2:59 PM, drew <drew@...> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 19:43 +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
> >> >> On 23 Jun 2012, at 19:37, Nick Kew wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Nor what appears on planet.apache.org, featuring the article that first struck me
> >> >> > as using the name in a way I wouldn't expect when I read it in my feed reader:
> >> >> > http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/06/pache-openoffice-34-downloads.html
> >> >>
> >> >> Following that link in a browser I see there's also a nice but questionable logo:
> >> >> http://www.robweir.com/blog/images/get-aoo-300x100-cf.png
> >> >> If PR are OK with that then fine, but I find it surprising.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> With reference to the Podling Branding Guide [1] , the requirement is
> >> that the product be called "Apache OpenOffice".  That is the name.
> >> Nothing else.  But we're also required to "mention that the project is
> >> under Incubation".  There is more than one way of doing that.  Also,
> >> "These statements only need to be disclosed upon the first reference
> >> in a document."  IMHO, we've done that for the blog posts as hosted on
> >> ASF servers.  But it is not clear if or how we control other parties
> >> tweeting links.  But I assume if someone feels strongly about
> >> controlling things at that level they will propose a way.
> >>
> >> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
> >>
> >>
> >> > hmm - I suppose you are correct, it shouldn't have the feather and
> >> > should have the incubator tab - right?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Actually, we did approve that logo as a PPMC as part of a download
> >> promotion program:
> >>
> >> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-it-here.html
> >>
> >> We ran that by VP Branding as well.  I could be wrong, but my
> >> impression was he approved as well.
> >
> > So what, it is still wrong and I can fix it easy enough.
> >
>
> There is more than one way to make it right, so it might be worth a
> quick discuss on ooo-dev.
>
> Or if you are in a JFDI mood, the live copy is here:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/site/trunk/content/openofficeorg/images/get-it-here/en.png

Ok - well, I still have the original SVG file on disk, so I'll work with
that - I'll put, as always, a link to the oo-dev ML with the draft
change.

Off to fire up the editor, see you back at oo-dev.

TTFN,

//drew

>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> >
> >>
> >> The PPMC does not control the Apache.org home page.  If the ASF
> >> decides to aggregate posts from the committers planet, then maybe that
> >> should come with a disclaimer?  Or bring in just the project blogs,
> >> not the committer blogs?  I could be talking about anything on my
> >> blog: OpenOffice, beer. satantic rituals, bagpipes, perhaps all at
> >> once.   It probably should not automatically all be promoted to the
> >> ASF home page.
> >>
> >> As for the project blogs, maybe we should just enhance the aggregator
> >> logic on the ASF home page?  For example, Google+ gets does it well,
> >> pulling in the blog title along with the post title.  Se here:
> >> https://plus.google.com/u/0/114598373874764163668/posts/ZiRcwog5cDJ  .
> >>
> >> If you try to fix it in the content itself, then you end up with
> >> suboptimal results for Google+ and other places that do bring the blog
> >> title along, ending up with something like "5 Million Downloads of
> >> Apache OpenOffice (incubating) : Apache OpenOffice (incubating)" which
> >> looks sloppy.
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >> > //drew
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
> >> >
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Dave Fisher-5]

Hi Nick,

I'm top posting because it is clear to me what is happening here:

(1) The Title of the AOO blog is "Apache OpenOffice (Incubating)"

(2) The Title of various blog entries includes the phrase "Apache OpenOffice", but not the phrase "Apache OpenOffice (incubating)".

I have the karma and will fix these blog entry titles except for the Japanese one, but I'm going to wait 24 hours.

Regards,
Dave

On Jun 23, 2012, at 12:03 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> @Nick,
>
> Ross offered to come to the AOOi PPMC to fix it.  I'm not clear what the PPMC has to do with it.
>
> Specifically, @TheASF is not of AOOi PPMC origin.  The question is, who is expected to do something about that and how is it to be communicated to them?  Someone else is responsible for those tweets and their aggregation on the ASF home page.
>
> Also, you refer to a blog post by Rob Weir on his own site.  It is true that Rob Weir is a member of the AOOi PPMC, but that blog site is not a product of the AOOi PPMC and its aggregation into Roller is no different than the aggregation of any Apache committer posts that a committer arranges to include in the feed picked-up by Roller.  (I believe the PPMC did authorize that "Get it Here" image and link to be used by sites that wanted to promote the availability of the software.  If there should have been greater formality before doing that, there are places to raise that specific problem.)
>
> My concern is how to determine what the infractions are that someone can do something about and also being clear who that someone is expected to be.  The general claim just has us running around like headless chickens over on ooo-dev.
>
> - Dennis
>
> PS: I'm now in time-penalty and will check back anon.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Kew [mailto:niq@...]
> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:38
> To: general@...
> Subject: Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"
>
>
> On 23 Jun 2012, at 18:48, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> Nick, the AOOi project does not write those tweets from @TheASF and they are not under AOOi control.  
>>
>> Are these and blog text occurrences the ones that attracted your attention or are there others?
>>
>> If you follow the links to the referenced blog posts you will see that the full term is used in the blog title.   E.g., <https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache>.
>
> So what appears on www.apache.org doesn't matter?
>
> Nor what appears on planet.apache.org, featuring the article that first struck me
> as using the name in a way I wouldn't expect when I read it in my feed reader:
> http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/06/pache-openoffice-34-downloads.html
>
>> Would it have been sufficient to add it in the title of the individual post, and in the first mention in the opening paragraph?
>
> I should think so, but that's just me!
>
>> How many times do you require that the qualifier be used to satisfy the requirement for identifying incubation as the origin of a release, an announcement, etc?
>
> If the guidelines are unclear then maybe they need reviewing?
> I was just pointing out usage that seems at odds with my understanding
> of the incubator rules.
>
> If a blog gets aggregated, then readers will see what appears in their
> aggregator, as I did.  That's without the context of the page title in your link!
>
> --
> Nick Kew
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Dave Fisher-5]

Hi -
On Jun 23, 2012, at 8:31 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:

> Hi Nick,
>
> I'm top posting because it is clear to me what is happening here:
>
> (1) The Title of the AOO blog is "Apache OpenOffice (Incubating)"
>
> (2) The Title of various blog entries includes the phrase "Apache OpenOffice", but not the phrase "Apache OpenOffice (incubating)".
>
> I have the karma and will fix these blog entry titles except for the Japanese one, but I'm going to wait 24 hours.

Wearing my IPMC and PPMC hats. I've changed blog entry titles. Sorry for our oversight (or lack). Thanks for yours.

Regards,
Dave

>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Jun 23, 2012, at 12:03 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> @Nick,
>>
>> Ross offered to come to the AOOi PPMC to fix it.  I'm not clear what the PPMC has to do with it.
>>
>> Specifically, @TheASF is not of AOOi PPMC origin.  The question is, who is expected to do something about that and how is it to be communicated to them?  Someone else is responsible for those tweets and their aggregation on the ASF home page.
>>
>> Also, you refer to a blog post by Rob Weir on his own site.  It is true that Rob Weir is a member of the AOOi PPMC, but that blog site is not a product of the AOOi PPMC and its aggregation into Roller is no different than the aggregation of any Apache committer posts that a committer arranges to include in the feed picked-up by Roller.  (I believe the PPMC did authorize that "Get it Here" image and link to be used by sites that wanted to promote the availability of the software.  If there should have been greater formality before doing that, there are places to raise that specific problem.)
>>
>> My concern is how to determine what the infractions are that someone can do something about and also being clear who that someone is expected to be.  The general claim just has us running around like headless chickens over on ooo-dev.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> PS: I'm now in time-penalty and will check back anon.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nick Kew [mailto:niq@...]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:38
>> To: general@...
>> Subject: Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"
>>
>>
>> On 23 Jun 2012, at 18:48, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> Nick, the AOOi project does not write those tweets from @TheASF and they are not under AOOi control.  
>>>
>>> Are these and blog text occurrences the ones that attracted your attention or are there others?
>>>
>>> If you follow the links to the referenced blog posts you will see that the full term is used in the blog title.   E.g., <https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache>.
>>
>> So what appears on www.apache.org doesn't matter?
>>
>> Nor what appears on planet.apache.org, featuring the article that first struck me
>> as using the name in a way I wouldn't expect when I read it in my feed reader:
>> http://www.robweir.com/blog/2012/06/pache-openoffice-34-downloads.html
>>
>>> Would it have been sufficient to add it in the title of the individual post, and in the first mention in the opening paragraph?
>>
>> I should think so, but that's just me!
>>
>>> How many times do you require that the qualifier be used to satisfy the requirement for identifying incubation as the origin of a release, an announcement, etc?
>>
>> If the guidelines are unclear then maybe they need reviewing?
>> I was just pointing out usage that seems at odds with my understanding
>> of the incubator rules.
>>
>> If a blog gets aggregated, then readers will see what appears in their
>> aggregator, as I did.  That's without the context of the page title in your link!
>>
>> --
>> Nick Kew
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...