[discuss] Incubator vote request - OpenOfficeMouse
OOmouse
First, I would like to apologize for any annoyance, irritation, or
embarrassment the recent media attention to the "OpenOfficeMouse" has
caused. It was never my intention to mislead anyone or imply that the
OpenOffice.org Community was producing hardware. In the game industry,
from which I hail, it is quite common for mice to be branded with
specific game software, so it simply never occurred to me that any such
confusion was possible. Second, I would like to express my appreciation
for the professional and sensitive way in which John McCreesh, Florian
Effenberger, and especially Louis Suarez-Potts, dealt with what could
have easily been an unpleasant problem and quickly defused it in a
positive and effective manner. Third, I would like to ask for your
support for establishing the "OpenOfficeMouse" Software Project as an
OpenOffice.org Incubator project.
If the software was nothing more than a basic mouse utility, I would not
make this request. Juergen Schmidt is correct in concluding that a
piece of hardware with flexible configuration options is of very little
utility to the project. However, I suggest that the *software* we have
written to allow for maximum flexibility in customizing the mouse
buttons should not necessarily be dismissed as a mere marketing
strategy, because its keybinding capabilities can be readily put to use
in a wide variety of input devices that are not limited to mice, let
alone our mouse. For example, it could be combined with voice
recognition software to permit the same flexible configuration options
enjoyed by the mouse users to people who cannot use mice or keyboards
due to physical handicaps. Alternatively, it should not be difficult to
modify it in order to attach sounds to specific OpenOffice.org functions
for those who cannot see the screen since we already have built-in sound
alerts that are triggered by switches between one profile and another.
Furthermore, the high level of interest we have seen from people
volunteering to produce a variety of application-specific profiles, many
of which were proposed for applications we had never heard of, suggests
that such a *software* project might have the potential of expanding
into a trans-application, device-agnostic interface under the aegis of
OpenOffice.org.
Thank you,
Theo aka OOmouse
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-u...@openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discus...@openoffice.org
Juergen Schmidt
first of all i want to make clear that i don't want to be the person who
blocks any new project. But i want to raise a little bit more awareness
and that we should analyze the project ideas a little bit more before we
accept it. The potential, the outlook and further plans etc.
All the things you have described here are probably correct and of
course useful. But i still don't see any specifics for OpenOffice.org.
Everything you have described is valid for any application and if you
want to make it open source feel free to create a SourceForge or Google
Code project. I am still not convinced.
Juergen
Laurent Godard
despite the project is globally very interresting, i second juergen's
point of view regarding OOo's relations
-1
laurent
Bernhard Dippold
there are some points I'd like to add to the opinions already mentioned
by others - perhaps they may lead to a less black-or-white view...
=== as this mail is becoming quite long, please scroll to the last 10
lines, if you are short in time ===
You've been in contact to John and Louis before you told us here about
the idea of the multi-button mouse with open souce software license you
wanted to call OpenOfficeMouse.
When you told us here about your incubator project idea, you didn't get
any negative reaction - neither on the idea itself, nor on it's
integration in the project - not even on the name, that doesn't contain
the ".org" part.
We should have reacted earlier with our concerns and different opinions
- that's what this list is made for.
Now you tried to reply to some of the points mentioned by people not
supporting the idea of your incubator project.
But I think (correct me, if I'm wrong), that you have not been involved
in our project and the way we communicate and come to agreements for
more than just a short while.
As you probably read on our website for project proposals [1], there are
some preconditions to be met on this path:
> "... the member proposing the project must be known to the community
> as a reliable and trusted contributor to OpenOffice.org. She need not
> already be a developer or contributor, but she must be acknowledged by
> the community as possessing the necessary knowledge, skill, and
> maturity to see the project through."
I'm sorry, but even if I support your ideas (coming back on that later),
I'm not sure, if you know enough about our project to install a new
project inside OpenOffice.org. It's not only about knowledge, there is a
special kind of feeling in such an open source project, that drives
people to spend their time (and money) for it.
What I read (and heard) from you, doesn't allow me to tell already, if
you know what I mean.
A second point is directly linked to the first one: Even if you read
about the reasons for the incubator voting on the page mentioned above,
you seem not to know enough about our way of communication during this
vote. It is not about counting +1 against -1, but rather to convince
people of the own ideas.
Therefore I had liked to see you replying inside the "project proposal"
thread instead of starting a new one requesting for votes - you'll
probably get more negative votes this way...
But besides these general remarks, I want to share my thoughts about
your idea as well as to propose a slightly different approach to that topic.
OOmouse wrote:
> [...] I suggest that the *software* we have written to allow for
> maximum flexibility in customizing the mouse buttons should not
> necessarily be dismissed as a mere marketing strategy, because its
> keybinding capabilities can be readily put to use in a wide variety of
> input devices that are not limited to mice, let alone our mouse. For
> example, it could be combined with voice recognition software to
> permit the same flexible configuration options enjoyed by the mouse
> users to people who cannot use mice or keyboards due to physical
> handicaps. Alternatively, it should not be difficult to modify it in
> order to attach sounds to specific OpenOffice.org functions for those
> who cannot see the screen since we already have built-in sound alerts
> that are triggered by switches between one profile and another.
I personally like to see these ideas to be part of the OpenOffice.org
community - even if there might be good reasons to release the software
as independent open source project. But if it's kept modular and uses
common interfaces, it can be designed for our handicapped users and
reused by other projects and companies under it's open source license.
Perhaps some of the developers working on it's smooth integration in OOo
might keep on working on the other part of the interface and thus
contribute directly to the OOo source code.
(And of course it's a marketing topic when OOo's reputation causes
companies from areas we never thought of to join our project ...)
But all these thoughts will only be part of the OOo project, if the
scope of OOmouse would become much broader:
All the points you mentioned above should be part of the project itself,
not only options for others who might base their contribution on your
work. All the OOo projects have to follow our mission statement [2]:
> "To create, as a community, the leading international office suite
> that will run on all major platforms and provide access to all
> functionality and data..."
Therefore the work dedicated to the project must be more than a side
effect of the general goals of a company or an external project.
If you see the additional functionality of your software with regards to
accessibitily integration as the main goal of your project, I'd be glad
to see you working on this goal inside the OpenOffice.org project.
=== read on if you just jumped down from the top ===
But for the moment I don't support your incubator project, mainly
because of the reasons I mentioned at the top of this mail:
Try to get a feeling, how this community lives - join us and share our
goals.
I'd propose you to join the existing accessibility project [3], join
their mailing list and start your work as part of this project.
If time will show, that an independent incubator project serves better,
please come back here and ask for support. As we will know you better
than now, your request will get much more positive replies.
... and probably your project will have a different name (like
"accessibility device project" or anything more convenient) ...
Best regards
Bernhard
[1]: http://www.openoffice.org/about_us/protocols_proposing.html
[2]: http://about.openoffice.org/index.html
[3]: http://ui.openoffice.org/accessibility/
Cor Nouws
OOmouse wrote (11-11-2009 1:23)
> Dear OpenOffice.org Community
>
> First, I would like to apologize for any annoyance, irritation, or
> embarrassment the recent media attention to the "OpenOfficeMouse" has
> caused. It was never my intention to mislead anyone or imply that the
> OpenOffice.org Community was producing hardware. In the game industry,
> from which I hail, it is quite common for mice to be branded with
> specific game software, so it simply never occurred to me that any such
> confusion was possible. Second, I would like to express my appreciation
> for the professional and sensitive way in which John McCreesh, Florian
> Effenberger, and especially Louis Suarez-Potts, dealt with what could
> have easily been an unpleasant problem and quickly defused it in a
> positive and effective manner.
And thanks to you for the way you responded to the situation!
> Third, I would like to ask for your support for establishing the
> "OpenOfficeMouse" Software Project as an OpenOffice.org Incubator project.
> If the software was nothing more than a basic mouse utility, I would not
> make this request. Juergen Schmidt is correct in concluding that a
> piece of hardware with flexible configuration options is of very little
> utility to the project. However, I suggest that the *software* we have
> written to allow for maximum flexibility in customizing the mouse
> buttons should not necessarily be dismissed as a mere marketing
> strategy, because its keybinding capabilities can be readily put to use
> in a wide variety of input devices that are not limited to mice, let
> alone our mouse. For example, it could be combined with voice
> recognition software to permit the same flexible configuration options
> enjoyed by the mouse users to people who cannot use mice or keyboards
> due to physical handicaps. Alternatively, it should not be difficult to
> modify it in order to attach sounds to specific OpenOffice.org functions
> for those who cannot see the screen since we already have built-in sound
> alerts that are triggered by switches between one profile and another.
From this I understand that the software can be used for more things in
the OpenOffice.org project that connecting to the OOMouse ...
> Furthermore, the high level of interest we have seen from people
> volunteering to produce a variety of application-specific profiles, many
> of which were proposed for applications we had never heard of, suggests
> that such a *software* project might have the potential of expanding
> into a trans-application, device-agnostic interface under the aegis of
> OpenOffice.org.
... and from this I understand that it probably will become something
that supports many other apps, not really related to OpenOffice.org.
From the first I would say it fits in the OpenOffice.org project.
But the second makes me think of sourceforge as a more natural place to
connect with all not OOo related applications.
What do you think?
Best regards,
Cor
--
Cor Nouws
- nl.OpenOffice.org marketing contact
- Community Contributor Representative in the Community Council
Gevoel niet vrij te zijn? Zie www.nieuwsteversie.nl