Talk:Apache OpenOffice

De-historicising

I left a pile of dangling references but have to dash out for the day all of a sudden! Cleanup welcomed :-) - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Fonts

The list of included fonts is probably not inaccurate, but two of the refs are about OOo from 2008 and 2010. Anything about AOO specifically? - David Gerard (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

... and IBM Symphony

They went on at length about all the merges from the Symphony code drop, and IBM has declared AOO the successor to Symphony, so I've included AOO 4.0 as being descended from that. 3.4 to 4.0 changes, really quite a lot are from Symphony - David Gerard (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

moved to Talk:OpenOffice.org, where the original separation was discussed

Move request

FYI, I've opened a move request at OpenOffice to move it back to OpenOffice (disambiguation) and redirect OpenOffice to Apache OpenOffice. --Tóraí (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It also contributed Oracle-owned ... at the suggestion of IBM ... as IBM did not want

David, the revert you made here relates to an identical sentence that you've been tackled on over at OpenOffice.org.

It's a three clause sentence that combines statements appearing in separate sources into one larger statement that is not supported by any source by itself. The individual parts are fine - but as a whole it is the very definition of the synthesis (i.e. original research).

Can you please break it up into individually supported parts? Otherwise, it has to be removed form both articles as original research. Thanks, --Tóraí (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What part is synthesis? That's what happened, and that's the cites for it. In particular, the IBM document about IBM's preference for permissive licencing states directly that it was IBM that had "chosen to engage with the Apache Software Foundation" - David Gerard (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

What single source supports the whole sentence in its entirety ("It also contributed Oracle-owned ... at the suggestion of IBM ... as IBM did not want ...")? If none do then it's original research. --Tóraí (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've marked the specific parts of the sentence that aren't supported by the references. If you can show where the reference do support these parts then good and well. --Tóraí (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

In [1], per [2] I've changed "at the suggestion of" to "by the preference of" ("It now seems that IBM, which has invested millions in OpenOffice over the years, and uses it as the basis for its Symphony office suite, preferred the option of OpenOffice being spun off to The Apache Foundation.") and the second, the IBM essay cited [3] states their preference for permissive licensing and several paragraphs about their objections to copyleft in this particular case, and that this as why they engaged with Apache. You're arguing with the actual text of the sources and of an IBM-sourced statement of their actual motives - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't work, David. I don't see where either of those sources say why "[Oracle] also contributed Oracle-owned code to Apache for re-licensing under the Apache License". Let alone whether IBM had any influence on that decision.

I've split the sentence up. This means each part can either stand or fall by its own merits. Doing so exposes how the second and third clause of the original sentence are unsupported by the references given. --Tóraí (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I've rephrases these sentences to match closer to the sources. I think it now says both what you want it to say and matches the sources. --Tóraí (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Your present wording's okay by me. I recall emails on the Apache lists clarifying precisely what Oracle had and hadn't done regarding the copyright (it was a very confusing thing they did), I may or may not go dredging through again - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for section "Supported file formats"

Could someone who has the time and access to the data please add a "Supported file formats" section to this article? This is the only article about a fork of the original OpenOffice.org that doesn't have that section. --Rob Kelk 19:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I wanted this a while ago - but it says "There is no definitive list of what formats the program supports other than the program's behaviour." because that's what the project said when I went so far as to ask on dev@ if there was a list: "The definitive list is what shows up in the File/Open and File/Save As... dialogs. Any other source of information lags." So we could try to put one together, but it'd arguably be WP:OR - the project hasn't documented it since the code purge (which removed several). Also, many of the older and more obscure formats may not in fact work - e.g. they discovered UOF doesn't actually work in LibreOffice after the relevant code hadn't been touched in several years, and that'd be the same code in AOO - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Open letter to AOO

I note it was added then removed. This is probably correct (an LWN mention, rather than article, is pretty skimpy) ... but has there been further coverage of this, in the manner of the extensive coverage of the project's dormancy? - David Gerard (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Some coverage so far: [4][5][6] though iProgrammer is extremely minor and the ZDnet one is explicitly marked "blog" - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

And more: [7][8][9][10][11] This is notable. Will try to write something up - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Added - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

notes, more: [12][13][14] - David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think AOO is dormant? It's not. There's a team which is working hard to make the next release (4.0.2) and they're working on version 5, too. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/ --Maxl (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't seem tn respond to what you're responding to - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I think you meant "correspond", but I understood.

@Maxl: The developers discussion list doesn't seem to show that they are working on a new version. These repository links show very little activity: [15] [16] The Fisheye link in particular shows all the work is on the master. However, this sort of information requires interpretation and I don't like it as a source. Is there a roadmap showing when the next release is scheduled to be released? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The lack of activity is cited to (1) the project's official report to the ASF - they say themselves how inactive they are (2) third-party coverage of the observable lack of development - David Gerard (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Walter Görlitz: You don't seem to have read the discussion carefully. They are currently working to release version 4.1.2. And secondly, in the citations given for the claim that Apache OpenOffice is dormant, this very thing is NOT cited. --Maxl (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Lots of chatter on the mailing list and a hope to one day produce a release is not the same as "active" in the sense that a reader might anticipate. ClareTheSharer (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The point is that "reading the discussion" requires interpretation. It's not active. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"Dormant" status

The development status in the infobox is listed as "Dormant". This is not supported by any of the citations given. The first response to my adding the "{Failed verification}" tag was to delete it; the second response was to add two more citations that still don't support a status of "dormant".

User:ClareTheSharer keeps saying I should suggest another word. How about "Active"? The only reason I haven't changed the status to "Active" is that I'm waiting to see if someone actually has a good reason to call it "Dormant". So far none of the references given justify it. Morfusmax (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying it because there is discussion of this topic in the section above. The word "active" that you propose does not reflect the lack of public releases for nearly a year, hence does not seem appropriate. All the citations given reflect this lack of public releases, including one which involves an un-fixed CVE. Perhaps it would be smart to leave as-is until there is a release to demonstrate development activity? ClareTheSharer (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The project laments its inactivity and has been distributing software with a known vulnerability for five months now. There's a word for projects in that condition. It's cited to both first and third party sources; I don't think the standard of proof needed here is "primary source must use this particular word". "active" is clearly wrong per extensive sourcing already in the article - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you are applying your own personal, subjective definition of what "active" means, and trying to treat it as though it's something objective. You however, have no special standing to get to decide what active means. 5 months without a release, or 5 years without a release, if the projects developers are working on the project and they say they are active, then it is active. In this case, no 3rd party source can truly be considered more a better source, since nobody has more information about the on-going state of things, than the people actually doing the work. Sprhodes (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there are several of us who have discussed the observation that the use of "Active" as a status is not appropriate for a project that's proved unable to find the developer resources to make a security release since late April. Pinning this on a single editor does not seem right (and the sophomoric comments and threats about that editor on the Apache mailing list are even less so). It's also worth noting that the assertion you are making -- that primary sources trump secondary sources -- is generally the reverse of the policy on Wikipedia. Finally I have to note that finding several people disagree with you is not proof of either a conspiracy or of a conflict of interest. ClareTheSharer (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

And by what objective standard are you stating that "fixing security holes in five months" is a required standard for a project to be considered "active"? I don't have the citations in front of me, but I'm aware of software products that have shipped with known bugs remaining unfixed for years. If a number of people agree with David, that only means that a number of people are trying to apply their subjective opinion on something in a way that has no basis to support it. And that should not be grounds for stating something as fact on Wikipedia. Sprhodes (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That was just a passing comment on my part in a sentence you appear to have otherwise ignored indicating that people other than David Gerard have voiced views. I don't personally think that piece of original research is any more reliable in determining the project status than the primary source of the project web site, and believe we need to summarise multiple secondary sources if we are to make a reliable statement about the project status in a way that satisfies WP:NOR. I think that's what a number of people have been attempting to do in good faith, and it's why I believe your understanding of WP:NOR expressed below is seriously incorrect.

All the same, I would be very interested to know about an end-user open source project with a substantial user base that has announced but not released a fix to a CVE (not just a bug) for an extended period. Do share as I'd love to add that to my research notes - thanks! ClareTheSharer (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As for "It's also worth noting that the assertion you are making -- that primary sources trump secondary sources -- is generally the reverse of the policy on Wikipedia." -- I'm obviously aware that in general secondary sources are preferred. But I'm staying that in this specific case due to the nature of the kind of fact we're talking about, a primary source is clearly preferred, because no one else could possibly have more information, or more up to date information, than the people updating the primary sources. Take, for example, the one so called "reliable source" that was cited as grounds for calling the project dormant, which is from September 2014. That's a year out of date and completely irrelevant, and absolutely should not be considered to trump a much more recent primary source. Sprhodes (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Opinions per se are not worth noting, unless it's published and considered a reliable source. fgnievinski (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"Dormant" would mean the project is not being developed at all, and that the developers have no intent to do any additional work. Nothing cited to date supports that position in any way. OTOH, there are sources (albeit primary sources) which make it quite clear that development continues. The only appropriate word to put for status then is "Active". If people are going to refuse to accept that, then the entire "development status" blurb should be removed completely. Sprhodes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

A project that can't fix a truck-sized security hole in five months is not "active", even if they write a wiki page. Words in English mean things - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, words mean things, but you don't get to decide what they mean. There is no objective standard which says that either releases or the status of security holes defines whether or not a project is "active".

I've changed it to "moribund", which is supported by the refs I've just added - third-party RSes describing it as "dying", "all but inactive", "collapsed" and noting in detail how the proejct admits they literally can't maintain their own infrastructure - David Gerard (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Which organisation are you affiliated to that you so desperately want to damage OpenOffice that you resort to changing the status to "moribund" against better knowledge? --Maxl (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a curious statement. I have cited sources, and you haven't. So therefore, anyone disagreeing with you must have a conflict of interest? Surely that's not the ideal way to be a Wikipedian - David Gerard (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Are third-party opinion sources sufficient to determine the status of a project? If there is significant negative public opinion about the project that's certainly appropriate for a section of the article, but the actual status of the project is probably best determined by in-project sources, unless there flat-out aren't any. "Dormant" is belied by one of the citations which states new volunteers are still showing up; "Moribund" is subjective and therefore not a factual status. Is there a formal Wikipedia definition of "Development Status"? Morfusmax (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The formal Wikipedia policy on sourcing is WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please, any LibreOffice supporter, don't bother engaging in any silly edit wars regarding the status of Apache OpenOffice. That does nothing for "our cause" except makes us seem childish. --Tor Lillqvist, who is too lazy to retrieve his Wikipedia password — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:4FE:BC00:5DA8:7121:3D23:4B6 (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Curiously enough, I'd largely say the same thing for AOO supporters. I don't want to be involved in a Wikipedia edit / revert war any more than anybody else. But I want Wikipedia to be accurate, and I know that it's not accurate (in any objective sense) to call the AOO status "dormant". At this point, I'm almost more in favor of just removing "development status" from that infobox altogether until this clearly shakes out one way or another. Assuming AOO do make a 4.1.2 release relatively soon, that should settle the issue (until next time anyway). Sprhodes (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm seeing strong opinions on both sides, which makes me cite WP:NPOV. It seems clear that the "Development Status" is not being evaluated neutrally. And since there can only be one term in there, that means neither "Active" nor "Moribund" can be used. I'm inclined to suggest the "Development Status" be left out altogether if a neutral, unbiased and accurate term can't be decided on. Morfusmax (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Per the section below, the "strong opinion" appears to be people who've come in from a project mailing-list call-to-action attack. I urge you to read the Wikipedia sourcing policies - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

There seem to be equally strong opinions coming from people who insist on the status being other than "Active". My involvement in all this started when I examined the cited sources for "Dormant" and found them unsupportive; my "{Failed verification}" tags have been removed twice so far, yet the citations remain. They do not support a status of "Dormant", and certainly do not support a status of "Moribund" (which online dictionaries translate as "Dying"). To extract those statuses from the cited sources is at best Failed Verification and at worst Original Research.

Since you can't stick two points of view into the "Development Status" field, and since there appear to be two strong ones, I still suggest there be neither. Morfusmax (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That's only plausible if you ignore the Wikipedia sourcing rules. There is no actual guideline on that field, so it would default to the Wikipedia sourcing rules which such guidelines are special cases of: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR WP:NPOV. We have third-party reliable sources that are verifiable. Deciding you're going to make up a new use for the field is original research. So we look to the third-party sources to estimate a neutral state. They don't describe it as active - the project itself does, but the third-party sources do not. "Moribund" is a description of what those sources (which are already cited in the article) say, so perhaps another word is suitable - how about "dying", that's a word they actually use? I think that matches what the sources (already cited in the article) say, because those sources are pretty clear that "active" is actually a false statement. I see no reason to leave it blank in the face of the sources (already cited in the article) - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let's take these sources one by one...

• The first citation is actually two sources:

https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg20922.html -- announcement of retirement of the release manager at the time

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.ooo.devel/49631 -- statement that the release manager position is still not filled.

I don't see anything in either of these that says Apache OpenOffice is anything but active. In fact, one of them says, "We are still in the planning phase for our next release, tentatively 4.1.2." My read of this is: "We want to make progress but we have an obstacle to overcome." Active concern about said obstacle suggests active status.

@Walter Görlitz: could you please comment on this specific source? fgnievinski (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Primary source that requires interpretation and should not be used. The fact that the first is a year old and there has been no release since tells me that product is stagnant. The second, half a year old, indicates that they're "planning" and no indication that they're actively developing.

• Next...

http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2015/board_minutes_2015_01_21.txt

In this I see "struggling", I see "reduced" and I see "stalled", but I see all of those in the context of activity. Struggling, stalled, reduced activity is nevertheless activity. "Dormant" does not apply here. "Moribund"/"Dying" suggests a trend, which would require the minutes to say that AOO was bad off before the writing and worse off as of the writing. This is not stated, therefore "Moribund" is not supported.

@Walter Görlitz: could you please comment on this specific source? fgnievinski (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Primary source that requires interpretation and should not be used. A nine-month-old meeting minutes. At that time "The latest [community] committer addition is from May 2014 (tal)." Unable to use new volunteers because they are "witnessing a reduced level of activity (in terms of both contributed lines of code and e-mails to the dev list) from more experienced developers."

• Next...

http://lwn.net/Articles/650411/

This article is questionable in its accuracy. It quotes an email post, which quotes a proposed draft for an AOO status report, which starts with the sentence, "Please be aware, this text is a working copy and not to be quoted." It then goes on to quote a one-line email asking if certain content should be included in the report. I'd be more comfortable with the reliability of this article if it quoted the actual published report.

@Walter Görlitz: could you please comment on this specific source? fgnievinski (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Primary source that requires interpretation and should not be used. Primary discussion about a lack of fix to CVE-2015-1774, which was fixed in LibreOffice 4.3.7 on April 25, 2015. "Unfortunately, projects that fall below a critical mass of developers rarely send out an advisory to that effect."

• Next two...

Byfield, Bruce (21 April 2015). "Is OpenOffice Dying?". Datamation. Byfield, Bruce (30 September 2014). "LibreOffice, OpenOffice, and rumors of unification". Linux Magazine.

Two articles that aren't available online. We can't immediately see what the articles actually say, and one- and three-word quotes from the articles are all that's included in the page. The reference on the page that cites these sources refers to "industry analysts", except that the two sources referenced are from the same person in different magazines. Having only the titles to go on at the moment, I see a question mark in one and the word "rumors" in the other. This does not seem like definitive proof of "Dormant" or "Moribund".

{Failed verification}

Morfusmax (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Being available online isn't a criteria for verification. If Linux Magazine, which has been excluded as a RS in the past, supports the statement, WP:V has been met. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

They are here: [17] [18]; @Morfusmax: could you please evaluate these? fgnievinski (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I also found the Datamation one (http://www.datamation.com/open-source/is-openoffice-dying.html). Both of these articles do represent the viewpoint that Apache OpenOffice is on the decline, and should probably be quoted more extensively than with single words in the AOO page. However, it should be noted that these are both blog posts and opinion pieces, which gets into Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view: "opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice." Representing them as opinions is fine, but the Development Status is being presented as a fact, at the same level as the project name, the most recent release date and other verifiable facts. The infobox isn't the place for opinions. If the Development Status can't be determined more accurately than one opinion versus another, it shouldn't be there at all. (BTW, Mr. Byfield states in a later article -- http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-Blog/Apache-OpenOffice-Not-Dead-Yet -- that AOO is possibly getting better. He does, however, note the "moribund" status, but doesn't note that that status cites his own article.) Morfusmax (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care for the anger from the OpenOffice fans who have started to post here nor am I fond of the response of seasoned Wikipedians. Don't bite the newbies. Yes, OpenOffice is falling behind LibreOffice, but I don't know that it's dead just because it hasn't released for a long time (or that their last few releases have been lacking features and filled with bugs) how and when they release is up to them. How that is reflected in Wikipedia should be done adhering to WP:NPOV. I'm in favour of removing the status parameter until this is resolved. I'm also in favour of leaving it as Active. I'm not favour of poor sources, such as those from developer forums, source code repositories, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Distrusting the project's self-declared development status is giving undue weight to less significant external news speculation, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. fgnievinski (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a mere assertion from inside the project. On Wikipedia, third-party RSes generally trump publicity materials, though the latter may warrant mention - but never merely accepting uncritically, as you are advocating - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

While you claim others not to have a neutral point on this you don't either. You appear to have posted hate tweets regarding AOO. So far as to your neutrality. And your "neutrality" obviously goes so far as to ridicule people who do not share your opinion.--Maxl (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Maxl: Would you please check No personal attacks. fgnievinski (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

At least some of these "3rd party RSes" you speak of are clearly opinion pieces, not factual reporting. And at least one of them is pretty old and not really relevant anymore, IIRC. Basically, on something like "development status" a primary source from within the project actually is the best source, since no one else is ever going to have the same level of knowledge about the inner workings of the project. Sprhodes (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Fgnievski: It's not an attack, it's just the truth. --Maxl (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm dropping out of this discussion

For what it's worth, I have better things to spend my time on. My last edit was to simply remove the "status" field from the Infobox completely, which I believe is actually the best approach to take at the moment. But if somebody really must add it back, have at it, I won't contest it. My feeling is that once the AOO 4.1.2 release ships, this whole issue goes away, at least for a while. I'll stay out of this until and when that happens. Sprhodes (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Connected Contributor

I notice from reading the project's mailing list that edits here are being discussed there by project members, sometimes in terms that assume bad faith by other editors. Do we need to add a Connected Contributor section to this page? ClareTheSharer (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If you can find an actual conflict of interest concerning a contributor. Else this sounds like the standard "permissible" personal attack of claiming someone has a CoI when the actual problem is they disagree with them. WP:RSes help - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Where are you seeing this? I don't see anything about it on dev@ - David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

See http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201509.mbox/%3C55E8AE0C.5030309%40gmx.de%3E for the root of the thread. ClareTheSharer (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, an editor here is an AOO list participant who is assuming those disagreeing with him must be conflicted, rather than e.g. having extensive cites - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any 'assuming' that others have a conflict of interest, although I may have missed that post. But I did allude to the 'possibility' that some people with vested interests in harming AOO may be (or become) involved in this. And I have no qualms whatsoever about saying that. There's been a very public campaign to smear and discredit AOO over the past few weeks, and given the timing of this little "skirmish", it's hard not to suspect a connection. Sprhodes (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested in your allegation of an organised campaign as i had not considered that might be a possibility. Do you have any evidence of that please? Thanks! ClareTheSharer (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, I can't prove that it's an "organized campaign" with any actual collaboration between the players, but suspiciously in the last month or two, a number of blog posts have appeared with some variation of the message "AOO sucks, ditch it for LibreOffice". For example: https://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2015/08/17/an-open-letter-to-apache-foundation-and-apache-openoffice-team/ and http://reddragdiva.tumblr.com/post/128873352708/urgent-get-the-hell-off-apache-openoffice-its

And a number of other outlets picked up Schaller's piece and wrote stories based off of it, creating the an overall vibe of very negative sentiment towards AOO in the media. I'll allow that "campaign" might have been the wrong word to use, as the timing of all of this might be coincidental. But I remain very suspicious. Sprhodes (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. To my outsider eyes it just looked like some guy who finally snapped and found his blog post resonated with quite a few people, although I could imagine someone invested in the project might feel hurt by that happening and ascribe it to malice. All the same, when folk like Matthew Garrett are complaining about a project it is surprising to see the comments treated as bias rather than as a sign of a problem that needs fixing in the project. ClareTheSharer (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This claim of a "coordinated effort" is surmise on your part, which I will go so far as to call projection - the actual coordinated effort is on the part of AOO, for example the call to action here, in which the project tries to coordinate an attack on a Wikipedia editor they feel isn't helping their marketing. You are assuming others might be doing what you are in fact doing.

That isn't the same "call to action" being referred to earlier, and it's also quite irrelevant to this discussion. If you as a Wikipedia editor are acting in bad faith, it's quite reasonable for people to seek out evidence of that and to make it public. Quit whining. Sprhodes (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I emailed a reply to that email, suggesting reviewing WP:COI for what it actually says. Note that having opinions different to yours does not constitute a COI, but coordinating a marketing attack on a Wikipedia article almost certainly does. I have many opinions on AOO, but that's why I edit with WP:RSes firmly to hand and discuss stuff on talk pages and so forth.

You haven't posted a single WP:RS yet which is up to date and which supports referring to AOO as having a status of "Dormant". Sprhodes (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting response Sphodes. I believe David Gerard has given RSes that show it's dormant. The fact that it hasn't had a full release in a year. That implies dormant. But this says it's "effectively dormant". I'm sure I can find dozens more. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me moving this, I think it belongs here. Undo if I'm wrong :-)

I also wanted to say (since the Status section got deleted yet again, this time by you) that it is just as much an expression of a POV to delete said section after it has stood for so long. After all the malarkey that's happened this week I believe we should reinstate it with "Dormant", which is directly supported by the secondary source you supplied & I added (just before you deleted it!) and which had stood unchallenged by editors for a reasonable time before the call-to-action over at the project. WP:BOLD as I am, I'm not going to do it just yet though as I think everyone should leave space for comment before acting on this section of the article. ClareTheSharer (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind the move, but it was in the correct order. As for the removal, I stated that I thought it was best several days ago. At least one other editor agrees. The next possible step would be to get the page completely locked and have an admin decide whether the parameter should be included or not, at least until we get consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You have to also keep in mind that your project appears to have time to post excuses to blogs and embark on call-to-action marketing attacks on a Wikipedia article, but not in the past five months to remove one file from the AOO installer and stop installing security holes on your users' PCs. This appears to be the impetus for much of the above (certainly for me telling people I know to stop using AOO if they want a secure computer), and Matthew Garrett goes into quite some detail on the rationale for his thinking. Note that he'd probably constitute an RS himself on computer security matters - David Gerard (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That's all quite fascinating, but again, it's irrelevant to the bigger question of "what's the status of AOO".

It appears the call-to-action editors are also hitting OpenOffice.org and are currently at three reverts - David Gerard (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there has been no "call to action". There was a thread pointing out an inaccuracy on a Wikipedia page, and some people have chimed in to discuss various attempts to address that. Perfectly reasonable, no conspiracy here. Sprhodes (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to work out a list of connected contributors and add a Connected Contributor section later. If the editors in question prefer to show good faith they could add the section themselves and self-declare before then. ClareTheSharer (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You can add me to such a list if you'd like. My affiliation with the AOO project is tentative at best, but I have nothing to hide. Any edit I've made here has been factually correct and supported by valid citations, unlike edits made by some of the other participants in this conversation. Sprhodes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That's very helpful. Would you like to add the CC template? I'm happy for anyone to do it. ClareTheSharer (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I've never done that before, but I can take a stab at it if I get some time. But if somebody else wants to do it, that's fine with me. Sprhodes (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, added, and added an explicit declaration of my connection to this topic. Like I said, I don't have anything to hide. Others, feel free to add yourselves to the list.Sprhodes (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Super start, well done. ClareTheSharer (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Folks should double check WP:OUTING and WP:PRIVACY before posting personal information here. fgnievinski (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, although I'm not clear how it's relevant to this section. My read of the Connected Contributor template is that it does not include the posting of personal information and there's no request (or place) for chilling behavior. My apologies if I have missed another comment to which you are referring, this talk page has become hard to follow with all the sudden interest is is receiving! ClareTheSharer (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Connected Contributor Declarations

• Sprhodes - Phillip Rhodes - I was formerly (and maybe still am, I'm honestly not sure) a committer on the Apache OpenOffice project. However, my participation in the project has been very limited from the beginning. I do run a software company that has expressed interest in the possibility of shipping a product based on the AOO code, although no such offering is currently available, nor is it imminent. It's really just a speculative idea we have batted around. Sprhodes (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Serious Security Vulnerability"

ClareTheSharer has been reverting attempts to clarify this sentence in the opening paragraph: "The current download contains a serious security vulnerability in the import filter from a Hangul-language Korean word processor, known since April 2015." There are several problems with this. The first has been corrected, as the line (as added by Clare) was "The current download contains a serious security vulnerability, known since April 2015." -- this is egregiously misleading, as the vulnerability affects only imports from that obscure importer. However, it would seem that this very minor bug doesn't rise to the level of something deserving mention in the opening paragraph, and further, it is sourced to a blog which may not be a Wikipedia "reliable source". Combined with edit-warring over whether the project is "dormant", this seems to indicate a certain negative Point of View inconsistent with unbiased editing here. May Knott (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit comes across as downplaying the vulnerability - it's in the HWP filter, but an exploit can be in any file extension AOO can open. I've added more detail in the body text, where it belongs - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I must note also that AOO proponents' perennial accusations of bad faith editing when disagreed with, and consistent failure to bring verifiable third-party reliable sources to back their claims, are tiresome at best. LWN.net has been a highly respected Linux and open source news source for 17 years now - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Lwn.net may have been around for a long time, but can you kindly explain how it does not fall into the category of WP:NEWSBLOG? May Knott (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Erm, I don't have to, because it isn't. The burden of proof would be upon you to demonstrate that it is, given there's a stupendous number of articles that use LWN as a reference source already (which, as a very infrequent Wikipedia editor, you may not have been aware of) - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

LWN uses paid writers and also commissions articles, so is clearly not in that category. Its (paid) editors also post news items. Their standards are markedly higher than many better-known online publications about which there is no question of utility as a second-party source. Even their reader comments sections are generally better reading than elsewhere. You can read their guidelines here: http://lwn.net/op/AuthorGuide.lwn ClareTheSharer (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apache OpenOffice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606140010/http://edbrill.com:80/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/more-on-the-lotus-symphony-and-desktop-productivity-roadmap to http://edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/more-on-the-lotus-symphony-and-desktop-productivity-roadmap

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Not being able to build AOO; development status

I understand from dev@ discussion that one of the reasons the securlty hole was open for nine months was that nobody amongst the remaining few volunteers knew how to build AOO for all three platforms. Was this ever covered by a third party? - David Gerard (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

btw, the "moribund" is development status - which gets a para in the intro, and a much longer para in the "Development" section, all cited to numerous third-party RSes. The project claims otherwise, but then this talk page features AOO developers loudly proclaiming the project's life and vitality when these were literally the same people who didn't know how to compile their own software to fix a months-open security hole. This sort of thing is why we look to third party sources over primary sources. Their publicity status is much more active, but I'll note that after the burst of commits for 4.1.3, there hasn't been a commit to trunk since early November - David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

new source on just what happened with AOO

[19] Concerning how IBM gamed the Apache Foundation procedures to make AOO look more vital and diverse than it was. Not sure how to include, but looks relevant - David Gerard (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

1-2-3-4. If you detect an edit war...

Walter Görlitz has twice reverted my attempts to remove following text from the article:

In September 2016 the project started discussions on possibly retiring AOO.<ref name=lwn20160902/><ref name=heise20160902/><ref name=linuxmagazin20160902/>

His first edit summary said it "should be mentioned for historical purposes". But it's still mentioned in the history section.

He then suggested that the "lede is designed to summarize the article". Indeed, the MOS says "the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents".

Here's the passage from the history section:

In September 2016, OpenOffice's project management committee chair Dennis Hamilton began a discussion of possibly discontinuing the project, after the Apache board had put them on monthly reporting due to the project's ongoing problems handling security issues.

So that's a one sentence passage "summarising" a one sentence passage! The first part of the history section's sentence is largely identical to the lead's sentence, save for making mention of the person who initiated the discussion. The second part mentions the project's security issues - these are already summarised in the lead. The references at the end of both sentences are identical.

The project has released two new versions in recent months. The discussions about retirement fizzled out. There is no indication the project will actually shut down. The "summary" essentially duplicates the passage it's supposedly summarising. So what is this doing in the lead? Gareth (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

And you've reverted another editor twice times. Thanks for discussing. It was an edit made by @David Gerard:. I'd like to hear why he decided to add it before removing it. Otherwise, I'd be happy to remove it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Mr Gerard doesn't seem interested in replying, so I will remove the sentence. Gareth (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That was appropriate. Thanks for discussing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

been busy, sorry. The edit is fine - David Gerard (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User David Gerard seems to have a long-standing disagreement with OpenOffice, see his posts above, as far back as several years ago, which makes his edits unreliable. --Maxl (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that Apache OpenOffice's development status has been and continues to be moribund is supported by RS, with headlines such as Apache OpenOffice: Not dead yet and Is OpenOffice Dying?. We won't bring OR into the article, but if any editors persist in believing that there is a conspiracy among technology publications to belittle AOO when it is actually being developed, they should take a look at Apache's own information, such as the entire list of every change to the source code in the last update they released: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?list_id=233429&query_format=advanced&resolution=FIXED&resolution=FIXED_WITHOUT_CODE&target_milestone=4.1.5 ZackTheCardshark (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not OR. They are, at least, bringing bugfixes, the last only a few weeks ago. I didn't refer to a conspiracy but if you look at older posts on this discussion page you will find that the above mentioned user has consistently rallied against AOO. Therefore his edits are unreliable since he has a negative bias on the software. And if theregister.co.uk writes "not dead yet" that definitely means it's not moribund. And by the way, a previous agreement was found that "moribund" was not to be used to describe AOO. Apparently the above mentioned user has deviated from the agreement - which seems to have escaped your attention. And no, I'll not revert back your edit since you'd claim I started an edit war even though in fact the start would have been your revert of my edit. --Maxl (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a quote literally from the previous release manager lamenting the lack of devs. And what is it with AOO proponents on this talk page going straight to personal attacks? - David Gerard (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Maxl: Whether David Gerard does or does not have a disagreement with Apache OpenOffice is immaterial. He may just be opposed to open source in general, but you don't seem to be digging into this issue sufficiently deeply to determine what the editor's position on this or other software is. How he edits the article is only important if he does so without reliable sources. That's not the case. So there is no question of his reliability that I can see. If you have sources that speak against the ones he uses, feel free to supply them, in an effort to keep WP:NPOV.

I'll also point you to WP:NPA and ask you to focus on the content rather than the contributors. That AOO makes one release in the time that other open source general productivity suites make multiple is clearly attested. That the download counts have been dropping is also clearly attested. If you have a change you'd like to propose, supported with reliable sources, feel free to make it. Attacking an editor is not the way to do it.

And further to the point, what indication is there that development is active? Your addition of that statement was unsupported, and it was reverted by another editor. The best way to restore that edit is to provide a reliable, WP:SECONDARY source to support it. Cheers, or as we prefer to say, tschüss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Coverage of downloads in the lead

I have some issues with the following sentence:

Downloads of the software have consistently fallen since 2015; in 2017, annual cumulative downloads fell by about 25 percent over the previous year, according to AOO's statistics.

It was added by an IP, reverted/modified by me and reinstated by ClareTheSharer.

• The statement "downloads of the software have consistently fallen since 2015" is clearly incorrect. Firstly, the graph shows the first year over year decline occurred in 2014. The label for each year comes at the end of the year; this may have caused confusion - I certainly found it confusing. Secondly, downloads have not "consistently fallen" - they've generally declined during the middle of the year and increased in the second half of the year. The annual trend between 2015 and 2016 looks flat. The general trend since 2014 is down, which is why I rephrased the sentence to say that downloads have been "gradually declining". See also point three.
• It's unclear how the "about 25 percent" figure was arrived at. Was it a guesstimate based on a visual observation of the graph? Were the daily figures added up and then used to calculate a percentage?
• The sentence lacks balance and has NPOV issues. It mentions the decline in the rate of downloads but removed the earlier sentence's indication of the large number of downloads that the project has achieved - a notable point, particularly in the context of the project's difficulties with development and security.

Gareth (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be a case of WP:CALC, which is allowed. The total number of downloads per day is provided as a csv file at the reference. First column is the date. Second is the downloads on that date. Third column is a bad "total" downloads (bad because it doesn't reflect the previous day's total plus the previous day's downloads, so it's not clear what method is being used). I focused on the first and second column. In 2015, the cumulative number of downloads was 38,334,405. In 2016, it was 39,165,068. In 2017, that number fell to 30,768,971. That value is 80.264637% of the figure from 2015 and 78.562282% of the 2016 figure. So the first thing I notice is that it has not consistently fallen since 2015. It actually increased, year-over-year, in 2016. And it did not fall by 25% in either case. 2015–2017, it would be 19.7% and 2016–2017, it would be 21.4%. So I'd be interested in the calculations used. Perhaps anon was using the 2014 total of 46,478,515 downloads, but then 2017's numbers is 66.2% less or 33.8% fewer downloads. Seems fairly odd counting. The high-water marker was 2013. Granted, it had one extra day to reach 54,166,945 downloads. The other odd thing is comparing OO and AOO.

It's clearly falling over time, but the percentages don't add up and so I'd be interested in why. I plan to modify the statement to reflect this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for investigating! The problem I had with the figure in the original edit was the unclear method used by the IP to generate that figure - their edit summary didn't explain. Your edit is a major improvement. Gareth (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I used math to derive the decline. No matter how you slice it, downloads are falling. The current formulation seems to capture the situation fine from my standpoint. I'm not pushing a POV, as others have alleged, and indeed I brought to light the official download statistics and provided an additional link in the article. Generally, those who push POVs aren't so much for transparency. That data finding was quickly erased, however. I note that others are interested in pushing an angle that softens the hard fact that downloads are drying up. Next time I will "show my work." 198.81.129.195 (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The math was a bit off though, unless you were doing a percentage decrease, which is a common statistical calculation, but not well understood by those who don't do stats. In the end, I'm glad we have conveyed useful information from the source you provided, and it conveys some of what you were trying to convey. Still, if I were creating a software product and had 80,000 downloads a day, I'd be happy! Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

"Moribund" status

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. What is the reason for this being the only page on Wikipedia (until recently two) where the indicated development status of a software project is "Moribund"? I find it hard to believe that it can be considered a neutral language. Warm greetings. :-) --Entalpia2 (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've tagged "Moribund" as lopsided. :-) --Entalpia2 (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Tag removed - you need to read the discussion above (search "dormant"); drive-by tagging doesn't pass muster. Furthermore, the term is well-supported by the article text - see the "Development" section, in which the release manager feels uncomfortable with how little development resource there is, and the ASF chair posits not allowing binary releases any more - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I had already browsed over it. I'll try to read it in greater depth. :-) --Entalpia2 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Restored again. This is officially an edit war. You've been reverted by three different editors since this started on March 25, and you've made four reverts in about six hours. Consider this a formal warning for the behaviour.

The references in the "Dormant" status section above are enough to support the term, however, if you have better term to characterize a single release a year, feel free to offer it. When it has consensus, we can add it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've read the discussions above, and "moribund" seems too strong a term. Maybe the project will get up and running again, maybe it won't. I suggest "stalled". Maproom (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Moribund is definitely too strong. They may have some problems at Apache OpenOffice and development is slow. But "moribund" is definitely not the right way to describe it. This term was edited into the article by an user who apparently has a long-standing grudge against Apache Open Office. "slowed" appears to be the correct term. And, Walter Görlitz, the term was not reverted four times by three different editors but four times by you. Please be careful not to start an edit war! --Maxl (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I regret that I did not propose the change here earlier, although that seems to me to be a much more correct term. Actually, I thought I wouldn't have to bother, since changes have been made in that way before but it's true that it was posted on the discussion page. I apologize if it seemed too "aggressive". But I think it's Wikipedia's policy to be brave and fix the bugs yourself. Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Maproom, the problem is that I have doubts that the term "stalled" accurately describes the status of the project. Despite the obvious problems and lack of resources that Apache Openoffice suffers, they were able to release two updates last year. For these reasons I had previously thought that eliminating the state of development was the best option, but given the opposition to the idea, we will have to look for a better term. No offense, I don't think the previous term ("Moribund") is appropriate for a prestigious encyclopedia. I came across the problem without knowing anything about it before, and it seemed like little shocking.--Entalpia2 (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a perfectly reasonable English word for the status. If we want a word cited to RSes that's in the body of the article, how about "dying"? - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, David Gerard. You are right that the references provided use similar terms. But we have to bear in mind that they are basically journalistic texts. We are building an encyclopaedia together, and these should have an encyclopaedic, rigorous and objective tone. I think it is easy to see that the terms you propose are associated with a negative bias. You are right that we should reach a certain consensus, but from what I see from the previous discussion it looks like it is going to be difficult. In addition, to my regret, I thought I saw that the term "Moribund" was introduced in a rather passionate way and in the course of an open dispute. It seems that the mood has been overheated for some time now. Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there. I propose three solutions:

• Eliminate the developmental status
• Change it to slowed
• Change it to stalled
• Other proposals that you consider better

Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word "moribund" as a description of a project. You're repeatedly asserting this, but that's not actually making your case. Your claims of "Self-evident lack of neutrality and truthfulness" are clearly entirely subjective. You have yet to bring any new argument or reasoning to the issue - David Gerard (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there. You're right, I find it hard to argue a position I consider obvious. In the future, I will try to get it from the best I can. Unfortunately, communication in exclusively written form loses valuable non-verbal communication. This makes the comments seem excessively harsh. Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. To make my position clear, I am by no means in agreement with There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word "moribund" as a description of a project. Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been following the AOO developer mailing lists ever since I opened this as a research topic, and the presence of releases should not distract you from the lack of any developers with an overall understanding of the code in the project. While there are a few very skilled developers involved, they don't understand the massive code-base well enough to implement significant new capabilities and they don't have the time to devote to the effort required. Even the complex build system is hard to fix for most. The releases consequently contain just cosmetic changes and simple fixes. One release was to address a CVE that was over a year old, and took maybe six months to actually result in a release even when the work to fix it was done. The project talks big - switching languages, changing memory managers and so on - but there's no-one there to do the work.

To answer your question concerning terminology: Given this project is still using the name of one of the most important projects in free software, it's important that readers casually referring to the article gain a realistic understanding of the development status, so keeping that in the infobox is important. The word "slowed" is not suitable since this is not a large, skilled team that is simply distracted elsewhere; it will not resume pace. The word "stalled" is a reasonable choice but leads to people being deceived by releases into thinking it is getting going again. The word "moribund" is a reasonable choice in terms of meaning and matches the actual status of the project well but is a less frequently used word. A new term would be welcome, but as you can see it's hard to identify one that represents the true status of the project while being a core English word. ClareTheSharer (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the word "moribund" is a reasonable summary of the many, many sources present in the article concerning the project's severely deficient state of development and there's nothing wrong with it. From Wiktionary: "1. Approaching death; about to die; dying; expiring. 2. Almost obsolete, nearing an end." This matches the descriptions in the extensive list of RSes, e.g. "all but dead"[20], "has not been a healthy project for some time"[21] (quoting [22]), "'death watch' project"[23] - and as that last source notes: 'Concerns about the state of AOO appear to be what in August prompted Brett Porter, Apache Software Foundation chairman at the time, to ask whether it would be an option in a planned statement about the state of AOO to "discourage downloads"? That's not generally a goal among software developers unless things are very bad indeed.' - David Gerard (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Maxl:. That's simply not true or you. Here are the facts.

2018-03-25T14:32:49‎ Entalpia2 - revert 1 by change editor 1 (see WP:3RR "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.")

2018-03-25T20:44:41‎ ClareTheSharer - revert 1 by pro stability editor 1

2018-03-30T17:12:26‎ Entalpia2 - revert 2 by change editor 1

2018-03-30T17:40:17‎ David Gerard - revert 1 by pro stability editor 2

2018-03-30T17:50:58‎ Entalpia2 - revert 3 by change editor 1

2018-03-30T19:48:23‎ Walter Görlitz - revert 1 by pro stability editor 3

2018-03-30T21:53:54‎ Entalpia2 - revert 4 by change editor 1

2018-03-30T21:58:06‎ Entalpia2 - part of revert 4

2018-03-30T23:06:11‎ David Gerard - revert 2 by pro stability editor 2

2018-03-31T00:52:21‎ Entalpia2 - revert 5 by change editor 1

2018-03-31T05:59:16‎ Walter Görlitz - revert 2 by pro stability editor 2

2018-03-31T10:07:51‎ Maxl - revert 1 by change editor 2

2018-03-31T11:35:46‎ David Gerard - revert 3 by pro stability editor 2

So either you didn't look, you don't understand what a revert is, or you're intentionally attempting to confuse or mislead, or you're looking over a much longer timeline (which isn't really an edit war). Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll look at what the words mean.

• moribund
  • Cambridge (especially of an organization or business) not active or successful
  • Oxford (of a thing) in terminal decline; lacking vitality or vigour
  • Websters being in a state of inactivity or obsolescence
• stalled
  • Cambridge to delay taking action or avoid giving an answer in order to have more time to make a decision or get an advantage or to stop making progress
  • Oxford Stop or cause to stop making progress or Speak or act in a deliberately vague way in order to gain more time to deal with something
  • Websters to bring to a standstill or to cause (an engine) to stop usually inadvertently.
  • This term has too many definitions, both as a verb and a noun and it's not clear which definition we're intending.
  • Each discusses an engine or, in the case at Oxford, a sailboat, which is the closest to what I would assume we mean, but is that what a reader will assume?
• slowed
  • Cambridge to reduce speed or activity, or to make something do this
  • Oxford Reduce one's speed or the speed of a vehicle or process
  • Websters to make slow or slower : slacken the speed of or to go or become slower
  • This one works well for American English, but not international English

Perhaps my focus on verbs is the problem, but I'm fairly confident that the term we have seems to be the best fit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @ClareTheSharer, @David Gerard & @Walter Görlitz. I'm not a developer. I consider myself a technological enthusiast. I might be able to define myself with an advanced computer user. Although I have made a minor modification to some driver to be able to compile it, but guided in public patches or error messages.

We must take into account that the parameter development status is an optional parameter of Template:Infobox software (it is not mandatory to include it) that has even been considered for removal. For the time being, it is recommended not to indicate "Active" as development status. I also don't think that Wikipedia's goal is to make it clear to users that they should run away from a certain software project.

Having said this, we could consider that the denotation of the word used corresponds faithfully to the state of development of Apache OpenOffice, and then it would be the best word to describe it. Following this reasoning, we could conclude (and find reliable sources to prove it) that the best words to describe the development status of Microsoft Windows and GNOME are aimless or miscarried. But I really don't think it would be appropriate to use any of these terms. Words also have a connotation, which does not appear in dictionaries.

According to WP:WORDS we should avoid puffery and loaded words or contentious labels. Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This looks like a series of decreasingly plausible claims to remove a well-cited as accurate description of the state of the project that you don't like. As such, it's difficult to take seriously - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Loan words is a specific term. If you actually mean that, how is any of the terms I listed a loan word considering they're all in multiple English dictionaries? Again, I offered the three options and requested comment on them or others. You didn't offer any options. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Hello, Walter Görlitz. I think you have not read my comment correctly. I have spoken of "loaded words", not "loan words". Specifically, I mean the following meaning:

• loaded
  • Oxford (of a word, statement, or question) charged with an underlying meaning or implication.

Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion it is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine how active a project, as that will likely lead to synthesis. The information box status should either be active or inactive. Even if a project has very little activity it is still active. More detailed information on how active the project, including its relative activeness, is better specified in the main text of the article. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In that case, it's clearly inactive by all appreciable measures. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It had an update within the least year, I would say its active; even if there is only a little activity. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"In my opinion it is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine how active a project," In that case, let's follow the RSes, which I quoted and linked above at length. Do you object to following the RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I check a couple of the references:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/19/time_to_retire_apache_openoffice_in_favour_of_libreoffice/

This one is three years old and says there are updates to the repository.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/07/apache_openoffice/

In this more recent article members of the Apache team say the project is still active.

The repository had an update two hours ago.

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/

Seems to me the project is still active, even if the activity is minimal. Amount and relative activity is best dealt with in the main text of the article. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment: ClareTheSharer is absolutely right that "the presence of releases should not distract you from the lack of any developers with an overall understanding of the code in the project." I would put in more clear-cut terms, though: "the presence of releases should not distract you from the lack of development activity." It would be hypothetically possible for Apache to release a new version with the only change being the version number. It would also be possible for Apache to release a new version with the only changes being the version number and a tweak to the contents of the dictionary. The reality is that in the last release, those were 40% of the changes. Calling the development status "active" just because there was a release is not a proposal that can be taken seriously. However, "moribund" seems a bit WP:CRYSTALBALL-ish. It seems most likely that the project is dying a slow death and will eventually be cut off by Apache as an embarrassment, but it is also possible that Apache will instead decide to hire a half-dozen developers to revive the project. For this reason, "stalled" seems reasonable to me as it accurately describes the present state without presuming the future. Since the distinction between release activity and development activity is evidently lost on many readers, a footnote along the lines of "Little to no codebase activity despite occasional releases" might be in order. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Does fixing a bug count as development? Jonpatterns (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"1. Approaching death; about to die; dying; expiring. 2. Almost obsolete, nearing an end."??? http://openoffice.2283327.n4.nabble.com/Status-on-4-2-0-td4691004.html

Is it time to start thinking of an 'official' beta release for 4.2.0? We won't get much traction and feedback on the codebase until we get more people using and testing it, which is one goal of a beta in any case. 
∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆
I believe that is is well past time to be doing a beta of 4.2.
∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆
Technically, this would be more an Alpha than a Beta as features are still unstable and actively developed.
∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆
when I think of signing it is indeed far away from feature complete. So, it indeed won't be in the phase of a beta but 1-2 stage before.
∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆
I see no reason to delay. We should strive to not only get 4.2.0 out as soon as we can, but also as up-to-date as we can as well.
∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆
I uploaded new builds (r1826903) for Windows: https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Test/
∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆
The macOS builds are ready. I'll wait until my Linux-64bit builds are done, via Ubuntu 14.04, before I upload them. Then I'll start on the  Linux 32 bit ones, also Ubuntu.

http://openoffice.2283327.n4.nabble.com/Win64-port-started-and-how-building-32-bit-AOO-on-Win64-could-break-soon-td4691069.html

I've begun the long overdue task of porting AOO to 64 bit Windows.

49.195.103.28 (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion How about "low activity" for the development status? This states what the current status is without using a relative term. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you find an RS with it? Else it appears you're advancing a term that falls to your own objection, and haven't actually made a case for changing the current state of things.

The project is of low enough notable activity that there have been two RSes in the past year. One of those uses the term "death watch" - shall we use that term instead? That way it's quoting the RS.

Look, all the objections are "I don't like that word, can we use another word" - but none are referring to the RSes. Try referring to the RSes - David Gerard (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this the 'RS' you are referring to? https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/07/apache_openoffice/

The Apache developers say the project is active. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Hi. I believe the subject under discussion relates to the following excerpt from a Wikipedia policy: WP:IMPARTIAL

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.

I want to make it clear that I am referring only and exclusively to the term 'Moribund' as development status. Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment: The Cambridge dictionary makes it clear that the term is used to show formal disapproval:

• moribund
  • Cambridge (especially of an organization or business) not active or successful

FORMAL (Used in serious writing, or for communicating with people in a serious or polite way.) DISAPPROVING (Used in a negative way, to show that you have a bad opinion of someone or something.)

Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Using moribund does not violate CRYSTAL as we are describing the current state of the project, not some possible future state. Also, CRYSTAL is about creating articles about subjects that may happen in the future not describing content within an article. We can't predict what Apache will and won't do with the project, we can only describe its current state. "Stalled" is ambiguous, discussed above. I do like "low activity", but it's more of a state than a status.

I am sorry that I misread "loaded" as "loan", but after multiple requests for Entalpia2 to offer an alternative to 'moribund', I have seen no alternative, and see that the bulk of Entalpia2's responses have been either wikilawyering and manoeuvring, but not constructive in any way (which to me feels like OO in general). Please suggest a word. I understood your objection early on but don not have a clue what you actually favour.

"Death watch" is too inflammatory, but is supported by a comment in a reliable source, but so is "renewed interest". I would not endorse its use here.

For the record, the recent change to the code base was to the website, not the code of the product, and even that was images and translations. The change from two weeks ago appears to be a change to the build environment, but I only looked at a few of the file changes. Two changes in two weeks doesn't seem like active development, which is why low activity may be appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Entalpia2 can say "respectfully" on every comment, but evading the direct questions in this manner is not respectful. Nor is wikilawyering that invokes policy they clearly didn't understand, as you note - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@David Gerard:. You say I don't understand Wikipedia policy. You, of course, must have an in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia policy. You should also know "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The sourced used to claim the project is on 'death watch' actually supports that the project is still active. The 'Death watch' quote is editorialising by the The Register. From the source:

Asked whether the AOO has enough people looking at its code to keep it secure, Thomas said there's nothing about the project that causes him grave concern.

"Open source projects always want more resources," said Thomas during a phone interview. "They never have enough. From a board point of view, the criteria we look at are whether there are three or more active PMC [Project Management Committee] members, because that's the minimum number to vote a release out the door."

Jonpatterns (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Walter Görlitz. I don't understand why you're saying I haven't proposed alternatives:

Hi, there. I propose three solutions:

• Eliminate the developmental status
• Change it to slowed
• Change it to stalled
• Other proposals that you consider better

Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Already discussed and explained why they will not work. That's when I asked you to come up with other alternatives.

@Jonpatterns: It looks like you've uncovered some documentation at Template:Infobox software which states "Planned, Unmaintained, Discontinued, Stalled or Abandonware. Per WP:DATED, avoid setting this parameter to 'Active'." Sorry for the response. Self-reverted at LibreOffice. Based on those choices, "Stalled" is the most appropriate here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:. Yes, after reading the template documentation and commenting on this:

We must take into account that the parameter development status is an optional parameter of Template:Infobox software (it is not mandatory to include it) that has even been considered for removal. For the time being, it is recommended not to indicate "Active" as development status.

I, too, thought that the best option of those set out in it was 'Stalled'. I agree with you on this. But I'm not sure if we have to stick to that closed list. --Entalpia2 (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

To clarify my position I have to say that my preferred option would be not to put any development status. Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Is that based on their lack of development or are you claiming that it's active and so we shouldn't include one at all? It's clearly not active so the doing so for the latter option is not appropriate. Since you don't think we have to stick to the list, what would you add? You don't like a word that clearly reflects the project's current state of development. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've made myself clear. I mean, I don't know if we should stick to the list. On the other hand, I believe that it is not obligatory to indicate the development status. Isn't that right? Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The way I read the documentation, you're wrong. The only case where one should not indicate status is when it's in active development, which is clearly not the case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The documentation says:

All parameters are optional.

Did I misunderstand then? Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems you want to hide the state of the project by using that option. Infoboxes are designed to summarize the article. It would be best not to ignore this fact. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to hide the state of the project. The state of the project is already adequately described in the article. I just don't think we seem to have found a suitable word to describe it. Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

And that's where you disagree with most others. I think moribund is adequate, and would settle for stalled if the documentation is to be observed. The number of downloads of the project show that we're not doing our job of informing readers that the project is out-of-date and possibly dangerous to use. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I, too, would settle for stalled if the documentation is to be observed. As for the rest of what you said, I don't agree. Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to change the number of downloads significantly either, nor do I think we should intend to do so. It's not our objective. Respectfully, --Entalpia2 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course, stalled is if the parameters offered at the infobox's documentation are inclusive or simply suggestive. If it's the former, stalled is fine. If it's the latter, which I would argue it is, then our current terminology is more descriptive of the term. Stalled implies that the engine was running and due to activity has stopped. The case is that it's due to inactivity and active problems with the project's organization that it has come to its current state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Neither 'moribund' or 'stalled' seem to describe accurately the state of development. There is activity but it is minimal. Development has slow to a crawl over the past few years. Not sure how to sum that up in a few words.

Sources to support activity on the project. The developers said it is active in the 'death watch' article. death watch. Also see work on compiling inMarch 2018. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"Moribund" seems an entirely accurate description, per the definitions already cited. The developers are a primary source, not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources can be reliable sources Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations (emphasis mine).Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Activity is also collaborated by The register - Version 4.1.4 did fix four security vulnerabilities, and that's one less than the five that appear to be outstanding for the software, based on two reported in the November 2016 minutes of Apache Foundation Board of Directors' meeting and three reported in the April 2017 minutes. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

In this case, when they're being asked the state of development, and they are offering no subjective comparison, are not a reilable source on their own development state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Current options

Request for comments. What should the 'development status' parameter be set to in the article's infobox.

A - Moribund

B - Low activity

C - Stalled

D - Slowed

E - <empty> (indicating the project is Active per Template:Infobox software)

F - <something else>

The discussion was getting long and it needed a vertical break. While doing this, I think it would be an appropriate time to ask about suggested options.

To summarize, the documentation seems to only offer the option of "stalled" for us, since the other options (planned, unmaintained, discontinued, abandonware) are not appropriate. It is by definition, not under active development. Two additional options are "low activity" and keeping at "Moribund". I prefer the current option and my next choice would be low activity, and then stalled, but that doesn't accurately represent its development status. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've made it a request for comments to get as much input as possible, maybe this problem has arisen before. My prefered option is B 'low activity', followed by E <empty>. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks Jonpatterns. My comment shows my options, but my preferences are, in order, A, B then C. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• After meditating on it, I think my favourite option is B, followed by C. --Entalpia2 (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC). Option A is at least a contentious term, probably tendentious. --Entalpia2 (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• A or B. It's pretty dead. 198.81.129.207 (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• As I explained above, A reflects the reality of the situation as well as summarising terms used in citations. B & C are barely acceptable although may lead to misunderstanding when the project manages to make a release, D goes too far in that direction, E is unhelpful to casual readers. In the absence of an ideal F, I would vote A. ClareTheSharer (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• A, as I've explained above - David Gerard (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Don't include this field in the infobox. (Summoned by bot) - Describe the situation in the body text instead. WP:RS does not boil down nicely to a single term (which is why this discussion is rumbling on) so doing so here is unduly reductive and smacks of WP:OR, and well as savouring of FOSS politics. I don't see a "Development status" field in the GIMP article, by comparison. Alexbrn (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Would it be fair to say your preferred option is E? GIMP development is active which is why the field on that article is blank, see Template:Infobox software. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• My option is D, slowed. This seems to summarize things best, even given the above descriptions of the respective options. --Maxl (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Entalpia2 for starting this discussion. I'll run through my thoughts on the options:
  • A-D: The {{Infobox software}} documentation claims that setting the development status to "active" should be avoided because it is a statement likely to become outdated. It's hard to see how "moribund", "low activity", "stalled" & "slowed" (or "planned" & perhaps "unmaintained", for that matter) are less likely to become outdated.
  • A: So this emerged as an interpretation/summation of commentary about the project. As Morfusmax pointed out in 2015 "opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice". The page they linked to also states "prefer nonjudgmental language" and "do not editorialize". These criticisms also apply to options B-D, but are particularly pertinent for option A. Given that moribund implies approaching death (at least by some definitions), there's a CRYSTALBALL issue here as well.
  • B: At an informal level, "low activity" is a perfect summation of the state of the project. But when does a project emerge from or sink into "low" activity? It isn't Wikipedia editors' place to be holding projects to some ill-defined level of success/activity. Again, "do not editorialize".
  • C & D: See criticism of option B.
  • E: There are clearly significant differences of opinion when it comes to the status of this project (and what constitutes an active project). If a situation is unclear or controversial, then a one, two or three word entry in the infobox isn't the right way to cover that situation. If this field is omitted for projects that are uncontroversially active, then including it for projects that are controversially active seems a whole lot like POV-pushing. I note that the development status field shouldn't be used as a proxy for a health report on a project.

To summarise, E is the best option. B is the clearest/least-worst of the remaining options. A is the worst option. Gareth (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Vote: E. Activity at https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ . Project seem to be releasing a minor release once a year. OK a mature product but 2 million downloads show widespread usage. No reason to say anything but active.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Appreciate the ping. As I am still seeing activity on the AOO dev mailing list, including commits and discussion of coming releases, I'm inclined to vote not A, and likely E. Morfusmax (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional 'votes' here:

RfC result discussion

It's been several days since the last comment. Should we take to an RfC or is the consensus here sufficient? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I would give it two weeks before closing; making the closure date 17th April. There is no option that everyone agrees on. At the moment Option A seems to be the most preferred option followed by Option B. My main concern with Option A is the possible negative connotations that could be associated with the word 'moribund'. Jonpatterns (talk)

To get more input, maybe we should publicize more the RfC. What do you think? Do you agree with that? --Entalpia2 (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Not even all the editors who have participated in the previous discussion have yet 'voted'. --Entalpia2 (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Entalpia2: it could be worth pinging them and editors that have worked on the article recently. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea to ping people who were involved in the 2015 discussion but haven't participated here or those who have left a comment but haven't !voted in this discussion. @Sprhodes, Fgnievinski, Maxl, Morfusmax, ZackTheCardshark, and Maproom: Would you like to participate in this RFC? Gareth (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pining me. --Maxl (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Further discussion

Today: http://openoffice.2283327.n4.nabble.com/Does-AOO-4-2-x-need-new-system-requirements-td4691372.html

> My suggestion would be that that gets committed ASAP so we > can test it. We then svn copy trunk to a AOO420 branch and > start focusing on getting a 4.2.0 GA release out.

∆∆∆∆

thanks for the reminder.

I also think it's time to start with splitting from the continued developement and make a branch for 4.2.0.

49.195.146.28 (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Apache Wave is an example of an Apache project that was retired - they didn't just keep releasing new versions containing no updates. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment from @49.181.239.66: regarding the meaning of leaving 'development status' <empty>

(bearing in mind that Template:Infobox software suggests to avoid using Active precisely because it indicates something that may change in the future)

Jonpatterns (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

That is true, there is no option that is recommended for indicating the project is active. When and if a project is defunct then that is indicated.

Although, it could be similarly argued that a project may be revived and be shown as defunct on the article. Perhaps projects are more likely to go from active -> defunct than defunct -> active. At any rate this is an argument that should be decided at template level not on individual articles such as this one.

Regarding this RfC if an editor believes the project is active they should vote E <empty>. The only other options are for the project being less than active or defunct.

If you disagree with this arrangement there is a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_software#Replacement_for_"active"_in_"development_status"_parameter. Jonpatterns (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC summary

There appears to be no consensus or big majority for any of the options. I'm actually thinking that this parameter should be removed from the template (see dicussion at Template talk:Infobox software#Replacement for "active" in "development_status" parameter). There is a separate option for showing a project is no longer developed ('discontinued'). The release schedule will give the reader a general feel and additional information can be given in the text. A lot of energy is used for little/no gain when this parameter is available. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Update Status parameter now depreciated. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The parameter has been deprecated from the infobox. Thanks for the update. Sorry about the revert, it was a misunderstanding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4.2.0 status?

comp.arch listed 4.2.0 as the "preview" version. I reversed this because I'm pretty sure it's only source code, and has been for 7 years - it's not even enough of a thing to call a "version" that's available. This was cited to an AOO blog post about problems on latest MacOS, and that they believe this is not an issue in 4.2.0 ... but I'm unconvinced there's enough evidence of 4.2.0 as an available thing.

However, I might be wrong, so I'm asking: How much availability does something need to be a "preview" version? Does git master count? What sort of thing has been applied to other software on Wikipedia? - David Gerard (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm ok with it not listed (generally draw the line at pre-built binary); I just assumed it was a recent thing, a bit surprised to see it still worked on in 2021. Those people are persistent. I wasn't even sure 4.2.0 was right, or something like 4.2.0-rc, I just didn't have time to look into if rc available. comp.arch (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Watching the project, they keep working on 4.2.0 at a very slow pace, but I think it's just a git master thing, not even test binaries. Apache seems very reluctant to release unofficial binaries of things; certainly not the nightly builds common to other projects. Anyway, I guess I don't really object to listing 4.2.0, since it is a thing AOO works on, in however desultory a fashion - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Free

Nowhere in the text is it made clear that one can download and use this software without paying any money. The only near-references to without charge that I could find are an ambiguous one in a sentence about transferring and in footnotes. Since a major reason for a lot of people to be interested in this software is that it is free, I think that fact needs to be made clear early on. Kdammers (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)