Re: Proposed status page changes

[Malcolm Tredinnick <malcolm commsecure com au>]

I don't have anything to add to the main thread, since I am not a
translator, but one thing struck me as inaccurate and relevant...

On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 12:41, Christian Rose wrote:
[...]
> Also, as the http://www.gnome.org/gnome-office/ page is very old and
> outdated and AFAIK there haven't been a coordinated GNOME Office release
> for a very long time,

There was one quite recently. It possibly could have been more widely
announced, but here is the press release:

        http://www.abisource.com/release-notes/2.0.0.html

Although there is no date on the announcement, which is a bit of a
blunder, it is from around mid-September 2003.

> I think we should skip having the seperate
> "office" section altogether, as there isn't much point in having it
> unless we can say we are sure this is actually GNOME Office, and that
> there still is a point in seperating it from the rest with it actually
> being a particular release. Also, many of these applications are
> actually also currently a part of GNOME Fifth Toe (perhaps because of
> the lack of GNOME Office releases), so there is a overlap that has been
> a problem, as we couldn't and shouldn't list modules more than once. If
> we remove the currently superfluous "office" section, we get rid of that
> problem, as those applications can then be moved to fifth-toe or extras
> where they actually belong.

You probably want to talk to somebody like Jody about what the extended
plans in this realm are. I think your timing may just suck here; the
GNOME-Office group seem to be trying to reestablish some momentum
lately. :-)

Cheers,
Malcolm