I don't rebut the your assertion that the author's erroneous claims are based on poor research.
That wasn't my assertion. The author showed where he did research and found his facts. Doing a little research at least gives the impression the Apache Office project hasn't really be started yet because of a lack of resources and committers to take up where openoffice.org left. Even the original draft of the September status report says that:
The current committers are not equipped to fully resource the migration of OpenOffice.org sites and services under Apache OOo incubation. Preservation of the Wiki is in doubt because of resource and support limitations. Cutover of mailing-list and registration/forwarding systems is not resourced at all. The ability to make anticipatory modifications of OpenOffice.org in preparation for staging is also limited, with volunteer support and administration of the live system possibly eroding.The article doesn't imply nothing is being done, just that the project still has to start delivering. And it seems at least some participants agree with that assessment. It is good that you recently did setup a tracker, but that was probably done after the article was written, and as you can see it isn't easily discoverable through at least two standard pages about the project. My point simply was that you could fix those pages if you think the conclusions drawn from them is incorrect.
It is appreciated that you are still searching how to setup the project and to find the resources needed to push forward. But you could certainly try to make the facts more easily discoverable. Maybe in year a whole different article will be written, but I do believe the current facts and evidence support what the author writes about the current state of the Apache Office project.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds