On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 01:07, Andrew Rist wrote:
>
>> Also, besides main apps, is Oracle donating it's Oracle OOo extensions?
>> Such as: PDF Import, Presenter Console, WebLog Publisher, Professional
>> Template Packs, MySQL Connector, etc.
>
> Our approach is to start with the main open source co
Also, besides main apps, is Oracle donating it's Oracle OOo
extensions? Such as: PDF Import, Presenter Console, WebLog Publisher,
Professional Template Packs, MySQL Connector, etc.
Our approach is to start with the main open source code - stuff with
clear provenance. The OOo extensions are mo
But this raises another question - does Oracle donate the code only or
will ASF also get the contents of the website, wiki, translation database
(wich has some more information than what you see in the code), ooo-specific
tooling (OOo used to have some web portals to support
development, qa,
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 23:48, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> The extensive LibreOffice user-documentation project is producing
> GPL3[+]/CC-by3.0 dual-licensed documents. I assume that CC-by is not toxic
> for Apache, since it is the closest CC license to permissive (i.e., it is at
> least as per
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 22:25, wrote:
>...
> Simon,
>
> Could you say a little of when you had in mind with this segment:
>
> "potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well
> as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users"
>
> By one definition, "complementary" means non-over
On Jun 3, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> My hope is that projects coming to
> Apache will be designed to last for DECADES. That is a very attractive
> proposition, and I see no fault in a proposal that is looking to do
> exactly that.
+1. Big +1.
Cheers,
Chris
++
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 21:07, Cor Nouws wrote:
> [Picking a random mail in this thread]
>
> I have a suggestion by the wiki-proposal.
>
> I read
> " Reliance on Salaried Developers
> ...
> Ensuring the long term stability of OpenOffice.org is a major
> reason for establishing the project at Apa
On 6/3/2011 9:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Seems that some people are not happy with my outreach to the communties,
> or whatever... There are plenty of suggestions and posts on things that
> I have done wrong, or did not do, or did not due to someone's satisfaction.
>
> If people want, I will ha
On 6/3/2011 7:09 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
> If someone on the list from TDF is authorized to answer this (or can get
> such authorization), I'd appreciate an official stance on the following
> questions. This would help us understand what room there is for
> negotiation and what is not
The extensive LibreOffice user-documentation project is producing
GPL3[+]/CC-by3.0 dual-licensed documents. I assume that CC-by is not toxic for
Apache, since it is the closest CC license to permissive (i.e., it is at least
as permissive as modified BSD) and it allows derivative works, of cours
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:25 PM, wrote:
> Cor Nouws wrote on 06/03/2011 06:14:56 PM:
>
>> I would love to see all work in one big project - read all my pleas in
>> the OpenOffice.org time. But reality tells me that is not going to
> happen.
>>
>
> I would like to see this as well, everyone workin
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/03/2011 06:16:22 PM:
>
> I suggest:
>
> "The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
> community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on
the
> GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We
> wi
Cor Nouws wrote on 06/03/2011 06:14:56 PM:
> I would love to see all work in one big project - read all my pleas in
> the OpenOffice.org time. But reality tells me that is not going to
happen.
>
I would like to see this as well, everyone working on a single code base.
The is the ideal. But
Seems that some people are not happy with my outreach to the communties,
or whatever... There are plenty of suggestions and posts on things that
I have done wrong, or did not do, or did not due to someone's satisfaction.
If people want, I will happily remove myself as mentor. This is supposed to
b
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:38AM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> Must've been private. Personally I think it would be great for someone to
> show up on both the openoffice.org and Document Foundation mailing lists and
> say "hey, I know you've felt the ground rumbling, are there any questions I
>
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 07:07:39PM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> But engaging the LO community on a basic matter of "hey. I'm here to
> answer any questions, and to listen to concerns." Acting as a raw
> conduit can be difficult (witness Jim's early emails being forwarded
> across the lists).
>
I
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> Rob - their mailing list is over at steering-disc...@documentfoundation.org,
> details here:
> http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/#lists
I too have now subscribed and posted to that list[1]. My first point
is (a somewhat less dire
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 02:56)
rather than talk bad about
Still not get that 'bad' ;-)
--
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
- giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general
>> "However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home
>> for the OO.o project in the long run," Meeks said.
When I read that, I also did not see anything offensive. I believe when
Michael said that he was thinking of OOo as he knows it, which is a desktop
application. The ASF h
[Picking a random mail in this thread]
I have a suggestion by the wiki-proposal.
I read
" Reliance on Salaried Developers
...
Ensuring the long term stability of OpenOffice.org is a major
reason for establishing the project at Apache.
"
Unless really relevant, I would suggest to leave tha
Yes, Simon, I am aware of that. But I have no standing in the IPMC to
liaise with another organization on their behalf. Jim sent a note to
their leaders, as well as OOo, and invited them to join this conversation.
Several of their Steering Committee and Engineering Steering Committee
members
Cor Nouws wrote on 06/03/2011 08:36:20 PM:
>
> (So seeing Robs questionnaire: it won't be easy to get ground for many
> positive replies. But of course it is good to try. I even might step in
> with some suggestions, that however always tend to fail, since my mind
> does not take large corpora
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Florian Effenberger
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I hope you don't mind if I jump in to the discussion. The views shared here
> are not any official TDF statement, but rather solely my own ones, acting as
> a volunteer who has been contributing to the OpenOffice.org project,
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 20:36, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 02:23)
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws wrote:
>...
>>> I don't see any smack in it. I read he is giving his opinion in a polite
>>> manner. (Have seen different quotes from him in the past ..). And also
>>> com
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 02:23)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws wrote:
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10)
That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the
press.
It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the press
about that (at this stag
In the long run we are all dead ;-) So let's concentrate on the short run to
start with.
On 4 Jun 2011 01:24, "Greg Stein" wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:1...
"However, I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home
for the OO.o
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10)
>
>> That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the
>> press.
>
> It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the press
> about that (at this stage).
> Meeks is being inte
I can confirm I just saw your "Hello" message go out - awesome!
S.
On 4 Jun 2011, at 01:21, Greg Stein wrote:
> I've now subscribed to libreoffice@, steering-discuss@, and discuss@.
> I dropped a "hello" email to the lists, and am going into lurk mode
> :-)
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:45, Den
Rob - their mailing list is over at steering-disc...@documentfoundation.org,
details here:
http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/#lists
S.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:09 AM, wrote:
> If someone on the list from TDF is authorized to answer this (or can get
> such authorization), I'd appr
I've now subscribed to libreoffice@, steering-discuss@, and discuss@.
I dropped a "hello" email to the lists, and am going into lurk mode
:-)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:45, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> Here are the global lists:
> < http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/#lists>
>
> I sugge
Nick Kew wrote (02-06-11 17:48)
Hypothetically if this donation had happened before the
OOO/ODF split, can I assume that you would you have regarded it
as a solution to the underlying problems and never have split?
Would have been a solution for part of the problems. Not all, as may be
clear
Reality is what matters. So let's make the best reality possible :-)
On 3 Jun 2011 23:15, "Cor Nouws" wrote:
Hi Rob, all,
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (02-06-11 21:34)
> If you claim to have 200 developers working on LO
> then I suspect this is with a very low level...
I know several people
If someone on the list from TDF is authorized to answer this (or can get
such authorization), I'd appreciate an official stance on the following
questions. This would help us understand what room there is for
negotiation and what is not worth discussing at all.
For "willing to consider it", I
Hi Rob,
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (03-06-11 17:59)
"Allen Pulsifer" wrote on 06/03/2011 11:45:03
AM:
It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that
is licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL. If The Document
Foundation
is willing to change its release from
Sam Ruby wrote (03-06-11 20:22)
Unable is a strong word. I given that we are talking about
historically recent contributions, I would think that it would be
possible to identify and reach out to those who made these
contributions. These people, after all, DO hold the copyrights.
Ah yes, and p
Greg Stein wrote (03-06-11 19:57)
Yeah... that is kind of a disadvantage for when they may choose to
upgrade or modify their licensing.
Read the '+' in the licence ;-)
Cor
(still reading my way through, and understanding in the mean time that
at any moment constructive contribution is expec
I popped into the LO IRC channel a few times
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 4 Jun 2011, at 00:39, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:23, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>>> (like our invitation to general@incubat
What seems clear is that at least to start with we will have an apache
licensed product and a copy left product. Why not just accept this as
healthy diversity?
On 4 Jun 2011 00:42, "Cor Nouws" wrote:
Greg Stein wrote (03-06-11 23:48)
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:50, Cor Nouws wrote:
>> I do
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10)
That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the
press.
It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the
press about that (at this stage).
Meeks is being interviewed about what's going on around libreOffice.
I don't
Something about the licenses to be reconciled is useful to have somewhere so
folks can understand what the big deal is. Maybe in a location for backup
details?
For example, contributors to the current LibreOffice code are asked to assert
LGPL3/MPL. The extensive effort and roadmap for user do
Here are the global lists:
< http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/#lists>
I suggest the steering-disc...@documentationfoundation.org or, if you find that
too forward (or if posting is restricted), just disc...@documentfoundation.org
for starters.
- Dennis
-Original Message
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:23, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> >> (like our invitation to general@incubator) ... Did I miss it?
> >
> > Actually I have not seen any invitations from anyone assoc
Greg Stein wrote (03-06-11 23:48)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:50, Cor Nouws wrote:
I do not understand why that should be a shame.
The article portrays Michael as a spokesperson for the LibreOffice
community. And then Michael proceeds to denigrate the effort here. It
I would not understand
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:23, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> (like our invitation to general@incubator) ... Did I miss it?
>
> Actually I have not seen any invitations from anyone associated with this
> proposal on the LibreOffice and Document Founda
Hi All,
It has been a week since the proposal was submitted. Responses to the
proposal so far have been very encouraging. Thank you all for your support.
We would like to include more mentors on the proposal, so would greatly
appreciate if you could volunteer as one.
Unless there is any active di
Sorry, hit send too soon.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Now... with that said. Consider a typical person from the ASF who
> might want to do that. Say.. like myself. I don't know what list to
> subscribe to. (name only one!) ... If somebody can say what list that
> ASF peo
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> (like our invitation to general@incubator) ... Did I miss it?
>
>
Actually I have not seen any invitations from anyone associated with this
proposal on the LibreOffice and Document Foundation lists I subscribe to. I
heard about it through perso
Allen,
+1...fwiw, i did not say i needed to hear from them in this mailing
list :) The usual person tagged with this kind of responsibility is
the champion of the proposal and/or the mentors. i am quite fine
waiting to hear back through whatever channels are being used.
thanks,
dims
On Fri, Jun
> Now... with that said. Consider a typical person from the ASF who might
want to do that.
> Say.. like myself. I don't know what list to subscribe to. (name only
one!) ... If somebody
> can say what list that ASF people could subscribe to, then something like
this could happen.
Personally, I woul
Given the generally positive response I've edited that text into the wiki.
S.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Excellent. Thanks, Simon!
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:16, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > I suggest:
> >
> > "The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the Open
Discussion should appear here, rather than on the wiki. Leaving quick
questions and thoughts is fine, but for actual discussion: here.
Cheers,
-g
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:11, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> I've edited it a tiny bit and may do more. If we get into a Wikipedia
> edit-reversion war
I've edited it a tiny bit and may do more. If we get into a Wikipedia
edit-reversion war, I am sure that there are wiser heads who will intervene.
(It is unfortunate that this wiki doesn't come with "Discuss" pages, but that
doesn't mean we can't introduce one or more as our own convention.)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 17:57, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Michael is repeating some invariants that he and other LO/TDF people
> have stated, politely and consistently, since the inception of this
> discussion. They are committed to copyleft, they see dependencies with
> copyleft, their vision of OO
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:53, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> As a Incubator PMC member, I'd like to hear what the TDF folks think about
> this suggested path.
>> In the end the people who do the day-to-day work will end up collaborating
> or not...But, here's
>> my +1 that implies that i'd like folks wh
Excellent. Thanks, Simon!
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:16, Simon Phipps wrote:
> I suggest:
>
> "The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
> community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the
> GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac co
But this raises another question - does Oracle donate the code only or
will ASF also get the contents of the website, wiki, translation database
(wich has some more information than what you see in the code),
ooo-specific tooling (OOo used to have some web portals to support
development, qa, r
> As a Incubator PMC member, I'd like to hear what the TDF folks think about
this suggested path.
> In the end the people who do the day-to-day work will end up collaborating
or not...But, here's
> my +1 that implies that i'd like folks who are signing on to this podling
do their best to make this
I don't know how you can QA and regression test any OpenOffice.org distro if
you don't build it, and built it for multiple platforms. And you need the
distro to be "as-built" (uh, not exactly how that term is used these days, but
think of the reason uucp was invented) or it is all over but shoo
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 3 Jun 2011, at 23:01, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
> If
> TDF decides at a later point to change to a compatible license, then this
> would open up additional ways in which we could collaborate, and we would
> welcome that as well.
It's
Hi William, *
Original-Nachricht
> Von: "William A. Rowe Jr."
> An: general@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > The CC was generated for non-code contributions as far as I know. I
> > would need to have that confirmed.
>
> That is my understanding. But if we ask legal-discuss, all
Simon,
As a Incubator PMC member, I'd like to hear what the TDF folks think about this
suggested path. In the end the people
who do the day-to-day work will end up collaborating or not...But, here's my +1
that implies that i'd like folks who are
signing on to this podling do their best to make t
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 3 Jun 2011, at 22:42, Greg Stein wrote:
> When
> you argue to *not* put them [TDF/LO] into the proposal, then I call that
> "exclusive" rather than "inclusive".
+1
Ross
-
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Are there any other Apache projects where there might be an interesting
relationship? Anything jump out?
We have spreadsheets, word procesor, presentation, mathematical formula,
graphics editor, they export PDF, HTML, ODF, MS Office, raster gra
+1 (I like the positive tone that tries to omit words having a
negative connotation)
Cheers
Daniel
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> I suggest:
>
> "The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
> community, with an established potentially highly comp
I suggest:
"The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the
GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We
will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationsh
Hi Rob, all,
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (02-06-11 21:34)
If you claim to have 200 developers working on LO
then I suspect this is with a very low level of engagement.
I know several people that started with really tiny contributions for
LibreOffice in the past months but just evolved to pe
Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 05:42:14 PM:
>
> So yah. I'm giving up on this for now. My suggestions are hitting a
> teflon wall. But it shouldn't. Including the LO community in this
> proposal should be a no-brainer. I don't think that "including them by
> reference [to the Apache License]" is
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> There are two common patterns at the ASF: RTC and CTR, which are
>> Review The Commit and Commit Then Review. Most places operate with a
>> CTR policy.
>
> I don't know how common it is in gen
Michael is repeating some invariants that he and other LO/TDF people
have stated, politely and consistently, since the inception of this
discussion. They are committed to copyleft, they see dependencies with
copyleft, their vision of OO is copyleft. There's perfect symmetry
here: we're making publi
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>
> There are two common patterns at the ASF: RTC and CTR, which are
> Review The Commit and Commit Then Review. Most places operate with a
> CTR policy.
>
I don't know how common it is in general, but the Apache community I'm most
familiar wit
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:01, wrote:
>> Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, wrote:
>>> >...
>>> > This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
>>>
>>> This is the sectio
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Besides
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:50, Cor Nouws wrote:
>...
> Jim Jagielski wrote (03-06-11 22:14)
>>
>> Posts such as:
>>
>>
>> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3935136/LibreOffice-340-Released-as-OpenOffice-Heads-to-Apache.htm
>>
>> certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived d
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:01, wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, wrote:
>> >...
>> > This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
>>
>> This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
>> consider
On 6/3/2011 2:04 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:29, Simon Phipps wrote:
...
text in the wiki doesn't give that assurance. I'm also suggesting it's
/such/ a big deal for the open source community at large that
openoffice.org resolve to a working and current site without
interr
>
> And if we split the page into separate proposals (not unlikely given the
> clear differences of vision expressed on the list already), which one is
> voted on? All of them?
Rob,
Splitting the page would be an extreme situation, and it would
indicate, to me, that the incubator PMC is faced wi
Please do not turn this thread into *ANOTHER* however polite argument
the possible construction of the community.
>
> So to be clear, the wiki page for the OOo proposal is open for anyone to
> edit and not just Apache members or the project's proposers.
>
Yes: As Sam wrote:
. Defacement
>> of
sa3r...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 05:17:46 PM:
>
> Rules? :-)
>
> From http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html :
>
> "The incoming community needs to work together before presenting this
> proposal to the incubator. Think about and discuss future goals and
> the reasons for coming
Hi All,
On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
>>> the podling.
>>>
>>> These are decisions the podling should be making.
>>
>> Are you ready to call for a vo
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
> >
dsh wrote on 06/03/2011 04:11:43 PM:
>
> Rob,
>
> I think being more open concerning collaboration can't hurt what do
> you think? So it would be nice if the proposal could be open and
> diplomatic in this regards. Probably the intention should be to not
> shut the door in the very beginning an
I started the process by adding a couple of TBD's.
My little vision is that IPMC members might add notes of the form:
"I cannot vote +1 for this proposal until this section addresses issue X'"
When all those comments are gone, we have, in effect, voted.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Sam Ruby
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 17:05, Benson Margulies wrote:
> instead of to the whole shebang.
>>
>> Bah. Outdated concept. In Apache Subversion, we simply ask the
>> committer to constrain themselves to certain areas. No need to get
>> technical about it. The trust metric applies very well, *especiall
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh wrote:
>> >
>> > Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
>> > add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus th
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:42, Kevin Lau wrote:
> First time posting to this list and has been reading it for few days now.
>
> Permit my naive question, can both organizations (TDF and Apache) separate
> from their own licensing dependencies and establish an independent entity
> (or something that
instead of to the whole shebang.
>
> Bah. Outdated concept. In Apache Subversion, we simply ask the
> committer to constrain themselves to certain areas. No need to get
> technical about it. The trust metric applies very well, *especially*
> when it is version control and changes can be reverted :
In my experience as a moderator of consensus process, I've learned
that, on tough topics, it's hard to achieve consensus without, well,
active moderation. My gambit was to suggest that this was a hat for
the champions, but it was just a gambit.
>
>> Option 2: we use the wiki to stack up comments a
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:29, Simon Phipps wrote:
>...
> text in the wiki doesn't give that assurance. I'm also suggesting it's
> /such/ a big deal for the open source community at large that
> openoffice.org resolve to a working and current site without
> interruption ...
I don't think there is
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 10:50:43PM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Hi Jim, all,
>
> I do not understand why that should be a shame.
> All I read is explanation of the situation, among which implicitly
> an important difference: the copy-left versus non copy-left. That is
> a personal style, choice that
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:29 PM, wrote:
> Are there any other Apache projects where there might be an interesting
> relationship? Anything jump out?
Apache Tika (http://tika.apache.org/) is a generic toolkit for
extracting text and metadata from various file formats. Improving ODF
support
I've lost the thread on this, but I thought that one observation was about the
dependencies in OpenOffice.org (and LibreOffice.org) on material from other
sources and not necessarily under the same license. In that regard, there may
be a difference among some of those in terms of what is consi
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
> I've just finished speaking to Greg Stein, and I'm also newly time-available
> to help. I'd be willing to mentor, and Greg thought I could be of help.
An offer too good to pass up on. I've added you before you change your mind!
> Danese
-
http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:29, wrote:
> I plan on updating the proposal on the wiki over the week-end. I'm going
> to start a series of threads on various sections of the proposal that I
> think are a bit thin and which I could use some help with.
>
>
> For "Relati
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> Option 1: a champion of the proposal takes inventory and starts a
> number of meaningfully-labeled threads for the subjects of ongoing
> discussion, and we all try to resist the urge to respond further in
> the original set. For those exi
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:12, Benson Margulies wrote:
> PMCs at Apache have a wide latitude in managing the meritocracy. The
> simplest answer is the high-trust answer: if you demonstrate that you
> are a responsible contributor, you get commit access, and the PMC
> trusts that you won't abuse it
Hi Jim, all,
Long time OpenOffice.org contributor in various areas. Mainly
LibreOffice since Sept. 2010. One of the founders there.
Now looking at a Thinderbird folder with more than 300 mails, of which
I've only read a few up until now :-)
Living in The Netherlands, so If I skip in an hour or
This is for the proposal, the "Nominated Mentors" section.
My observation, after seeing the topics that seem to be getting the most
attention from the IPMC members on this list, is that in the the Podling
we will want to pay special attention to:
- IP review and remediation, due to the known pr
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh wrote:
> >
> > Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
> > add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
> > and proactive collaboration with other parties i
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh wrote:
>
> Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
> add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
> and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to
> the community to add such a tone to
First time posting to this list and has been reading it for few days now.
Permit my naive question, can both organizations (TDF and Apache) separate
from their own licensing dependencies and establish an independent entity
(or something that works) to develop some code that can benefit both
partie
1 - 100 of 259 matches
Mail list logo
