Michael Meeks wrote on 06/09/2011 12:27:56 PM:
> In the deluge of drivel I lost this gem in your response to
> my scepticism about how quickly you could provide a binary release:
>
> On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 10:31 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > But one thing not to lose track of
sa3r...@gmail.com wrote on 06/09/2011 12:00:22 PM:
>
> If any of this is unclear or if I got anything wrong, please speak up.
>
Presumably the wiki locks, if not physically, then at least by convention,
when the call for a vote has been made?
-Rob
---
Volker Merschmann wrote on 06/09/2011 02:33:09 AM:
>
> as most of the discussion happened when I slept, I will give a
> summarizinig answer from the top. (With unusally top-posting against
> the netiquette)
>
> There are two associations (german: "eingetragener Verein" abbrev. e.V.)
>
> - Team
Kazunari Hirano wrote on 06/09/2011 08:46:05 AM:
> Let us open up new markets and allow all the people on the earth to
> use our great Office Suite in their native languages!
> We are all sure that OpenOffice.org/StarOffice/StarSuite benefit them.
> Thanks
>
> It is very exciting to work with va
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/08/2011 06:44:35 PM:
> >
>
> I was actually thinking of Freies Office Deutschland e.V. primarily,
> http://www.frodev.org/
>
Interesting. That happens to also be where TDF donations go:
http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/
-Rob
-
dsh wrote on 06/08/2011 12:15:52 PM:
>
> Of course we had been using ODFDOM but the issue is how do you get ODF
> transformed accordingly to other formats such as RTF, AFP or PDF and
> make those formats look consistent with what you would get if doing
> the transformation natively during design
dsh wrote on 06/08/2011 10:37:46 AM:
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:58 PM, wrote:
> > A sufficiently complex business application based on OpenOffice is
going
> > to involve document manipulations at both tiers. For example, we
recently
> > (at IBM) made an insurance solution that involved us
"Manfred A. Reiter" wrote on 06/08/2011 10:17:02 AM:
>
> 2011/6/7 :
>
> [...]
>
> > We should be able to check the math from another direction. Microsoft
> > claims something like 400 million Office users. Studies looking at
OOo
> > install share show approximately 10%. Pick some random n
"Andre Schnabel" wrote on 06/08/2011 04:40:56 AM:
>
> > Von: Yegor Kozlov
>
> >
> > I'm interested in bringing the ODF Toolkit to Apache and integrating
> > this API with Apache POI. With ODF, POI will become a universal API
> > for Office documents covering most of popular office formats.
>
Dave Fisher wrote on 06/07/2011 09:23:25 PM:
>
> Sure. Hi everyone (maybe the people that Rob knows should introduce
> themselves as well - some of us are new to the community.)
>
> My name is David Fisher. I have been in the software industry for
> over 30 years. I've worked in many computer
Greg Stein wrote on 06/07/2011 05:50:49 PM:
>
> Besides the content Oracle owns, it seems we could just ask the other
owners
> to give the CWS's to the ASF. I mean, really... *somebody* out there
holds
> the copyright. We just have to determine who, and then ask. Some
definite
> legwork, but
Danese Cooper wrote on 06/07/2011 03:43:56 PM:
>
> robert_w...@us.ibm.com:
>
> Not surprisingly, you missed my point (or chose to ignore it). We at
Honestly, your insult does surprise me.
> Apache don't think that money is evil, but we also believe that
> seeing our code in wide use is more
Leo Simons wrote on 06/07/2011 02:40:01 PM:
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:58 PM, wrote:
> > Since this is a large download, I wonder whether the quoted numbers
are
> > impacted at all by timeouts, abandoned downloads attempts, etc. In
other
> > words, is it counting the HTTP GET's? Or the s
Danese Cooper wrote on 06/07/2011 02:19:38 PM:
>
> Just have to say...I have often been quoted saying the advent of
> OpenOffice.org was a rare case of "corporate greed aligning with
> human need". Safe to assume a high percentage of downloaders don't
> have $.99. I know we're all excited by
Christian Grobmeier wrote on 06/07/2011 01:35:17 PM:
>
> > 30 downloads per day or per month?
> >
> > 52TB per month is still a lot...
>
> per day.
> Look at this chart:
> http://marketing.openoffice.org/marketing_bouncer.html
>
> And please correct me if i am wrong. :-)
> Cheers
>
We sh
By my count we have now have over 60 individuals listed on as proposed
committers for the Apache OpenOffice project. I think this is a
respectable start, though obviously the project will need to have a strong
commitment to recruiting additional developers and growing the project
further,
On
Florian Effenberger wrote on 06/07/2011
12:01:55 PM:
>
> Rob,
>
> robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on 2011-06-07 17.56:
> > Oh, let's not go down that path again, or else someone could equally
point
> > out that the TDF Steering Committee has not been elected yet either. I
> > see no value from d
Danese Cooper wrote on 06/07/2011 11:13:45 AM:
>
> 3) LOTS of people download OOo
>
> Like maybe 10% of the human population of the planet. And its a big
file.
>
> Initially we engaged Akamai, but it quickly became too expensive.
> Serving up downloads of OOo was pretty intense. I know Apa
Volker Merschmann wrote on 06/07/2011 11:08:26 AM:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> 2011/6/7 Robert Burrell Donkin :
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts
wrote:
> >> Tomorrow, the OpenOffice.org Community Council will hold a
> meeting to discuss What Now? It's not going to be our last me
Christoph Jopp wrote on 06/06/2011 07:57:19 AM:
> Dear All,
>
> I put myself on the initial committers list because I want to help the
> Apache OpenOffice Project in some way I can.
>
> As nearly nobody should know my name, I'll introduce myself briefly:
>
> Since 2005 I tried to support OOo b
I'l hoping to be in Berlin for the ODF Plugfest there, July 14-15th. Would
it be worth while seeing if we can arrange a hackfest of some sort in
Berlin, either the day before, or over the weekend? LibreOffice guys
invited as well, of course.
Could also have some startup sessions, to review the
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote on 06/06/2011 04:27:04
AM:
>
> On 6 Jun 2011, at 09:13, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> > Am 06.06.2011 09:25, schrieb Greg Stein:
> > One of the main topics of the whole discussion regarding the
> > OpenOffice.org incubation proposal was and is collaboration with TDF /
> >
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 09:42:14 PM:
> From: Simon Phipps
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: 06/05/2011 09:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division
> of markets" conversation?
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:29 AM, wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > But
sa3r...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 09:01:08 PM:
> >
> > Since this is question that is pervasive in the project, I'd recommend
> > that after this proposal is accepted, that there be a consultation
with
> > ASF Legal Affairs on the trademark *before* any project infrastructure
is
> > created.
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 09:13:24 PM:
> >
> > I think it would be great for TDF have an end-user downstream
deliverable.
> > It would be great if anyone open source project wants to do that. It
> > would be great if a private company does this. It would be good of a
> > government wan
Raphael Bircher wrote on 06/05/2011 08:47:42 PM:
>
> Because this is my first mail, I give a short introduction to myself.
>
> I'm Raphael Bircher from Switzerland. I contribute for OOo since 5 years
> as QA and in same other tecnical parts. I was involved by the migration
> to the kenai Inf
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 08:49:19 PM:
=> >
> I read all that Rob. Nothing in there about the plan to continue
creating,
> building and delivering OpenOffice.org on all the platforms and in all
the
> locales it is today, along with an estimate for the IPMT of how big the
task
> is, wh
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 08:38:08 PM:
>
> >
> > The people who will only contribute to a copyleft license (and I know
a few
> > OO contributors like that) will not come over this world .. so to that
> > extent this is a community fork and we cannot do brand sharing as
that'll
> > confus
acolor...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 08:07:29 PM:
>
> OpenOffice.org official contaction is 'OOo' not 'oo' I think is enough
time
> to correct these mailing lists. I wrote a more lenghty email but I think
the
> discussions should be better understood by Apache admins.
>
+1
Since this is q
Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 07:58:17
PM:
>
> No, it was my point that that they only negative to TDF/OO was the
> license here:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/w5vtsa5nbarmnqxo
>
> But please do elaborate on why IBM prefers a new project here rather
> than contributing to TDF/OO - I
Greg Stein wrote on 06/05/2011 07:55:34 PM:
>
> I just updated the proposal to provide more detail on the requested
> mailing lists. Figured it would be good to discuss here.
>
> This is what I entered into the wiki:
>
> The following mailing lists:
>
> oo-...@incubator.apache.org - for d
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 07:49:41 PM:
> From: Simon Phipps
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: 06/05/2011 07:50 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hall
wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't think the proposal here is for OOo to ent
Florian Effenberger wrote on 06/05/2011
07:52:53 PM:
> Hi,
>
> robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on 2011-06-06 01.48:
> > Give me a citation please where anyone from IBM said the preference of
> > Apache to TDF/OO was due only to the license?
>
> I've been asking for reasons since my first e-mail t
Greg Stein wrote on 06/05/2011 07:44:19 PM:
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 18:18, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile <
> > ariel.constenla.ha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >...
> >> I don't see the MySQL Connector module there
> >> http://hg.services.openoffi
Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 07:02:02
PM:
> >
> > Otherwise this is like the Baptists telling the Methodists that they
> > cannot have a church of their own in town, because the Baptists want
to
> > recruit a larger choir.
>
> It is clear from IBM switching its efforts from Harmony to O
Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 06:45:16
PM:
> > I'll lend a voice to the contrary.
> >
> > I can't see why splitting a community should be a factor in entry to
the
> > incubator. Just about every new open source community is trying topull
away
> > developers from another community doing s
Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 06:30:06
PM:
>
> I agree with you - in this case I think it would be better if IBM
> collaborated with LibreOffice, rather than seeking to compete. But I
> could be wrong.
>
And I support 100% your right to have that opinion and to support whatever
open so
Ralph Goers wrote on 06/05/2011 06:21:06 PM:
>
> I personally don't need anything "sorted out" before the project
> enters incubation. All I care about is whether the community will be
> able to effectively deal with it or be blocked by it. That just
> requires some idea of how big a problem i
Jochen Wiedmann wrote on 06/05/2011 04:49:20
PM:
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:44 PM, wrote:
>
> > I am puzzled by the view one open source project should not compete
> > against another.
>
> And I am puzzled how you don't accept that open source *allows*
> forking and all that stuff, but th
> From: Phil Steitz
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: 06/05/2011 04:34 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
>
> On 6/5/11 11:21 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >
> > We should also remember that, with Oracle abandoning OO, we are being
> > used to facilitate their business relatio
Joe Schaefer wrote on 06/05/2011 04:22:35 PM:
>
> Sounds great, but so far I count only 2 committers on the
> project associated with IBM. IMO you're off by a factor
> or so, so claims that IBM intends to take this project
> seriously will be discounted by me until that is rectified.
>
Joe, i
Joe Schaefer wrote on 06/05/2011 03:57:05 PM:
>
> To bridge that gap will require trust bonds to be built on
> both sides. Generosity with the use of the OOo mark on our
> part combined with generosity from TDF regarding build/distribution
> resources is just a first step in the chain.
>
I agr
Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 02:21:01
PM:
>
> This proposal raises lots of questions, but the requirements for
> entering the incubator are not high and so IMO don't need to be
> answered before a vote. The only reason I believe for rejecting this
> proposal would be because it would be
André Schnabel wrote on 06/05/2011 12:17:40 PM:
> Hi Rob,
>
> I don't want to leave this unanswered, although I very likely cannot
> provide the answers
> you like to get ... (steering-discuss in cc, so that other SC memebers
> might agree or
> disagree)
>
> Am 04.06.2011 02:09, schrieb rober
Italo Vignoli wrote on 06/05/2011 07:30:43 AM:
.
.
.
> So, after having read hundreds of emails discussing the merits of
> different licenses and processes, concentrating on the geography where
> the code should live (basically, US vs EU, or Delaware vs Germany), I am
> asking a very simple q
Keith Curtis wrote on 06/05/2011 04:30:17 AM:
>
> Here is a section of my book that gives a case study on forks:
> http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=558
>
> Maybe I'll make another case study about you guys in the future,
> depending on how far you get ;-)
>
Please do check back in a year
I can say that we're not currently doing OpenSocial in Symphony
desktop, though it considered by us to be a strategic standard. We've
done some conceptional work on how OpenSocial could be used in the context
of editors. There are some very cool things that could be done in this
area.
My ma
Dave Fisher wrote on 06/04/2011 05:35:32 PM:
>
> On Jun 4, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Dave Fisher
wrote:
> >>
> >> Once licensing issues are understood then a way the two
> communities might mutually cooperate becomes clear. And here it is
> LO/
Ross Gardler wrote on 06/04/2011 11:59:08 AM:
> Subject: Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
>
> I think it is relevant how the ASF would respond. Silence will be
> taken as negative yet if the ASF Board were to response to such
> questions without first understanding the consensus of
sa3r...@gmail.com wrote on 06/04/2011 10:19:27 AM:
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:42 AM, wrote:
> > I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to
build
> > OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the
hardware
> > business, I might be able to get them to
Joe Schaefer wrote on 06/04/2011 10:37:03 AM:
>
> In short, just tell us what you think you need resource-wise, and we'll
work
> with you to sort out the details. The Infrastructure Team is reachable
at
> infrastructure@a.o, but I'm considering mentoring this podling to help
bridge
> any gap
"Andreas Kuckartz" wrote on 06/04/2011 06:24:07 AM:
>
> I am involved in both copyleft and non-copyleft projects and write this
> as a member of the Open Source community in the broad sense.
>
> Some people wrote that the only option to make OpenOffice.org /
> LibreOffice code legally usable wi
dsh wrote on 06/04/2011 07:53:54 AM:
> Andreas,
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Andreas Kuckartz
wrote:
> > I also notice that IBM currently does not sell Lotus Symphony but
makes
> > binaries available for free:
> > http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony
> >
>
> Although you can do
Andrew Rist wrote on 06/04/2011 01:07:36 AM:
>
>
> > 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 sourc
I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build
OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware
business, I might be able to get them to help out in this department. But
I wanted to first check on what the possibilities are on the Apache side.
Ian Lynch wrote on 06/04/2011 09:10:05 AM:
>
>
> So there are going to be two projects because Oracle donated the code
they
> own to ASF for Apache licensing. That's not ideal from many points of
view
> but it is the reality. Anyone who does not want to contribute code to an
> Apache license
"William A. Rowe Jr." wrote on 06/04/2011 12:22:31
AM:
> From: "William A. Rowe Jr."
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: 06/04/2011 12:23 AM
> Subject: Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
>
> On 6/3/2011 7:09 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > If someone on the list from TDF
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM:
>
> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> >>
> > LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
> > agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
> > available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 "Relationships with Other Apache Products" we currently just call out
only POI as a
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 that part of the OpenOffice proposal.
>
> Lo
Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 02:57:48 PM:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50, wrote:
> > Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM:
> >
> >>
> >> Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
> >> from ASF into their products.
> >>
> >
> > This is true, but would you call
Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM:
>
> Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
> from ASF into their products.
>
This is true, but would you call that collaboration?
I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take source
code from our
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/03/2011 02:33:21 PM:
>
> Your proposed text also does not recognise possibilities for
collaboration
> to protect the OpenOffice consumer end-user community in the interim
while
> your project sorts itself out.
>
Can you state this in the form of a collaborative acti
I'm perceiving that we're circling around on the same points with no new
options coming up. So I'd like to record the state of the issue. If
there is consensus on this formulation, I'll place it in the wiki. Of
course, if the discussion advances the issue or positions move, I can
always go b
Norbert Thiebaud wrote on 06/03/2011 11:09:23 AM:
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> >
> > This is why, inside the ASF, we expect individuals to represent the
> > communities interests not their commercial or their employers
interests.
>
> "It is difficult to get a man
"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 the LGPL to the Apache License (or
> possibl
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/03/2011 10:54:42 AM:
>
> That is what I was suggesting and which Rob claims he won't need because
its
> so easy.
>
Simon,
I don't think we should ever turn down an offer of help. I was just
suggesting that although the project is large and complex to build, we
hav
Michael Meeks wrote on 06/03/2011 10:05:31 AM:
> > As for continuity of OpenOffice releases, there was a full stable
> > release of OpenOffice in January and a preview 3.4.0 release in April.
> > It is very reasonable for the new ApacheOffice project to start up,
> > and even while in incubation
Benson Margulies wrote on 06/03/2011 08:02:25 AM:
>
> There is a meta-question here: what are the criteria by which the IPMC
> should evaluate a proposal?
>
> 1. "Are there enough people on the proposal to plausibly start out?"
>
> I think everyone agrees on this as a legitimate criterion.
>
Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 02:13:43 AM:
>
> I don't see any of this discussion about numbers being helpful, only
> divisive. "My numbers are right." "No, they're not. See?" "But those
numbers
> are too small."
>
I agree, especially if the numbers are not relevant to the question at
hand.
Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/02/2011 09:07:31
PM:
>
> The "Required Resources" section of the proposal is pretty
> minimalistic listing only two mailing lists, JIRA, Subversion &
> download site. While it is not necessary IMO to detail all
> requirements prior to accepting the proposal, it would
Michael Meeks wrote on 06/02/2011 08:57:27 PM:
>
> -$scripts_dir/merge-log -p LIBREOFFICE_CREATE.. >$outdir/all-lo.log
> +$scripts_dir/merge-log --all --since='2011-01-03'
>$outdir/all-lo.log
>
>Show 'active' contributors by affiliation - ie. at least one patch
> contributed in the
"William A. Rowe Jr." wrote on 06/02/2011 03:22:24
PM:
> > On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>
> >> The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
> >> until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
> >> impossible to get a more comprehensive list. Now tha
Benson Margulies wrote on 06/02/2011 09:19:32 PM:
>
> The proposal, as I read it, doesn't address the license status of
> third party software dependencies.
>
I'll get something into the proposal on the wiki. I think someone has
mistaken the "external dependencies" section as meaning infrastr
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/02/2011 08:12:40 PM:
> 2. This incubator project, which sets out to be the "Firefox of
> OpenOffice", should proceed pretty much as described, but under a
> name other than OpenOffice (just as Firefox got a different name).
> Something like "Apache ODF Suite" that de
"Allen Pulsifer" wrote on 06/02/2011 06:58:45
PM:
>
> As a long time member of the OpenOffice.org community, I would like to
offer
> my thoughts on the Oracle/IBM proposal.
>
Thanks. This is a great summary of the history.
.
.
.
>
> Despite the fact the IBM's vision for OpenOffice seems
Greg Stein wrote on 06/02/2011 05:45:57 PM:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:55, wrote:
> > dsh wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:
> >
> >>
> >> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
> >> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even
think
> >> it'
dsh wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:
>
> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even think
> it's required to provide proof-points based on "questionable"
> analytics at this point in time. There is a say
dsh wrote on 06/02/2011 04:05:38 PM:
>
> IMHO you should not discuss or question the LO community size
> respective its vitality in any way at this place. That's certainly not
> the scope of the OpenOffice Apache incubation proposal anyway. The
I disagree. The question was raised on the list w
charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 02:42:11 PM:
> No Rob, I don't question your credentials, have not done that, will
never
> done that. Both of us know better than having that kind of talk, both of
us
> have worked together for years now, at the OASIS and elsewhere. What I'm
> quest
Florian Effenberger wrote on 06/02/2011
03:01:26 PM:
>
> Hello,
>
> as we have a public holiday in Germany, I will reply to the other
> messages tomorrow. However, I cannot leave this sentence uncommented:
>
> Noel J. Bergman wrote on 2011-06-02 20.50:
> > If there is a community split, that
Yegor Kozlov wrote on 06/02/2011 01:36:52 PM:
>
> > I can't speak for the whole project, but personally I'd be interested
in
> > discussing how the POI mission statement could be expanded, and if
that'd
> > work well for everyone.
> >
>
> On the web site we say that the Apache POI Project's m
charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 11:16:45 AM:
> I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
> project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer
and
> Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has
never
> contrib
Jim Jagielski wrote on 06/02/2011 11:06:54 AM:
>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd like to think that no one is working on LibreOffice merely because
> > they have no choice, or that giving everyone a choice is seen as being
> > antagonistic. If
s/my/the projects/
Peace?
-Rob
Jim Jagielski wrote on 06/02/2011 10:52:16 AM:
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> >
> > No one is forcing LibreOffice members to do anything. You are free to
> > disagree with my goals, my priorities or even my methods and simpl
Jochen Wiedmann wrote on 06/02/2011 10:25:20
AM:
> >
> > I trust I do not need to explain at length to an Apache PMC the
relative
> > merits of the Apache 2.0 license or the strengths and stability of the
> > ASF. I'll take it as granted that this is well-known to you all. In
any
> > case I
Florian Effenberger wrote on 06/02/2011
06:39:12 AM:
> This would not only be about reinventing the wheel, but also about
> splitting the community, leading to disadvantages for end-users,
> contributors, and enterprises.
>
I'd like to challenge your assertion here, about "splitting the
c
Simon Brouwer wrote on 06/02/2011 09:21:53 AM:
> >
> >> Should we add ourselfs as commiters?
> > If you would like to contribute here (possibly instead of, or in
> > addition, to your work at TDF), then yes! Please add yourself into the
> > proposal on the wiki.
> I had already been so bold as to
Ian Lynch wrote on 06/02/2011 09:12:10 AM:
> From: Ian Lynch
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: 06/02/2011 09:12 AM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
>
> On 2 June 2011 14:04, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> >
> > > Should we add ourselfs as commiters?
> >
> > If you would like to contribut
Jim -- thanks for reaching out to the OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice
communities with your emails. This is important.
Since you've already started with the invites, I wonder if I could
recommend to you one more? Another significant party that works in the
core OpenOffice source code is RedOf
Dumb question. Are we obligated to converse like this, in a single email
thread, for the duration of the proposal review process? Is this an
organizing principle? Would I break anything if I created threads,
perhaps prefixed in a consistent way, like "OpenOffice Proposal: Topic
Foo"?
-Rob
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
