On 6/12/2011 4:03 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> Not that much;
> * Same players.
> * Same importance.
Really?
I'm pretty certain there is < 0.05% overlap between the Office Suite
and Java Runtime mechanics of either Sun or IBM. They probably never
even shared so much as a VP, although I could
On Jun 12, 2011, at 3:01 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> Am 12.06.2011 01:20, schrieb Henri Yandell:
>> It is a large project; but so what? I thought Harmony had no chance of
>> being coded and that went very quickly, showing how well maximum
>> openness can walk the path between corporate, startup
On Jun 11, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
>
> Since Oracle was willing to transfer the OOo source code copyrights to
> the ASF, the ASF could have accepted those copyrights,
> extract the related code for the ODF reference implementation, and
> re-release the source code with a copyle
On 2011/5/12 9:5 Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
>Nearly the whole and very active community in Brasil switched to LO. A
>lot of very brilliant and active members of the german community are
>working now at LO, doing a very good job.
In General, the Brazilian users keeps using BrOffice. BrOffice has ch
> Am 12.06.2011 01:20, schrieb Henri Yandell:
>> It is a large project; but so what? I thought Harmony had no chance of
>> being coded and that went very quickly, showing how well maximum
>> openness can walk the path between corporate, startup and hobby needs.
>
> You think Apache Harmony is a com
Am 12.06.2011 01:20, schrieb Henri Yandell:
> It is a large project; but so what? I thought Harmony had no chance of
> being coded and that went very quickly, showing how well maximum
> openness can walk the path between corporate, startup and hobby needs.
You think Apache Harmony is a comparable
ves.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cBANLkTi=xbf7sg1nc2jjrd-obxofukki...@mail.gmail.com%3e>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 11:55
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
[ ... ]
Since Oracle was willing to transfer the OOo
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
>
> On 11 Jun 2011, at 11:23, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
>
>> The part about the ASF undertaking only a reference implementation for
>> the ODF format
>> was not discussed.
>
> Yes it was. In f
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
>
> On 11 Jun 2011, at 11:23, Simos Xenitellis
> wrote:
>
> > The part about the ASF undertaking only a reference implementation for
> > the ODF format
> > was not discussed.
>
> Yes it wa
On Jun 11, 2011, at 6:23 AM, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>
> The part about the ASF undertaking only a reference implementation for
> the ODF format
> was not discussed. This would probably make the Free Software
> Foundation (FSF) happy.
>
> T
>>> I think Italo is incorrect saying voting "no" would be a defeat for
>>> free software. It is an honest mistake. People don't know what else
>>> could happen, because alternatives are not being discussed.
>>
>> They have been discussed. Even at this list. We have discussed to say
>> "no" to OOo
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Simos Xenitellis
wrote:
>
> Now that you mention it; the voting started at time (7.02pm local time).
> Benson Margulies voted at 7.03pm.
> You voted at 7.05pm.
>
> Is the voting start time pre-announced?
The voting time was pre-announced on this very list:
http:/
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 11 Jun 2011, at 11:23, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> The part about the ASF undertaking only a reference implementation for
> the ODF format
> was not discussed.
Yes it was. In fact it was the suggestion that OO.o should be refactored so
that
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> Ketih,
>
>> I think Italo is incorrect saying voting "no" would be a defeat for
>> free software. It is an honest mistake. People don't know what else
>> could happen, because alternatives are not being discussed.
>
> They have been dis
Hi,
Am 11.06.2011 06:17, schrieb Keith Curtis:
I think LibreOffice people are quiet for various reasons:
Everyone here votes on his own behalf, for his own reasons and at the
time he feels to be the right time.
There is currently no need to vote on anybody's behalf (really - nobody
here o
Ketih,
> I think Italo is incorrect saying voting "no" would be a defeat for
> free software. It is an honest mistake. People don't know what else
> could happen, because alternatives are not being discussed.
They have been discussed. Even at this list. We have discussed to say
"no" to OOo at the
> Maybe the "people from LibreOffice" are not voting against because, even
> though they believe there could have been better solutions, given the
> current situation they prefer that OOo is approved as a podling: see
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.discuss/5824 for
> a mor
On 10/06/2011 Keith Curtis wrote:
> P.S. I don't see many from LibreOffice voting against this proposal, so I
> joined again to vote on their behalf.
Maybe the "people from LibreOffice" are not voting against because, even
though they believe there could have been better solutions, given the
curre
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 05:45:03PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
> For us outsiders, can you explain who is allowed to vote and in what way,
> please?
Official policy:
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Entry+to+Incubation
Entry Into Incubation
...
In order
On 6/10/2011 11:45 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> For us outsiders, can you explain who is allowed to vote and in what way,
> please?
Everyone is welcome to vote.
Binding votes include all Incubator Project Management Committee members.
Non-binding votes can and do influence the opinions of committee
On 10 June 2011 17:49, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Simon,
>
> Anyone interested can VOTE. If u see some of the votes they have
> "(binding)" in the text, those are from folks on the incubator pmc.
> Ultimately if we see a whole bunch of -1's then we check which way the
> pmc voted to decide if the
binding is used by members of the incubator pmc [1]
-- dims
[1] http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator-pmc
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
> Sorry for ignorance but what does binding - non-binding mean?
>
> --
> Ian
>
> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
Sorry for ignorance but what does binding - non-binding mean?
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Awesome, thanks.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> Anyone is allowed to vote. If you vote against, please, explain why.
> Most of votes do not count anyway, negative votes are usually
> addressed.
>
> --
> With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
> Alexei Fedotov / Але
Simon,
Anyone interested can VOTE. If u see some of the votes they have
"(binding)" in the text, those are from folks on the incubator pmc.
Ultimately if we see a whole bunch of -1's then we check which way the
pmc voted to decide if the proposal was accepted or not.
So please go ahead and vote t
Anyone is allowed to vote. If you vote against, please, explain why.
Most of votes do not count anyway, negative votes are usually
addressed.
--
With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,
http://dataved.ru/
+7 916 562 8095
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:45 PM, S
For us outsiders, can you explain who is allowed to vote and in what way,
please?
S.
27 matches
Mail list logo
