On 6/15/2011 9:58 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Past the 72 hour notation below but I didn't see a final tally.
Then you missed the note.
[Hint: search for the subject RESULT]
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> Binding votes are ones that ar
;
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal?action=recall&rev=207
>
> As the proposal discussion threads are numerous, I encourage people to scan
> and review the archives for this month:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
>
+1
El jun 13, 2011 2:28 p.m., "JLCastle" escribió:
> I see this is too late to count but I offer my thoughts anyway.
> It was already late before it lurked in an outbox for a while.
>
> [-1] (non-binding) Vote to reject the OpenOffice.org PROPOSAL
>
> I reject the proposal not the community or the
I see this is too late to count but I offer my thoughts anyway.
It was already late before it lurked in an outbox for a while.
[-1] (non-binding) Vote to reject the OpenOffice.org PROPOSAL
I reject the proposal not the community or the project.
I am still a bit of an open source newb and d
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
>> A (v)olunteer on the committer roster
>
> me too, if allowed
Oversight on my part. One that has no bearing on the process. Next
step for you is to send in an ICLA.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> M.
- Sam Ruby
---
> A (v)olunteer on the committer roster
me too, if allowed
M.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
: Leo Simons
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 12:31:00 PM
> Subject: [DISCUSS] how to add many committers to a new project (was: Re:
> [VOTE]
>Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation)
>
> Hey hey,
>
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Joe Schae
On 6/13/2011 11:31 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Phillip Rhodes
>>
>> Mondo rad. But one quick question what does the (v) mean, listed after
>> some of the names in the voter list?
>
> I meant to either explain that or remove it. Oh well. :-)
>
> That was my own p
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Phillip Rhodes
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> >
>> > Binding votes are ones that are cast by Incubator PMC members. Quorum
>> > is 3 binding +1 yes votes. Once quorum is met,
On 6/13/2011 11:26 AM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
>>> Binding votes are ones that are cast by Incubator PMC members. Quorum
>>> is 3 binding +1 yes votes. Once quorum is met, if more +1 vot
Hey hey,
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> +1 binding. Given the sheer number of committers involved in this podling
> there will be some work to do trying to gel a coherent development community
> out of the group. While I am optimistic, I am reminded of Roy's cautions
> a
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> > Binding votes are ones that are cast by Incubator PMC members. Quorum
> > is 3 binding +1 yes votes. Once quorum is met, if more +1 votes are
> > received than -1, the vote carries. Ot
Congratulations to all who want this to happen! Now lets do our best
to make it a success.
For all the new committers: Welcome to the ASF. I wish a good time
here with lots of fun.
Cheers,
Christian
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Sam Ruby wr
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> Binding votes are ones that are cast by Incubator PMC members. Quorum
> is 3 binding +1 yes votes. Once quorum is met, if more +1 votes are
> received than -1, the vote carries. Otherwise, the vote fails.
Vote started on Friday, June 10th at
taken into consideration by the
proposers. I wish them all the best of luck!
Cheers,
Brett
On 11/06/2011, at 2:02 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Please cast your votes:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> [ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
> [ ] -1 Reject Open
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:02:44 -0400
Sam Ruby wrote:
-1 (non-binding)
I've agonised long and hard about this. Wouldn't it be fantastic
to see Apache take on such a great trophy project? And of course
we'll be best-of-friends with TDF despite perhaps a few vocal
individuals? And in the worst cas
;
b. + : because the many people from the OpenOffice.org project that I
know and want to give the Apache OpenOffice.org a chance, which I think
is fair too.
Round (b-a) = +0 (non binding)
Kind regards,
Cor
[ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
[ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org
scan and review the archives for this month:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
Please cast your votes:
[ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
[ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
[ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation
This
eads are numerous, I encourage people to scan
> and review the archives for this month:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
>
> Please cast your votes:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> [ ] +0 Indifferent to Ope
scan and review the archives for this month:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
Please cast your votes:
[ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
[ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
[ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation
This
tp://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
Please cast your votes:
[ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
[ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
[ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation
I may have missed the vote it being over a weekend a
nding)
Malte.
On 10.06.2011 19:05, Sam Ruby wrote:
[X] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
- Sam Ruby
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: gene
oposal?action=recall&rev=207
>
> As the proposal discussion threads are numerous, I encourage people to scan
> and review the archives for this month:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
>
> Please cast your votes:
>
> [
+1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation (binding)
-Bertrand, who agrees with Dirk.
On Sunday, June 12, 2011, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> *: who is in a - what the hack mood - and thinks that get this code base in
> a state where people can start hacking is better than let it b
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
. Here
>>> is a link to the document in the wiki:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal?action=recall&rev=207
>>>
>>> As the proposal discussion threads are numerous, I encourage people to
>>> scan and review the arc
+1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
[ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
[ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation
This vote will close 72 hours from now.
- Sam Ruby
= OpenOffice.org - An open productivity environment =
== Abstract ==
!OpenOffice.org is comprised of six personal pro
our votes:
[ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
[ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
[ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation
This vote will close 72 hours from now.
- Sam Ruby
= OpenOffice.org - An open productivity environment =
== Abstract ==
!OpenOffice.org is compris
[x] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation (non-binding)
I would like to see a future for OOo and i hope that this can be a new
start. A few words to myself because i wasn't really visible here on the
list so far. My name is Juergen Schmidt (jsc) and I have worked on the
project since
[X] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation (binding)
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:12 PM, IngridvdM wrote:
> [x] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation (non-binding)
>
> I would like to humbly beg you people from Apache for giving a chance to
> those who are willing to join you. I am
[X] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
(binding)
- Shane
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
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
eview the archives for this month:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
Please cast your votes:
[ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
[ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
[ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation
This vote will close
June 12, 2011 11:21:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > As the discussions on the OpenOfficeProposal threads seem to be winding
> > down, I would like to initiate the vote to accept OpenO
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
+1 non-bindung
> From Sam Ruby
> Subject[VOTE] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> Date Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:02:44 GMT
>
>
> Please cast your votes:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> [ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> As the discussions on the OpenOfficeProposal threads seem to be winding
> down, I would like to initiate the vote to accept OpenOffice.org as an
> Apache Incubator project.
+1 (non-binding)
/niklas
--
+1 (not binding)
Trying to establish a layer of common infrastructure for Open Document
Format processors looks a worthy attempt, even with all the warnings and
caveats.
I was Incubator PMC member till recently, and I could have re-joined to
vote. It looks like cheating, though.
Regards
Santiago
Hi,
On 10 June 2011 17:02, Sam Ruby wrote:
> As the discussions on the OpenOfficeProposal threads seem to be winding
> down, I would like to initiate the vote to accept OpenOffice.org as an
> Apache Incubator project.
>
+1 (non-binding)
Andrew.
--
asav...@apache.org / cont...@andrewsavory.co
eview the archives for this month:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
Please cast your votes:
[ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
[ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
[ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation
This vote will close
+1 [binding]
Alex
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> [ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> [ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
> [ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation
+/- 0 (non binding)
I am still going back and forth, on whether or not.
against:
I understand very well most of the arguments from An
[X] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation (binding)
Dw*.
*: who is in a - what the hack mood - and thinks that get this code base in a
state where people can start hacking is better than let it bitrot any further.
And fully trust the incubator process to attic the code & jettison
+1
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> [X] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation (non-binding)
>
> Comment: While I favor focusing on the reference implementation for ODF, as
> my previous comments reflec
> 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
discussion threads are numerous, I encourage people to scan
> and review the archives for this month:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
>
> Please cast your votes:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> [ ] +0 Ind
[X] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation (non-binding)
I like the Apache license and I think having a really free alternative
is good for everyone, as much as clang vs gcc and linux vs FreeBSD.
Apache is also a good fit for OO technologically and I think the
incubation process will end up
amp;rev=207
>
> As the proposal discussion threads are numerous, I encourage people to scan
> and review the archives for this month:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
>
> Please cast your votes:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.
[x] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation (non-binding)
I would like to humbly beg you people from Apache for giving a chance to
those who are willing to join you. I am deeply sorry that we are
bringing a big political dispute with us. My hope is that the community
that was so heavily
+1 (binding)
Dick
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:06 PM, wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> - Don Harbison
>
> Sam Ruby wrote on 06/10/2011 12:02:44 PM:
>
>>
>> Please cast your votes:
>>
>> [ X] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
>> [ ] +0 Ind
+1 (non-binding)
- Don Harbison
Sam Ruby wrote on 06/10/2011 12:02:44 PM:
>
> Please cast your votes:
>
> [ X] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> [ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
> [ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation
>
> This vote will
[x] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
Eric
On 10/06/11 18:02, Sam Ruby wrote:
*** Please change your Subject: line for any [DISCUSSION] of this [VOTE]
As the discussions on the OpenOfficeProposal threads seem to be winding
down, I would like to initiate the vote to accept OpenOffice.org
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
+1 (non-binding)
Malte.
On 10.06.2011 19:05, Sam Ruby wrote:
[X] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
- Sam Ruby
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail
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
+1 (non-binding)
Malte.
On 10.06.2011 19:05, Sam Ruby wrote:
[X] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
- Sam Ruby
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail
+1 (non-binding)
/-/-/-/-/-/
Scott Wilson
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
+1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
(non-binding)
At first I thought beeing on the committers list would imply my approval
of the proposal. But now I'd like to give the reasons for my vote as so
many others did:
(All just my point of view as an suburban inhabitant of the &quo
Hi Sam,
On Jun 10, 2011, at 9:02 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> [X] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> [ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
> [ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation
(binding). Good luck!
C
+1 (binding)
I have similar concerns as Niclas and a few other folks here, and estimate the
risk of failure of this very visible podling as too high. I wasn't sure about
my vote till the last moment. But in the current situation I don't see an
alternative to ASF taking it and trying to do our b
Hello,
I've been thinking for quite a while whether I should raise my voice and
vote or not. I've made my standpoint rather clear the last days, so I
wanted to abstain from voting, as I've shown all the facts already.
However, having been in involved with the OpenOffice.org project for
many y
+1 (non-binding)
--
Steve Lee
Full Measure - open source accessibility - http://fullmeasure.co.uk
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache
-1 (non-binding)
As stated elsewhere [1], this incubator, combined with the
disruption and delay it's causing to the OOo ecosystem, does not add
enough unique value to what we already have a TDF to justify the
effort.
(I'm referring to the existing proposal's mission statement [2], not
to the (qu
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
ncubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
>
> Please cast your votes:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> [ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
> [ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation
>
> This vote will close 72 hours from now.
>
> - Sam Ruby
&g
+1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation (binding)
N
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Yes, and I also like to correct my previous statement: I actually meant that
ALL votes are welcome (not only +1)!
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Fri, 6/10/11, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> From: Daniel Shahaf
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> To: general@incubator.a
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> [ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> [ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
> [ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation
-1.
I think by accepting this ASF is risking quite a lot of flak and
reputational damage
-1 (non-binding)
Within the discussion several reasons that might support a -1 vote were
named, many have been addressed or may be addresed by the podling.
I still feel obligated to vote -1 because (even if the podling advances
to a Apache TLP) this will be the end of "OpenOffice.org as it is
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
incompatibilities with LibreOffice.
Cheers,
Andreas
---
> [ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> [ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
> [ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
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
Hi Gavin,
2011/6/11 Gavin McDonald :
>> From: Volker Merschmann [mailto:merschm...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, 11 June 2011 6:49 PM
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> As the discussions on the OpenOfficeProposal threads seem to be winding
> down, I would like to initiate the vote to accept OpenOffice.org as an
> Apache Incubator project.
+1 from me (binding).
cheers,
Leo
Hi Gavin,
Op 11-6-2011 10:59, Gavin McDonald schreef:
-Original Message-
From: Volker Merschmann [mailto:merschm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 11 June 2011 6:49 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
Hi,
I am wearing my OOo-hat
> -Original Message-
> From: Volker Merschmann [mailto:merschm...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 11 June 2011 6:49 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
>
> Hi,
>
> I am wearing my OOo-hat here, and th
Hi,
I am wearing my OOo-hat here, and this is my vote:
[ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
[ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
[X ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation
I have contributed to OpenOffice.org for several years and I doubt
that the project will find the
[X] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation (binding).
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h
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
e numerous, I encourage people to scan
> and review the archives for this month:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
>
> Please cast your votes:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> [ ] +0 Indifferent to Ope
gt; and review the archives for this month:
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
>>
>> Please cast your votes:
>>
>> [ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
>> [ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
/wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal?action=recall&rev=207
>
> As the proposal discussion threads are numerous, I encourage people to scan
> and review the archives for this month:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
>
> Pl
> 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
I have been active before :). So the vote is binding.
Sanjiva.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:42 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> On 6/10/2011 12:04 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> >
> > (Officially I'm on the incubator PMC I believe but I have not been active
> ..
> > so lets chalk this up for non
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 2:59 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Please cast your votes:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> [ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
> [ ] -1 Reject OpenOffice.org for incubation
>
> This vote will close 72 hours from now.
+
+1 (binding)
Ate
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
+1 (non-binding) Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
Best regards,
Carl
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
e less roundabout:
Roman's vote is not binding since he's not on the IPMC.
> --- On Fri, 6/10/11, Roman H. Gelbort wrote:
>
> > From: Roman H. Gelbort
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > D
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
>
> Please cast your votes:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> [ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org incubation
>
rous, I encourage people to scan
> and review the archives for this month:
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/browser
>
> Please cast your votes:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> [ ] +0 Indifferent to OpenOffice.org
-by-project.html#incubator-pmc
--- On Fri, 6/10/11, Roman H. Gelbort wrote:
> From: Roman H. Gelbort
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Friday, June 10, 2011, 6:13 PM
> El 10/06/11 14:17, Roman H. Gelbort
> escri
[ X ] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
non-binding
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Keith Curtis wrote:
-1
My list of 44 reasons is here:
http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=2567
To boil it down to one: this plan as announced had several big flaws, and
they still exist.
Kind regards,
-Keith
P.S. I don't see many from LibreOffice voting against this proposal, so I
joined again t
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
