On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Correct. 99% of the time the private list is
> used for voting in new committers/PPMC members.
+1
(Some established projects elect committers on public lists but this
requires high levels of trust and isn't recommended)
> The dev list is
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
OfficeProposal threads seem to be winding down,
> I would like to initiate the vote to accept OpenOffice.org as an Apache
> Incubator project.
>
> At the end of this mail, I've put a copy of the current proposal. Here is a
> link to the document in the wiki:
>
+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 p
iki content including all linked data.
Rationale: The wiki contains development processes, ideas, and also
(partly) specifications that may be important for future use - to ensure
consistency.
Source: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org
Importance: Mid
USAGE TRACKING BACKEND AND CONTENT
Descript
27 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org next steps
>
> Presumably though the private list is an exception-handling venue and we
> should just get started on ooo-...@incubator.apache.org for now? Or am I
> missing key insights here?
>
> S.
>
-
Presumably though the private list is an exception-handling venue and we
should just get started on ooo-...@incubator.apache.org for now? Or am I
missing key insights here?
S.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote:
> Op 13-6-2011 22:14, Daniel Shahaf schreef:
>>
>> Sam Ruby wrote on Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 15:48:37 -0400:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Jun 13, 2011 11:31 AM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
>
> The pri
Op 13-6-2011 22:14, Daniel Shahaf schreef:
Sam Ruby wrote on Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 15:48:37 -0400:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Jun 13, 2011 11:31 AM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
The private list should only be subscribed to by folks who have already
submitted an ICLA and
Sam Ruby wrote on Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 15:48:37 -0400:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 2011 11:31 AM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The private list should only be subscribed to by folks who have already
> >> submitted an ICLA and account request id to S
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2011 11:31 AM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
>>
>>
>> The private list should only be subscribed to by folks who have already
>> submitted an ICLA and account request id to Sam.
>
> To clarify: some people already have IDs, such as myself. I
Send a message to ooo-dev-subscr...@incubator.apache.org and reply
to the automated response. That will subscribe you to the dev
list, which is where the bulk of the conversations relating to
Apache OpenOffice.org belong.
If you wish to subscribe to the other lists, simply substitute
the name
Am 13.06.11 21:07, schrieb Andy Brown:
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Lists are now available:
ooo-{dev,commits,issues,notifications,private}@incubator.apache.org
The private list should only be subscribed to by folks who have already
submitted an ICLA and account request id to Sam.
Hi Joe,
For us ne
Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Andy Brown wrote:
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Lists are now available:
ooo-{dev,commits,issues,notifications,private}@incubator.apache.org
The private list should only be subscribed to by folks who have already
submitted an ICLA and account
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Andy Brown wrote:
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>
>> Lists are now available:
>>
>> ooo-{dev,commits,issues,notifications,private}@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>> The private list should only be subscribed to by folks who have already
>> submitted an ICLA and account reques
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Lists are now available:
ooo-{dev,commits,issues,notifications,private}@incubator.apache.org
The private list should only be subscribed to by folks who have already
submitted an ICLA and account request id to Sam.
Hi Joe,
For us new to Apache, where/how do we subscribe?
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
On Jun 13, 2011 11:31 AM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
>
> Lists are now available:
>
> ooo-{dev,commits,issues,notifications,private}@incubator.apache.org
Thanks, Joe! Subscribed.
>
>
> The private list should only be subscribed to by folks who have already
> submitted an ICLA and account request id t
eneral@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 2:11:15 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org next steps
>
> I'll be glad to moderate too.
>
> Danese
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> > If I can get a few volunteer list moderators I&#
neral@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 1:07:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org next steps
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Sam Ruby
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- Have IDs:
> > >
> > > damjan Damjan Jovanovic
>
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> If I can get a few volunteer list moderators I'll go ahead
> and create the mailing lists.
I'll be glad to moderate.
- Sam Ruby
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr..
If I can get a few volunteer list moderators I'll go ahead
and create the mailing lists.
- Original Message
> From: Sam Ruby
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 1:07:46 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org next steps
>
> On Mon, Jun 13
Christian Grobmeier wrote:
Joanmarie Diggs
Peter Korn
Jean Hollis Weber
What is required to get these approved?
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html#Voting+in+a+new+committer
The Podling PMC need to vote these people in.
If these people are already known to the current team, this sh
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Andy Brown wrote:
>> Andrew Brown
>
> My name seems to be missing. I forward a copy of the acceptance email.
The email addresses didn't match. I'll send you a separate email
(using the email address provided on the ICLA) on the process for
requesting an id.
- S
>> Joanmarie Diggs
>> Peter Korn
>> Jean Hollis Weber
>
> What is required to get these approved?
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html#Voting+in+a+new+committer
The Podling PMC need to vote these people in.
If these people are already known to the current team, this should be
straightfor
Hi Sam,
Sam Ruby wrote:
I've divided up the list of proposed committers into four categories,
based on their current status.
--- Have IDs:
damjan Damjan Jovanovic
florentFlorent André
grobmeier Christian Grobmeier
gstein Greg Stein
jimJim Jagielski
lrosen Lawrence Rose
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> --- Have IDs:
>
> damjan Damjan Jovanovic
> florent Florent André
> grobmeier Christian Grobmeier
> gstein Greg Stein
> jim Jim Jagielski
> lrosen Lawrence Rosen
> rdonkin Robert Burrell Donkin
> wave David Fishe
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
I've divided up the list of proposed committers into four categories,
based on their current status.
--- Have IDs:
damjan Damjan Jovanovic
florentFlorent André
grobmeier Christian Grobmeier
gstein Greg Stein
jimJim Jagielski
lrosen Lawrence Rosen
rdonkinRobert Burrell
: 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
Hi,
Sam Ruby wrote (10-06-11 18:02)
Please cast your votes:
a. - : because of the difficulties ahead, as mentioned on this list, for
the OpenOffice.org product in the ASF (that may not be relevant for the
AFS, but IMO are for OpenOffice.org), and since TDF for me is a more
logical choice
+1 (non-binding)
Regards,
Dieter
Am 10.06.11 18:02, schrieb Sam Ruby:
*** 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 as an
embarrassing chapter.
--tim
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:02 PM, 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 OpenOffi
+1 (non-binding)
Greetings Raphael
Am 10.06.11 18:02, schrieb Sam Ruby:
*** 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 as an
On 10/06/11 17:02, 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 as an
Apache Incubator project.
At the end of
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
e winding
> down, I would like to initiate the vote to accept OpenOffice.org as an
> Apache Incubator project.
>
> At the end of this mail, I've put a copy of the current proposal. Here is a
> link to the document in the wiki:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficePr
+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
t;>> 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.
>>>
>>> At the end of this mail, I've put a copy of the current proposal
]
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.
At the end of this mail, I've put a copy of the current proposal. Here
is a link to the document in the wiki:
[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 as an
Apache Incubator project.
At the end of this mail, I've put a copy of the current proposal. Here
is a link to the document in the
[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
+1 (non-binding)
Regards,
Mathias
On 10.06.2011 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 as an
Apache
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)
+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...@apach
+1 (non-binding)
Regards,
Mathias
On 10.06.2011 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 as an
Apache
+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
+1 - binding
Regards,
Alan
On Jun 10, 2011, at 9:02 AM, 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 OpenO
[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
caring away the big potential contributors with
undesirable licensing.
Hen
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:02 AM, 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
[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
I don't understand the assertions here. It may not matter in the larger scheme
of things, but I didn't want some of the assumptions here to go unquestioned.
1. It is certainly the case that the proposal comprehends sustaining
OpenOffice.org and continuing it as an Apache pro
+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 pr
+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
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.
>
> At the end of this mail, I've put a copy of the current proposal. Here
> is a link
+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
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
>>> Should they compound it with their own rudeness?
>>
>> It is how democracy usually works. You have X pro, Y contra,
>> afterwards you have a decision. Usually some complain about it
>> afterwards.
>>
>
> The case here is that the proposed Apache Open
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
1 - 100 of 675 matches
Mail list logo
