On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Drew Jensen <drewjensen.in...@gmail.com> wrote: > Rob, > > Are you referring only to the email on the TDF mailing list - I know which > one that would be I'm sure, and I drafted but then did not send a reply to > it. > > I ask because I did not see that go any further then the ml, but that > doesn't mean that it didn't. >
I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be rebutted. IMHO. -Rob > Thanks > > Drew > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie> wrote: > >> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:16 -0500 >> Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Donald Whytock <dwhyt...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects, saying that the >> > >> "IBM donation to AOO is pure marketing fluff" and "IBM faked the >> > >> donation of the Symphony code" and "IBM did not donate anything". >> > > >> > > Did they explain how one fakes a donation to ASF? >> > > >> > >> > I assume he is confusing two different things: >> > >> > 1) The donation of Symphony, which was done via an SGA (Software Grant >> > Agreement). This occurred last year. This was recorded by the ASF >> > Secretary and the PMC was notified when this occurred. So there >> > should be no doubts here. Symphony was donated to the ASF. >> > >> > 2) Publication of Symphony as a code base via an ASF release. After >> > discussion the PMC decided not to go down that path. The preference >> > was to do a slower merge of Symphony enhancements rather than to >> > rebase AOO on Symphony. If we had done the rebase path this would >> > have required additional work from the project, including IP >> > Clearance, modifying file headers, etc. >> > >> > Maybe the belief was that the "slow merge" was not for real? It >> > certainly is not very flashy. The fixes are very practical, mundane >> > things, the nuts and bolts of what users most care about, >> > interoperability, stability, etc. So we have not boasted loudly about >> > these improvements. But maybe it is worth a blog post? >> > >> Certainly worth a blog (and elsewhere) mention that "forthcoming AOO 4.0 >> will incorporate many features and fixes from IBM Symphony code donation; >> this process will continue throughout further AOO releases" or words to >> that effect. Would it be premature to mention timescale for AOO 4.0 release? >> >> >> -- >> Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie> >>
