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 and thus omit collaboration with other parties. Tho, whether those parties accept the invitation or not can't probably assured by the proposal BUT at least you tried your very best.
Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to the community to add such a tone to the proposal. What do you think? Cheers Daniel On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, <robert_w...@us.ibm.com> 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. > > Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the > name of "purity" (and division of community), or you can be inclusive. > The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It > would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to > try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we > want to see here. > >>... >>> Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in >>> our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They >>> can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our modified >>> code into LO. >>> >>> If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues. >> >> That would certainly be collaboration, but that is in the nature of having >> user lists and a bug tracker. I was thinking that the IPMC would >> especially want to see any *extra* things that the proposers foresaw that >> should be noted. >> >> There might be more concrete things we could do, but that would be in the >> details, e.g., synching schedules for coordinated releases, coordinating >> version numbers, etc. I can add that. >> >>> > I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take >> source >>> > code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they wish. >> I'm >>> > not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was thinking >> that >>> > the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee >>> > collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are inherent >> in >>> > the license. >>> >>> Calling TDF/LO "one of many who can take our source" is disingenuous. >>> They are VERY definitely NOT just "one of the crowd". >>> >> >> I see this distinction: >> >> -- An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice >> >> versus >> >> -- An extraordinary collaboration >> >> >> I'll grant you that TDF/LO could be seen as the former. > > "Could be"? If you don't start writing down that they *will* and that > the project should *plan* for that, then they never will be. > > I'm starting to get annoyed by your reticence here. Gonna end this > email now. Come back later. > > -g > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
