On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:01, <robert_w...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM: >> >> 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. >> > > Greg, TDF/LO are already mentioned in the proposal. If you have concrete > suggestions, fire away. But please do not accuse me of "excluding" them > from the proposal or "purity" or "division of community" or suggest that > I'm "pretending" anything. It seems to me that you are being very quick > to take offense, and I don't see where this is coming from. Please be > civil and assume that I am being sincere. I will strive to do the same of > you.
It is the pattern of query and response that I am objecting to. Consider the string of emails: R: The first email didn't mentioned anything about LO consuming our source. G: I said it should, as that is a very real possibility R: You said "is that really collaboration?" G: Of course it is, and here is why R: this is *our* proposal. not theirs. We don't need to talk about them. G: give up It is like pulling teeth to have you simply recognize that LO is a part of this proposal and the eventual community. It's like you don't even have that in your *mindset*, and that very much scares me. When you argue to *not* put them into the proposal, then I call that "exclusive" rather than "inclusive". And we should note that "collaboration" also means a tight relationship between our development and theirs. That they will consume our source, and we should incorporate that into our plans. But at each point, there is some pedantic rationale around wording and phrasing (ref: "An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice" versus "An extraordinary collaboration"). So yah. I'm giving up on this for now. My suggestions are hitting a teflon wall. But it shouldn't. Including the LO community in this proposal should be a no-brainer. I don't think that "including them by reference [to the Apache License]" is a cop-out. Several times, you fallen back to "but they can just use the code like anybody else". But they're AREN'T ANYBODY ELSE. bye. -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
