Roberto, I'm sorry nobody had responded as yet. I've nagged the PPMC to get itself together over this (on the private list). This is a more gentle nag on the public list, just so you know you are not being ignored.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Jan 27, 2012 8:13 PM, "Roberto Galoppini" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Kay Schenk <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Ross Gardler < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > >> As some of you will know the board meeting got pushed back 6 days. It > >> was, however, held last night and I was able to attend. Consequently I > >> am pleased to confirm that we now have a go-ahead with respect to the > >> Sourceforge offer to host the extensions site. However, there is one > >> important restriction on what we can do, so I'll cover that first. > >> > >> There cannot be any advertising on a domain name owned by the ASF, > >> this includes openoffice.org. > >> > >> The board felt the most appropriate action would be to have users > >> directed to *.openoffice,org or *.apache.org where they will be > >> greeted by a page listing appropriate extensions sites with a > >> disclaimer. At a later date this would become the meta-data server. I > >> figured this would not be a problem as it is one of the options we > >> discussed. > >> > >> We did discuss whether this would break behaviour for older OOo > >> releases. If this is the case then it would be acceptable to provide a > >> redirect for appropriate URLs. This may need to be removed for at > >> graduation time, we didn't go into details about this as I felt it > >> would be acceptable to deprecate the old behaviour whilst in > >> incubation. Let me know if this is an incorrect assumption. > >> > >> I had some specific questions for the board, I copy them below but > >> please not these are my notes and not from the minutes. They have not > >> been approved yet, I'll let you know if I misunderstood anything. > >> > >> Can the PPMC accept SF's offer? > >> Yes > >> > >> MOU necessary? What should it cover? > >> PPMC to decide if necessary (with mentor guidance). > >> Since the long term plan is to move to a > >> PPMC owned meta-server it might make most sense to just let SF own > >> this extensions site and not be distracted by what they are doing (we > >> have trademarks policy to ensure they don't misbehave). > >> > >> Assuming trademarks are respected are we OK? > >> Yes (as long as no advertising on apache owned domain) > >> > >> Will this address IP issues since non-ASF code will be offsite > >> Probably (I believe this to be a yes, but allowing for edge cases) > >> > >> Advertising on the extensions download site? > >> OK as long as not an apache domain (incl. openoffice.org) > >> > >> Redirection preferred? > >> Yes (see no advertising requirement). Would be better to go via an > >> informational page on an openoffice.org or apache.org. > >> > >> So there you go. It's now over to the PPMC to get it moving. I'll > >> forward this mail to the infra team so that they can be ready to hand > >> over the keys to the current extensions site at an appropriate time. > >> Who is going to drive this? > >> > >> Ross > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Ross Gardler (@rgardler) > >> Programme Leader (Open Development) > >> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com > >> > > > > > > Ross-- > > > > Thanks for this update. Yes, Apache OpenOffice PPMC will need to spend > some > > time mulling this over. But -- good news! > > > -- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > MzK > > > > "Follow your bliss." > > -- attributed to Joseph Campbell > > Hi all, > > we look forward to start working on it as soon as possible, and we are > open to do what is necessary to make it (MoU, define how to handle ads > out of Apache domains, IP issues, etc). > > Since we committed to deploy the Extension website in a short time, I > wonder if in the meantime we might get a copy of the Drupal > application and of the database of extensions to do our home work, > eventually providing you with all necessary warranties. > > Roberto > ==== > This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It > may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately > notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any > attachment(s) from your system. Thank you. > >
