Board report April: infrastructure wishlist

2013-03-09 Thread Andrea Pescetti 
The periodic report to the Apache Board about the status of the 
OpenOffice project and community is due in about one month. You can find 
an initial draft of the April report at

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2013+Apr
but it is almost completely empty and not worth reading yet.

Remember that we have rarely used it this way so far, but the Board 
report is also an occasion to officially notify the Apache Board about 
our needs: the Board can decide how to allocate resources, but they need 
our input for that.


Seeing the many recent discussions about infrastructure (wiki, forum, 
buildbots, Pootle, domains, certificates...) I believe we should use the 
report to make a sort of "Infrastructure wishlist". The aim is to avoid 
annoying the Infrastructure staff and volunteers with requests; we 
should tell the Board what our priorities are, so that they can use 
these priorities in allocating resources.


So, feel free to discuss the "Infrastructure wishlist" here and I will 
then include it in 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2013+Apr for 
consideration by the Apache Board (we will probably ask Infra to take a 
look too before sending).


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: suggestion for another cwiki change..new

2013-03-09 Thread Dave Fisher 
I am personally fine with whatever you do along the lines of surfacing current 
planning efforts and archiving old efforts.

For cwiki articles that should be moved to Mwiki then perhaps a "For MWiki" 
category would make sense.

If you need someone with full confluence admin rights let me know, I'm happy to 
help.

Regards,
Dave

On Mar 9, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

> Right now, for top level categories on cwiki, we have the following:
> 
> 
>   -  
> 
>Project 
> Planning
>   -  
> 
>User Documentation
> Plan
>-  
> 
>Marketing 
> Planning
>-
>Development Snapshot
> Builds
>-  
> 
>Project 
> Reporting
>-  
> 
>Localization
> Planning
>-  
> 
>QA 
> Planning
>-  
> 
>AOO4 
> Brainstorming
>-  
> 
>Board 
> Reports
>-  
> 
>Directory of
> Volunteers
>-  
> 
>Archive 
>   -  
> 
>Strategic 
> Plans
> 
> Now for releases, release planning, we have the AOO 3.4 Release Plan is its
> own subcategory under Project Planning.
> 
> However, other Release Plans are under a sub-category called Releases.
> 
> Are there any objections to promoting "Releases" to a top-level category
> and put the various version release plans under that (including 3.4)?
> 
> I  must  be in a spring cleaning mood! :}
> 
> -- 
> 
> MzK
> 
> "Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: update service for not released languages [was: Re: Registration]

2013-03-09 Thread janI 
On 9 March 2013 21:57, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:

> janI wrote:
>
>> that is perfectly within the ruleset.
>>
>
> Perfect.
>
>
>  I thought the reason for local users was
>> - get their work named or
>> - allow them to do review (not possible on suggestions) or
>> - save committers work
>> as you suggest I cannot see the difference to using anonymous as we have
>> it
>> today ? What did I miss ?
>>
>
> Well, the first item is very important. The step from anonymous
> contributors to authenticated contributors is a big one: it enables
> traceability, accountability and accommodates licensing concerns; it allows
> to evaluate contributions from individual authors. The other improvements
> are very good, but I see the first one as the key.


 making support for non-ldap users is no trivial task (just think of spam
> protection) so clearly this effort should counter weighted  of other
> advantages.
>

Manual creation/activation of accounts would be fine too: it would still be
> a significant improvement over what we are doing now.


The reference to "accommodates licensing concerns" actually calls for
another change in the setup, somewhere in the login screen, the user must
be made aware of or see the ASF license and not standard. I hope we can
configure it in 2.5.

I do not share the opinion that we need to rush on this subject, most
translations are done offline so if we as an example spent the same time
improving download/upload it would be much more useful for translators (and
volunteers who prepare .po files).

I have promised infra to do the upgrade and regular maintenance, which I
will do (and am doing), but in view of the discussion "support of mwiki
depending on my person", I do not volunteer to manage/enable account
creation and thereby create a real dependency (or the feeling of one).

pootle (translate-vm) is a supported infra "product" available to all
projects, so making a Jira os the correct way to get such changes (with
manual account creation it is in the installed version via use of the
backend authentication script). With a Jira we are sure that infra supports
and maintains the change (including manual creation if needed).

rgds
jan I.


>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> --**--**-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

suggestion for another cwiki change..new

2013-03-09 Thread Kay Schenk 
Right now, for top level categories on cwiki, we have the following:


   -  

Project 
Planning
   -  

User Documentation
Plan
-  

Marketing 
Planning
-
Development Snapshot
Builds
-  

Project 
Reporting
-  

Localization
Planning
-  

QA 
Planning
-  

AOO4 
Brainstorming
-  

Board 
Reports
-  

Directory of
Volunteers
-  

Archive 
   -  

Strategic 
Plans

Now for releases, release planning, we have the AOO 3.4 Release Plan is its
own subcategory under Project Planning.

However, other Release Plans are under a sub-category called Releases.

Are there any objections to promoting "Releases" to a top-level category
and put the various version release plans under that (including 3.4)?

I  must  be in a spring cleaning mood! :}

-- 

MzK

"Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."

Re: cleanup of cwiki...

2013-03-09 Thread Kay Schenk 
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alexandro Colorado 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I rarerly go to the cwiki nowadays. I think this info should be
>> >> archieved. if there is such a process. However I should also include
>> >> the things for 3.4.0.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well cwiki is part of our "public information", so this is mostly why I
>> ask.
>> > We do have an Archive folder.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, I created that Archive folder and have gradually been moving
>> pages that were no longer relevant there.
>>
>> This will make it easier if we later want to migrate to MWiki for
>> these.  Then we only need to to worry about the active pages.
>>
>> The planning pages you link to were the pages we used to plan the
>> incubation process.  These pages were used before we even migrated
>> MWiki over to Apache.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
> OK, I'll move them to the Archive folder by the end of the weekend. There
> may be other pages that should moved as well, or at least renamed. Others
> can decide on this.
>

Ok, I just got done with this bunch of moves.  More reorg of the cwiki on a
new thread.


>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On 3/6/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>> >> > In our attempts to try to keep information current, do the following
>> >> cwiki
>> >> > entries have any relevance any more (the first  6 entries under
>> Project
>> >> > Planning)?
>> >> >
>> >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Build-Dev-Plan
>> >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Build-QA-Plan
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Build-Translate-Plan
>> >> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-PPMC-Plan
>> >> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-Dev-Plan
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-Translate-Plan
>> >> >
>> >> > Should these be archived? or perhaps deleted entirely?
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >>
>> 
>> >> > MzK
>> >> >
>> >> > "Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Alexandro Colorado
>> >> Apache OpenOffice Contributor
>> >> http://es.openoffice.org
>> >>
>> >> -
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> 
>> > MzK
>> >
>> > "Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> 
> MzK
>
> "Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."
>



-- 

MzK

"Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."

Re: update service for not released languages [was: Re: Registration]

2013-03-09 Thread Andrea Pescetti 

janI wrote:

that is perfectly within the ruleset.


Perfect.


I thought the reason for local users was
- get their work named or
- allow them to do review (not possible on suggestions) or
- save committers work
as you suggest I cannot see the difference to using anonymous as we have it
today ? What did I miss ?


Well, the first item is very important. The step from anonymous 
contributors to authenticated contributors is a big one: it enables 
traceability, accountability and accommodates licensing concerns; it 
allows to evaluate contributions from individual authors. The other 
improvements are very good, but I see the first one as the key.



making support for non-ldap users is no trivial task (just think of spam
protection) so clearly this effort should counter weighted  of other
advantages.


Manual creation/activation of accounts would be fine too: it would still 
be a significant improvement over what we are doing now.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: update service for not released languages [was: Re: Registration]

2013-03-09 Thread Dave Fisher 

On Mar 9, 2013, at 6:57 AM, janI wrote:

> On Mar 9, 2013 3:18 PM, "Andrea Pescetti"  wrote:
>> 
>> janI wrote:
>>> 
>>> That does not (as I read it) state that we can bypass RTC for
>>> non-committers. Allowing non-committers access is one thing, but allowing
>>> them to change the source (in this case text) directly is quite another.
>> 
>> 
>> Sure. The setting for new volunteers would be:
>> 
>> 1) No paperwork, no ICLA, just create an account on Pootle
>> 
>> 2) Translate through suggestions (equivalent to contributing patches)
>> 
>> 3) RTC in place (i.e., strings are committed after a review by a
> committer, exactly as it happens now; what a "review" is in this context
> will vary, as it is now, depending on availability and skills of
> volunteers).
> 
> that is perfectly within the ruleset.
> 
> I thought the reason for local users was
> - get their work named or
> - allow them to do review (not possible on suggestions) or
> - save committers work
> 
> as you suggest I cannot see the difference to using anonymous as we have it
> today ? What did I miss ?

We should know who is making the suggestion. If someone makes a large number of 
high quality suggestions then they are a good candidate for project committer.

If suggestions are all anonymous then we haven't a clue.

By naming the work then items 2 and 3 are future enhancements as more 
translators become committers.

> 
> making support for non-ldap users is no trivial task (just think of spam
> protection) so clearly this effort should counter weighted  of other
> advantages.

True, we should not be obfuscating work by moving it elsewhere.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> rgds
> jan i
>> 
>> Regards,
>>  Andrea.
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

FW: GRANT OF LICENSE: Dennis Hamilton LibreOffice contributions

2013-03-09 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton 
I have made this grant known to The Document Foundation and the
LibreOffice project. The TDF notification appears at 
.

If any use of my contributions to LibreOffice by Apache Projects is
questioned, you can cite this grant if applicable.

Likewise, before someone on AOO becomes too exercised on seeing any 
Apache OpenOffice contribution of mine used by the LibreOffice
project, please have them be aware of the grant I have made
here on the AOO dev list.

I will also provide this information on a web site of mine where it
may be easier to consult and reference.

 - Dennis

PS: One difference.  I replaced "recipients," below, with "parties
obtaining" in the ASF Contributions grant.  I don't want to 
churn these, but I will make that update to the LibO one also if
anyone finds it preferable (and more clear).


-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 19:48
To: LOffice Developers List (libreoff...@lists.freedesktop.org)
Cc: 'disc...@documentfoundation.org'
Subject: Grant of License

This grant does not specify any particular open-source license.

My intention is to not limit in any way the licensing of works
that my contributions are incorporated in.  The license is self-
contained for that reason.  There is no conflict with how
LibreOffice releases are licensed and there is nothing that has
to be done about the presence of my contributions or derivatives
thereof.

It is also my intention that everyone having access to my
contributions to LibreOffice where they are so contributed be
be granted the license whether or not the contribution is accepted
into LibreOffice and wherever those recipients might choose
to rely on its provisions.

The license makes no stipulations one way or the other concerning
works of mine that are not contributions to LibreOffice.  The
license does not transfer copyright nor does it assign patents.

 - Dennis

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

GrantTDF 1.00   UTF-8  dh:2013-03-07

  GRANT OF LICENSE

All of my past and future contributions to LibreOffice are
with the following stipulations:

 1. I hereby grant to all recipients of my LibreOffice
contributions a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-
charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to
reproduce, combine, prepare derivative works of, publicly
display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
contributions and such derivative works.

 2. I hereby grant to all recipients of my LibreOffice
contributions a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive,
no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable patent license
to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import,
and otherwise transfer works employing my contributions
or derivatives thereof, with such license applying
only to those claims controlled by myself, now or in
the future, that are necessarily infringed due to
characteristics of my LibreOffice contributions
and such of those that survive in derivatives.

I represent that I am legally entitled to grant the above
licenses.

  March 7, 2013

  Dennis E. Hamilton
  4401 44th Ave SW
  Seattle, WA 98116 USA

  orc...@apache.org
  PGP Fingerprint
  169F 4BC4 3C47 18B2 7062 E04C B011 4B87 2E94 D8E4


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJROVBzAAoJELARS4culNjkfR0H/i/U9lv0jYy8XD/BD4JaFD49
r8ixUNb1FcNxe4ICGaz/2e53doc0wPPgVUyzpB/+nURgObDBBE8eK96RqZ+zt22N
yOpxlynRPBxkjfqtw/kaG+v9concl7khghsyZVyieIFOwhMGpMNiZ2tJFDMnKKgW
/s3bva+1lsGTUNBJOoNLXyP9iQUWNLFByI15vUshL4aqLsHmdT25gkmDggWQR//h
NHH07nJA7mRDY2DotX3IwZrUinyM0rmWpKshF3GTQ+/beuTu2ZBPYFmG3GH4Bx9X
UISQoGOKLI1NwtEGkzaao2tYC4QSV7vGXqQDg+A9DMEJ1LFis3iL5wKXUuOJknI=
=KW4c
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Dual licensing of patches and code

2013-03-09 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton 
It is not clear to me that the Apache OpenOffice statement answers the
question as it was asked at [tdf-discuss].  I read Jim's question as
being about multi-licensing (dual- or more).  Not about a contributor
making a contribution of their original work in two places and under
different licenses in each place.  That's very different.

If the AOO page is considered an affirmative response to Jim's question, 
then so is Florian Effenberger's pointing to The Document Foundation 
license-policy page, 
.

For me, multi-licensing would be a kind of one-stop contribution that
allows the contribution to be used by those who obtain it in accordance 
with whichever of the multi-licensings they choose.  

Nothing is done to facilitate that by either project.  Furthermore, 
all of the licenses that are considered have strings on how a contri-
bution is accounted for in any combined/derivative work.

By the way, there is no mention of the Apache License (any version) 
in the iCLA that is offered to the ASF and that all committers have
on record.  It strikes me that a contribution in accordance with the
default case in section 5 of the ALv2 is similarly entirely about 
sections 2, 3 and related definitions.  The sections about recipients 
is not something that governs the contributor's use of their own 
contribution (a good reason those are not in the iCLA, since an iCLA 
is entirely about contribution).  
Cf. .

The manner in which TDF collects license grants is 
rather different, with contributors specifying the licenses that 
their work can be released under (i.e., they are multi-licensing
their contributions).

>From all of this, you can surmise what I mean to accomplish by my
blanket, public grants regarding my contributions to LibreOffice and 
Apache projects, so that anyone can make us of those contributions,
no matter which project the contributed is made to, with the same 
permissiveness granted to the ASF in an Apache iCLA.  And that can
be done without my having to make direct contributions in more than
one of those places.

 - Dennis

PS: I am not cross-posting this response.  I shall forward my part
to [tdf-discuss] however.

-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] 
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 02:40
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: Jim Jagielski; disc...@documentfoundation.org; i...@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: Dual licensing of patches and code

The conversation below happened in public, but not on the OpenOffice 
public lists. I believe it's good to record its outcome here on the 
OpenOffice dev list too.

Summary:
- Question from Jim Jagielski: "Is a contribution under ALv2 + MPL + 
LGPLv3+ acceptable to both OpenOffice and LibreOffice (and Apache 
Software Foundation and The Document Foundation)?"
- Answer by the OpenOffice PMC: "Yes (speaking for the OpenOffice 
project). See http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html "

No further discussion needed on the OpenOffice dev list. The ongoing 
conversation can be read at: 
http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/

Regards,
   Andrea.

[ ... ]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Dual licensing of patches and code

2013-03-09 Thread Louis Suárez-Potts 

On 13-03-09, at 05:39 , Andrea Pescetti  wrote:

> The conversation below happened in public, but not on the OpenOffice public 
> lists. I believe it's good to record its outcome here on the OpenOffice dev 
> list too.

Yes; thanks!

> 
> Summary:
> - Question from Jim Jagielski: "Is a contribution under ALv2 + MPL + LGPLv3+ 
> acceptable to both OpenOffice and LibreOffice (and Apache Software Foundation 
> and The Document Foundation)?"
> - Answer by the OpenOffice PMC: "Yes (speaking for the OpenOffice project). 
> See http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html "

Quite.

> 
> No further discussion needed on the OpenOffice dev list. The ongoing 
> conversation can be read at: 
> http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/

Thanks, Andrea, this is very useful.


> 
> Regards,
>  Andrea.

Best
louis
> 
> On 05/03/2013 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> 
>> On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> 
>>> So far, I've rec'd an answer from AOO... I'd appreciate
>>> an answer from TDF as well.
>>> 
>>> On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>> 
 BTW, Please be sure that I'm on the CC list, so I get
 any and all responses :)
 
 
 On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
 
> Hello there.
> 
> This Email is being directed to the 2 controlling bodies of
> the Apache OpenOffice Project and LibreOffice (TDF). You will
> notice that I am sending this from my non-ASF account.
> 
> Recently, at various conferences, I have been approached by
> numerous people, both 100% volunteer as well as more "corporate"
> affiliated, wondering if it was OK for them to submit code,
> patches and fixes to both AOO and LO at the same time. In
> general, these people have code that directly patches LO
> but they also want to dual-license the code such that it
> can also be consumed by AOO even if it requires work and
> modification for it to be committed to, and folded into,
> the AOO repo. My response has always been that as the
> orig author of their code/patches/whatever, they can
> license their contributions as they see fit. However,
> I have been told that they have rec'd word that such
> dual-licensed code would not be accepted by, or acceptable
> to, either the AOO project and/or LO and/or TDF and/or
> the ASF.
> 
> Therefore, I am asking for official confirmation from
> both projects and both entities that both projectsSo
> are fully OK with accepting code/patches/etc that
> are licensed in such a way as to be 100% consumable
> by both projects. For example, if I have a code patch
> which is dual-licensed both under LGPLv3 and ALv2, that
> such a patch would be acceptable to both LO and AOO.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: update service for not released languages [was: Re: Registration]

2013-03-09 Thread janI 
On Mar 9, 2013 3:18 PM, "Andrea Pescetti"  wrote:
>
> janI wrote:
>>
>> That does not (as I read it) state that we can bypass RTC for
>> non-committers. Allowing non-committers access is one thing, but allowing
>> them to change the source (in this case text) directly is quite another.
>
>
> Sure. The setting for new volunteers would be:
>
> 1) No paperwork, no ICLA, just create an account on Pootle
>
> 2) Translate through suggestions (equivalent to contributing patches)
>
> 3) RTC in place (i.e., strings are committed after a review by a
committer, exactly as it happens now; what a "review" is in this context
will vary, as it is now, depending on availability and skills of
volunteers).

that is perfectly within the ruleset.

I thought the reason for local users was
- get their work named or
- allow them to do review (not possible on suggestions) or
- save committers work

as you suggest I cannot see the difference to using anonymous as we have it
today ? What did I miss ?

making support for non-ldap users is no trivial task (just think of spam
protection) so clearly this effort should counter weighted  of other
advantages.

rgds
jan i
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>

Re: how do you do?

2013-03-09 Thread RGB ES 
2013/3/9 Simple Good 

> I read many development in the OO project but I never hear abt a
> simple basic thing, the new MS Office menu beginning with MS Office
> 2007. Why can't OO follow the MS Office menu.
>

Because AOO is NOT MSOffice. There are new UI elements being developed for
AOO 4.0 (search the mail archives for "sidebar"), but NOT a ribbon
interface.

Regards
Ricardo

Re: how do you do?

2013-03-09 Thread Simple Good 
I read many development in the OO project but I never hear abt a
simple basic thing, the new MS Office menu beginning with MS Office
2007. Why can't OO follow the MS Office menu.

On 3/9/13, Jihui Choi  wrote:
> Hello, there.
> Niceto meet you, Kim YongRim.
>
> There might be a top leader because there's no cumminity with no leader(s)
> (then who is it?)
> But you'd better talk to here. You can find many active members at here and
> can talk to them.
> Actually you're meeting all AOO developers now via this mailing list.
> If you want to talk about business.. well.. AOO is published under
> lgpl2(still, right?) so.. hmm..
> I don't know much about the license of AOO. sorry.
>
> BTW I guess you're korean, aren't you?
> if you're and want to meet korean community leader, send an email to me or
> to Jeongkyu kim.
> ( jeongkyu@gmail.com ) He is a korean community leader and he could
> help you in many ways.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 11:31 AM, sumit murari 
> wrote:
>
>> i'm fine , thank you.
>> Sir, i've no top leader, i'm just a simple programmer and there is only
>> me(no top-leader)
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Kim YongRim  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > how do you do.
>> > I would discuss the your AOO project.
>> > I take part in your aoo project and have fixed many bugs and porblems
>> > by
>> > onself.
>> > in future, I am going to share my result and  cooperate with each other
>> in
>> > developing AOO.
>> > The things to do have very much. For instance UI, FileFormat
>> > interchangeability, run velocity etc.
>> > To resolve this, I want meet you.
>> > who are your top leader?
>> > how do I meet your top leader?
>> >
>> > I wait your favourable answer.
>> >
>> > thank you.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Sumit*
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Jihui Choi
>


-- 
Have a nice day. Take care.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: update service for not released languages [was: Re: Registration]

2013-03-09 Thread Andrea Pescetti 

janI wrote:

That does not (as I read it) state that we can bypass RTC for
non-committers. Allowing non-committers access is one thing, but allowing
them to change the source (in this case text) directly is quite another.


Sure. The setting for new volunteers would be:

1) No paperwork, no ICLA, just create an account on Pootle

2) Translate through suggestions (equivalent to contributing patches)

3) RTC in place (i.e., strings are committed after a review by a 
committer, exactly as it happens now; what a "review" is in this context 
will vary, as it is now, depending on availability and skills of 
volunteers).


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: update service for not released languages [was: Re: Registration]

2013-03-09 Thread janI 
On 9 March 2013 12:52, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:

> On 03/03/2013 janI wrote:
>
>> On 3 March 2013 17:47, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>>> 1) Check on the Pootle 2.5 release date and features.
>>>
>> I would like to see it running on other sites the translate itself, but I
>> am just a negative (have been too long in support). My rule of thumb is
>> release date + 1 month, in order not to fight fight with start problems.
>>
>
> Here I agree with Rob that we need to set a deadline. A natural one is the
> translation period set at https://cwiki.apache.org/**
> confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**AOO+4.0+Release+Planning(beginning
>  in one month). So, considering installation and testing, we
> would need Pootle 2.5 to be available soon. I've asked the developers if
> they have a timeline, just to get an idea.
>
>  2) Check that policy-wise it's fine to authenticate committers on LDAP and
>>> all other volunteers on a local backend. ...
>>>
>> infra (gmcdonald) was not positive, but I still think we
>> have a case and should go for it...I do however think a compromise could
>> be
>> a signed ICLA.
>>
>
> This has been clarified in the meantime on the Incubator lists (in a
> discussion otherwise unrelated to OpenOffice). No ICLA needed.
> http://mail-archives.apache.**org/mod_mbox/incubator-**
> general/201303.mbox/%3CCAAS6%**3D7hybut%**3DLGZQRkuuJPXKK4KPS6CiXDYE5-**
> QTmvguYHOVFA%40mail.gmail.com%**3E
>

That does not (as I read it) state that we can bypass RTC for
non-committers. Allowing non-committers access is one thing, but allowing
them to change the source (in this case text) directly is quite another.

Translated text is being compiled into our binaries, so there are no
difference for source code and and translations.

I have no problem (infra might see it differently) if non-committers do a
login and provide suggestions (as today), that way we keep RTC.

rgds
Jan I.

>
>  3) Optimize performance so that Pootle is actually usable by several
>>> users.
>>>
>> That is something on my list of todos, and infra ask me regulary when I do
>> it. ...a bottle of good italian wine when if finally works,
>> together with genLang.
>>
>
> OK. And OK for the bottle too!
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> --**--**-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: update service for not released languages [was: Re: Registration]

2013-03-09 Thread Andrea Pescetti 

On 03/03/2013 janI wrote:

On 3 March 2013 17:47, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

1) Check on the Pootle 2.5 release date and features.

I would like to see it running on other sites the translate itself, but I
am just a negative (have been too long in support). My rule of thumb is
release date + 1 month, in order not to fight fight with start problems.


Here I agree with Rob that we need to set a deadline. A natural one is 
the translation period set at 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Planning 
(beginning in one month). So, considering installation and testing, we 
would need Pootle 2.5 to be available soon. I've asked the developers if 
they have a timeline, just to get an idea.



2) Check that policy-wise it's fine to authenticate committers on LDAP and
all other volunteers on a local backend. ...

infra (gmcdonald) was not positive, but I still think we
have a case and should go for it...I do however think a compromise could be
a signed ICLA.


This has been clarified in the meantime on the Incubator lists (in a 
discussion otherwise unrelated to OpenOffice). No ICLA needed.

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201303.mbox/%3CCAAS6%3D7hybut%3DLGZQRkuuJPXKK4KPS6CiXDYE5-QTmvguYHOVFA%40mail.gmail.com%3E


3) Optimize performance so that Pootle is actually usable by several users.

That is something on my list of todos, and infra ask me regulary when I do
it. ...a bottle of good italian wine when if finally works,
together with genLang.


OK. And OK for the bottle too!

Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

office 3.4

2013-03-09 Thread Philip Robinson 
Hi

I have been using office for years without problems.

Today I tried updating to 3.4 - with disastrous results. It has taken me
all morning to get rid of the wretched thing. When opening 3.4 all I got
was a blue mark on the screen about 20mm by 4 mm.

I tried reinstalling a couple of times. So now I've got rid of it and have
just downloaded 3.3.

Regards

-- 
Phil Robinson
Baslow Hall
Calver Road
Bakewell
Derbyshire
DE45 1RR
Phone 01246 583639
Mobile 07914778370
skype philip.robinson35
email:* phil@ pcrobinson.co.uk*
Web site: www.pcrobinson.co.uk

Re: Review Board

2013-03-09 Thread Daniel Shahaf 
Dave Fisher wrote on Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 15:35:31 -0800:
> 
> On Mar 8, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 4:21 PM, janI  wrote:
> >> On 8 March 2013 22:16, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>  Only if we are going to become a Review Then Commit project.
>  
> >>> 
> >>> I was thinking more of whether it would be useful for working with
> >>> patch contributions from contributors.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> Just be careful not to set level too high for volunteers, in my opinion the
> >> mailing list is more than enough, no need for extra layers to complicate
> >> matters.
> >> 
> > 
> > That's exactly the issue.  The mailing list is so busy that new
> > volunteers get lost, and their patches as well.  And if they toss
> > their patches to bugzilla, the patches can easily be lost there was
> > well.  So the question is whether a dedicated place for patches, with
> > no distracting complications, would be preferred.
> 
> If there are volunteers who will do RTC work for new code contributors
> then this might be an improvement to bug tracking.

FWIW, over at Subversion we (a) have a 'patch' label in the bug tracker,
(b) have a volunteer who pings [patch] threads that have petered out
without the patch being either applie or rejected.

http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles#patch-manager

Perhaps one or both of these ideas would be useful here.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Dual licensing of patches and code

2013-03-09 Thread Andrea Pescetti 
The conversation below happened in public, but not on the OpenOffice 
public lists. I believe it's good to record its outcome here on the 
OpenOffice dev list too.


Summary:
- Question from Jim Jagielski: "Is a contribution under ALv2 + MPL + 
LGPLv3+ acceptable to both OpenOffice and LibreOffice (and Apache 
Software Foundation and The Document Foundation)?"
- Answer by the OpenOffice PMC: "Yes (speaking for the OpenOffice 
project). See http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html "


No further discussion needed on the OpenOffice dev list. The ongoing 
conversation can be read at: 
http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/


Regards,
  Andrea.

On 05/03/2013 Jim Jagielski wrote:


On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:


So far, I've rec'd an answer from AOO... I'd appreciate
an answer from TDF as well.

On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:


BTW, Please be sure that I'm on the CC list, so I get
any and all responses :)


On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:


Hello there.

This Email is being directed to the 2 controlling bodies of
the Apache OpenOffice Project and LibreOffice (TDF). You will
notice that I am sending this from my non-ASF account.

Recently, at various conferences, I have been approached by
numerous people, both 100% volunteer as well as more "corporate"
affiliated, wondering if it was OK for them to submit code,
patches and fixes to both AOO and LO at the same time. In
general, these people have code that directly patches LO
but they also want to dual-license the code such that it
can also be consumed by AOO even if it requires work and
modification for it to be committed to, and folded into,
the AOO repo. My response has always been that as the
orig author of their code/patches/whatever, they can
license their contributions as they see fit. However,
I have been told that they have rec'd word that such
dual-licensed code would not be accepted by, or acceptable
to, either the AOO project and/or LO and/or TDF and/or
the ASF.

Therefore, I am asking for official confirmation from
both projects and both entities that both projectsSo
are fully OK with accepting code/patches/etc that
are licensed in such a way as to be 100% consumable
by both projects. For example, if I have a code patch
which is dual-licensed both under LGPLv3 and ALv2, that
such a patch would be acceptable to both LO and AOO.

Thank you.










-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: how do you do?

2013-03-09 Thread Andrea Pescetti 
I'm leaving previous answers below since Kim YongRim is not subscribed 
to this list and may have missed them.


Kim YongRim: welcome to Apache OpenOffice! For more information about 
the project structure and governance you can see 
http://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/ (Levels 1 and 2). And the 
recommended way to get in touch with the project is this channel (the 
dev mailing list).


It sounds very interesting that you fixed many bugs. If you have any 
improvements to the source code to share, please read our Introduction 
to Development" (same link) and feel free to discuss patches here (dev 
mailing list) or to attach them to BugZilla issues at 
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/ for better tracking.


I must correct one of the considerations below. Apache OpenOffice is 
currently distributed under the Apache License 2, a free, open-source 
and business-friendly license: see 
http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#WhatDoesItMEAN


Regards,
  Andrea.

Jihui Choi wrote:

Hello, there.
Niceto meet you, Kim YongRim.

There might be a top leader because there's no cumminity with no leader(s)
(then who is it?)
But you'd better talk to here. You can find many active members at here and
can talk to them.
Actually you're meeting all AOO developers now via this mailing list.
If you want to talk about business.. well.. AOO is published under
lgpl2(still, right?) so.. hmm..
I don't know much about the license of AOO. sorry.

BTW I guess you're korean, aren't you?
if you're and want to meet korean community leader, send an email to me or
to Jeongkyu kim.
( jeongkyu@gmail.com ) He is a korean community leader and he could
help you in many ways.


On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 11:31 AM, sumit murari  wrote:


i'm fine , thank you.
Sir, i've no top leader, i'm just a simple programmer and there is only
me(no top-leader)

On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Kim YongRim  wrote:






how do you do.
I would discuss the your AOO project.
I take part in your aoo project and have fixed many bugs and porblems by
onself.
in future, I am going to share my result and  cooperate with each other

in

developing AOO.
The things to do have very much. For instance UI, FileFormat
interchangeability, run velocity etc.
To resolve this, I want meet you.
who are your top leader?
how do I meet your top leader?

I wait your favourable answer.

thank you.






--
*Sumit*







-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org