Re: [steering-discuss] Update on the Foundation
Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:44:20 -0500, drew d...@baseanswers.com a écrit : We finally came to the following decision. We will incorporate a Foundation in Germany (called Stiftung in German) in early 2011. A german foundation will provide us with many advantages of various kinds, among them, 100% tax-deductible donations. Hello Charles, et al. 100% tax-deductible donations. Just to be clear here, you mean that donations to this foundation will be deductible by the individual making the donation? Donations, provided you are under the German tax law (you live in Germany or have a subsidiary in German) will be 100% tax deductible by you. That fiscal advantage might, depending on the ongoing legal works surrounding one common law for European Foundation, be extended to other european memberstates. Charles, Thanks, that is what I assumed and just wanted to be sure. In order to incorporate there we will however need some initial capital and resources (around fifty thousand (50,000) Euros). If we do not manage to collect this sum in a reasonable amount of time, we will switch to our second best option and incorporate a charity in the United Kingdom, which is much cheaper. Could you put some sort of time-frame to reasonable? [just your folks thoughts on what reasonable is here] I don't really know, but if we're stuck with 3 thousand bucks at the end of February it might be time to reconsider options. (that's just my own perception). Looking at the account statements Thomas has been publishing - What 2022 [with inflation that could slip to 2030, I suppose] isn't going to be soon enough for you? :-) Still with the decision being to form in Germany and a price tag of 50,000 Euros it seems that a bit more then two months would be in order. Well what I'm saying is that it will depend where we're at in 2 months. When you folks came to the decision there must of been some idea of where the monies would come from, yes? Is it assumed that most will come from a small number of large donations then and two months being sufficient time then to garner actual donations or pledges from these few large sponsors? Yes, you get the idea. Although I would certainly not dismiss donations of 500, 1000, 2000 euros. They do make a real difference. best, Charles. Thanks again Drew -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Test documents to compare interoperability [was: Do not support writing to OOXML format]
Hi, Bernhard Dippold wrote It would be good to have some test documents, to convert them from one of the formats to the others and find out the best interoperability solution for the present versions of the different software packages. I have a set of documents covering 36 basic interoperability features. These documents has been used by the Danish government in an earlier test and we are still using them for benchmarking. The documents covers only what we call below the functionality ceiling wich makes the test very very basic. But we might be able to create new document for future more comprehensive tests. I agree that we should have a fixed set of documents so we can compare tests. I will try to find the documents today and give you the coordinates :-) Cheers, Leif Lodahl -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format
I will not support or use LibreOffice until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file format. There is absolutely no need to write in this proprietary format. To do so is contrary to the principle of using ODF and open source formats. LibreOffice needs to rise above this pettiness and support ALL major, and many, if not most minor file formats! Yes, I disagree with OOXML but realize that it is a file format that IS being used throughout the world. Refusing to write or read the format brings us down to the level of Mickey$oft, or even worse! I support and encourage the Open Document Format, but if the Open Source world is going to succeed, we need to demonstrate that WE ARE OPEN, and allow our users to read and write to ANY format, even if we disagree with the stupid petty mentality behind such formats such as OOXML. If there is an obvious need for a feature, then by all means, it should be allowed into LibreOffice! I only use OpenOffice.org, and will use LibreOffice when added to the Debian repository! Rick Stanley -- RSI (Rick Stanley, Inc.) (917) 822-7771 www.rsiny.com Computer Systems Consulting Linux Open Source Specialists -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Charles Marcus cmar...@media-brokers.com wrote: On 2011-01-02 12:13 PM, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote: I have a concern about the Addons. In my 10+ years of using OpenOffice/StarOffice, the inclusion of addons was a great idea. However, the marketing of addons was not so good - hidden away in a place that you can find once, but not so easily find again. Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page? Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know functionality can be extended? Could addons be clearly posted in the menus? Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack of the most popular ones be compiled? Could the most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional extra included with the download? There could even be the 'vanilla' install and the 'bumper-pack' install. Last summer, as part of the MSO to OOo migration, I hacked a batch file to install OOo with various settings and then various addons I had chosen (why was 'clipart' an addon, I wonder?). Simplifying this for downloaders wil help - I know several people who think OOo is not very good, because it has no clipart. Personally, I don't care about clipart but it's all down to user perceptions! +5, all great points, but I'd also like to add that there should be some well defined pathway for an add-on to be nominated, considered and eventually incorporated (if deemed worthy) or not (if not) into the core code... Charles and Lee, I think I posted my other message in the wrong spot. The website team is working hard on this exact problem. The Drupal based site, which is planned to replace the current libreoffice.org site within the first half of the year already has (most) of this functionality. We are also going to duplicate this functionality with templates also, as they also represent high value 'addons' to our product which could also be included in the final product. Have a look at: http://www.libreofficeaustralia.org/download/extensions http://www.libreofficeaustralia.org/download/templates If you have any suggestions about the system or the site overall, the best place is probably the website mailing list. Thanks, Michael Wheatland -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft
Il 01/01/2011 18:52, Zaphod Feeblejocks ha scritto: Did you know that anything running Linux in France is not a computer? The outworking of this is a skewed market in favour of MS operating systems, and therefore in favour of MS applications. This DOES affect LibO. From: http://tinyurl.com/33ynbv7 Microsoft apparently has quite a following in the French government, which has recently decided to tax tablets...but only those that aren´t running a Windows operating system. It has been the case for some time now that France has taxed mp3 players in an attempt to compensate for piracy of media, but according to French magazine Numerama, that existing legislation does not extend to computers. As a result, the government needed a way to define what devices qualify as computers, which led to the decision to deem a device a computer only if it runs Microsoft Windows. This means that, as far as the French government is concerned, a tablet running any other operating system -- including Linux, Mac OS, or Android -- is just a device used by pirates who need to be taxed. incredible :-(( I hope Italy will not copy this as seem is cpiyng the hadopi three strike -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] docx export
Il 01/01/2011 20:29, Wolf Halton ha scritto: That looks like a good message. A direct save this as a .doc now button inside the dialog might be helpful for users as well. Yes it is a good message but I still prefere to put the doc docx end everything not related to standard odf in an Export menu voice, even with messages like that. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] LO 3.3 RC 2 - Colour for insert columns and rows in Writer
Hello, it's about a table in writer and the icons to insert columns and rows. The colour now is yellow. I find it not a good choice because it's a pale kind of yellow and not good to see. What about a more saturated yellow or a kind of blue or purple or orange? LO 3.3 RC2 with XP pro Greetings, Johannes -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] docx export
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:33 PM, yahoo-pier_andreit pier_andr...@yahoo.it wrote: Il 01/01/2011 20:29, Wolf Halton ha scritto: That looks like a good message. A direct save this as a .doc now button inside the dialog might be helpful for users as well. Yes it is a good message but I still prefere to put the doc docx end everything not related to standard odf in an Export menu voice, even with messages like that. Keeping in mind that your average joe end user is looking to 'save' his file, not 'export' it. Moving doc and docx file save to the export menu results in another thing to teach the end user rather than it being intuitive. I support a warning message for any and all exports, but we should keep it as simple as possible for end users. It is also important that LibreOffice does not recognise an export/save to doc/docx as a 'save' but rather an export so the program will prompt the user to save in ODF when closed. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] docx export
Il 03/01/2011 10:46, Michael Wheatland ha scritto: On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:33 PM, yahoo-pier_andreit pier_andr...@yahoo.it wrote: Il 01/01/2011 20:29, Wolf Halton ha scritto: That looks like a good message. A direct save this as a .doc now button inside the dialog might be helpful for users as well. Yes it is a good message but I still prefere to put the doc docx end everything not related to standard odf in an Export menu voice, even with messages like that. Keeping in mind that your average joe end user is looking to 'save' his file, not 'export' it. Moving doc and docx file save to the export menu results in another thing to teach the end user rather than it being intuitive. Yes I know, but I think it is easy to learn for squared average joe end user, I support a warning message for any and all exports, but we should keep it as simple as possible for end users. Yes, I think so, an example is GIMP, the image modifier software, when you want to save in jpeg format it asks you to export It is also important that LibreOffice does not recognise an export/save to doc/docx as a 'save' but rather an export so the program will prompt the user to save in ODF when closed. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 03/01/11 04:10, Larry Gusaas wrote: Including the ability to write OOXML format is a political decision driven by the Novell and Microsoft marketing agreement. User experience? Ask that question of any user of older versions of Word after they receive a .docx document and are unable to open it. Indeed, I have experienced this myself when trying to send documents. However a blanket ban on OOXML would, in the long run, be a disadvantage to *LibreOffice*. Whether you appreciate it or not the older document formats (.doc .xls .ppt) are going to fade away as Microsoft pushes its I last checked the market-share numbers for office suites in mid 2010, when in discussion with my organisation about whether to go to MSO 07 throughout the campus or drop MSO completely. The figures were, IIRC MSO 2007 - 60% globally MSO 97-2003 - 20% globally OOo 3.x - 20% globally The numbers tilt a bit on different continents. MSO is more popular in corporate America. OOo is more popular (around 30% or more) in Europe - the number increases as you head east. The MSO 97-2003 users are important. Many are not attracted by the Office 07/10 interface, or cannot afford to upgrade. However, as time goes on they will see more .docx appearing and may feel forced to upgrade, if only to maintain access to shared data. Having something that is not MSO but that has an interface like the one they are used to should be very attractive for them. In UK, MS has dropped the price of MSO to students a lot in recent years - £60 two years ago, under £40 today from the software4students reseller. A lot of these 'student' editions end up in small businesses. We should be targeting these people. When Google Chrome was launched, people thought it might cripple Firefox. In reality, a small number of Firefox users switched, while many IE users who were not attracted by FF went to Chrome. Some statistics now put IE at less than 50% of the market. If LibO does everything OOo does and little else, the project would seem to have little point. If LibO embraces functionality and interface features that OOo does not have, it may be that our growth is only in part from OOo users (most of whom are happy with OOo), but mostly from MSO 97-03 users. It may be that without explicity aiming to remove users from our sister, OOo, aiming to take the other 20% who do not use MSO 07 (plus those who do!) may be a more effective way to spread the file format. If we can get ODT used enough - through users choosing to overlook docx output - many MSO users may find it helpful to have LibO (or OOo) installed also. At some point they will wonder why they keep paying for MSO. zf -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
On 3 Jan 2011 at 17:29, Michael Wheatland wrote: Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page? Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know functionality can be extended? Could addons be clearly posted in the menus? Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack of the most popular ones be compiled? Could the most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional extra included with the download? Zaphod, I have some good news for you. The website team is already tackling this with the Drupal implementation. In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice). The website team has been busy building the site over at a temporary domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org Great work! zf -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft
Hi Zaphod, On 01/01/2011 20:52, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote: Did you know that anything running Linux in France is not a computer? The outworking of this is a skewed market in favour of MS operating systems, and therefore in favour of MS applications. This DOES affect LibO. I would not be so affirmative concerning this news. The deputies (all of them) at the National Assembly are using a Kubuntu system. The whole National Gendarmerie has migrated under Ubuntu. Currently there is more than 400 000 desktops under OOo in the French government. So even if it's not the first time that this government take some strange and contradictory decisions about open source, I would be cautious about the comprehension of this news. Currently the taxation that the Govt would like to put in place is related to the private copy and is depending on the size of the memory on the device. They wanted to apply this taxes to the devices running their own OS. This is why Windows is excluded which is quite different from what the journalist wrote. There is an appeal to the state council and a vote on the 12th of January. If you read French, there are articles here: http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/tech-medias/actu/0201007324477.htm http://www.frandroid.com/52983/copie-privee-les-tablettes-seront-maintenant-taxees-en-france/ There are some strong and very political Linux associations in France, like April and Aful that are following this. Kind regards Sophie -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft
On 3 Jan 2011 at 14:12, sophie wrote: Hi Zaphod, On 01/01/2011 20:52, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote: Did you know that anything running Linux in France is not a computer? The outworking of this is a skewed market in favour of MS operating systems, and therefore in favour of MS applications. This DOES affect LibO. I would not be so affirmative concerning this news. The deputies (all of [snip] http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/tech-medias/actu/0201007324477.htm http://www.frandroid.com/52983/copie-privee-les-tablettes-seront-maintenant-taxees-en-france/ Bonjour Sophie, Thank you for making this clear. If I have understood, some devices are not taxed because they run a version of an operating system intended for desktop PCs (Windows). I imagine there will be lots of discussion in France about this - and also here in UK! The French system of taxing portable media has been discussed as something we might do also and this 'tablet tax' might be attractive to some people. I guess if you want to buy an iPad in France, now is a good time to do it! Merci, zf -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] docx export
Accusé de réception Votre Re: [tdf-discuss] docx export document : a été philippe.vi...@cnieg.fr reçu par : le : 03/01/2011 13:15:11 -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
I actually agree wholeheartedly with Italo here - please do not try to hamstring the developers with your (or our) own preferences! The idea of community discussion is to guide developers, not to instruct them to do the impractical or impossible and equally not to instruct them (for whatever reason) *not* to do what can be done. On the other hand, though I have already done so in another message, I am more than happy to discuss why some options are more or less pragmatic for developers and will do so inline with Italo's comments as quoted below:- On 02/01/2011 18:47, Italo Vignoli wrote: On 1/2/11 7:15 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote: No, that was not the point. Italo Vignoli wrote: LibreOffice writes OOXML and will write OOXML, and this is not under discussion. That is the point I objected to. [snip] I am a member of the Steering Committee, and I totally second this decision just because it makes sense for the users (as I have tried to explain in another message). LibreOffice is the office suite with the widest document format support, and this is a plus. This is, and long has been, a *major* plus for both OpenOffice and now for LibreOffice - we do need to keep this as an objective. As long as OOXML is a standard recognized by ISO, it makes sense to support it completely. This is different from the fact that we are trying to make ODF the only winning standard, and that we are telling people that they should not use OOXML. Again, this is exactly the point I also made - although I did perhaps attribute a little more evil to Microsoft by suggesting the issues with OOXML may be a deliberate move to capture that standards compliant high-ground from us. [snip] TDF is a community driven project, not a mailing list driven project. Community is not just writing in a mailing list, is a lot different and a lot more than that. I do not think that we ever gave the perception that this is a mailing list driven project. Well said, Italo! Where the wider community has something relevant to say on this, it should begin from the presumption that we somehow *will* write OOXML to the best practical ability of the developers. That, not personal preferences, is the real issue. I remain convinced that it is for all practical purposes not possible to write OOXML in the currently active Microsoft format since that is both a rapidly moving target and might leave us open to claims of patent-breaking unless we can demonstrate clear reverse-engineering of the format. Even if we could do that, we would then face the problem of the target rapidly moving away from us. Rather than play a catch up to Microsoft game, it remains my view that we should write OOXML in the ISO-standard format for so long as that standard lasts. That gives Microsoft the chance to either catch up and use the standard they set themselves or to change the standard so that they can meet it. In either case, LibreOffice would be ahead of the game Microsoft plays rather than behind, provided we do make sure to pop up a warning to remind users we are using the standard and Microsoft may not yet be able to deal with it. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 02/01/2011 18:29, Charles Marcus wrote: On 2011-01-02 12:07 PM, Mark Preston wrote: Please remember that both LibO and OpenO can already *read* the formats and the issue is whether or not it is practical or pragmatic to put effort into developing something to *write* the OOXML form. Eh? It already can write them. Why go backwards? There definitely needs to be a warning when doing the Save-As, but going backwards (ie, removing the ability to write them) would be counter-productive at best. I perhaps put that badly this time. My apologies. My concern is not so much with what we do, but with what we can do *well* and effectively. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/2/2011 6:34 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote: On 1/3/11 1:12 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote: I was under the impression that the vanilla versions of Office since 2007 SP2 could read and write ODF formats, with no need to install any plugins (but with their own special twist on ODF). From what you say here, that is not true; I haven't installed Office in a long time, and don't intend to, so I didn't know that ODF support was not automatic. ODF support is built in since MS Office 2007 SP2 for Windows. MS Office for MacOS does not support ODF, and there is not a plugin availble. The older version of MS Office do not support ODF, but there is a plugin available. We all know that Microsoft is trying to slow down ANY standard format, because format lock in is a long time strategy. I do not know if you are familiar with Gandhi statement: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. This is exactly what is happening for office suites. Gandhi won over the British empire being respectful of law and being an advocate of freedom. I do not have his moral strength, but I do follow his lesson. Very nice, Italo, and thanks for the information about ODF support in Office. We seem to be at then they fight you so it's looking good! Unfortunately, this means that most user-created documents going to those with more recent versions of Office will be handled by the MS ODF, which is especially unfortunate for spreadsheets. If we get a complaint about compatibility, we can (as usual) recommend using PDF if possible. But if not, which is the better choice -- XP or OOXML? Unless I can be fairly sure OOXML will be more satisfactory, I'll still recommend XP. But I'm willing to be convinced to recommend (very reluctantly) OOXML. Is there any way to assess this, or will we just have to wait and see? -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
On 03/01/2011 8:46 PM, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hello everyone, Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:58:18 -, Zaphod Feeblejocks zapho...@gmail.com a écrit : On 3 Jan 2011 at 17:29, Michael Wheatland wrote: Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page? Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know functionality can be extended? Could addons be clearly posted in the menus? Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack of the most popular ones be compiled? Could the most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional extra included with the download? Zaphod, I have some good news for you. The website team is already tackling this with the Drupal implementation. In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice). The website team has been busy building the site over at a temporary domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org Great work! While I do thank Michael for its great work I believe there's a slight misunderstanding here: Michael's own exploratory work might be used one day for the LibreOffice website, but it is at this stage not considered for an upgrade. best, Charles. zf -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. Charles, Far from being 'my' exploration work, the majority of the website team has contributed towards this project after the Steering Committee discussion and the outcome of which, I am paraphrasing, to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org with a view to go with Drupal long term. The progress made by many of the contributing members has been fantastic, and although I have been the most vocal of the website development team regarding the implementation of a community building and tooling site there are many other people who have done fantastic work. I will be applying to the Steering Committee soon to set a target date for implementation in order to focus the website team on a tangible goal. There does seem to be a little bit of misinformation out there regarding this SC decision, but it is quite clear if you listen to the decision outcome statement on the recording of the SC meeting. I am sure this will be clarified when the website team applies for a further decision on implementation. Michael Wheatland -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
Todd, Le Mon, 3 Jan 2011 09:50:36 -0500, todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com a écrit : On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Michael Wheatland mich...@wheatland.com.au wrote: On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Zaphod Feeblejocks zapho...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 Jan 2011 at 9:59, Craig A. Eddy wrote: I also agree that ANY write-to docx should be an add-on, and not part of the vanilla release. Hi Craig, I have a concern about the Addons. In my 10+ years of using OpenOffice/StarOffice, the inclusion of addons was a great idea. However, the marketing of addons was not so good - hidden away in a place that you can find once, but not so easily find again. Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page? Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know functionality can be extended? Could addons be clearly posted in the menus? Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack of the most popular ones be compiled? Could the most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional extra included with the download? Zaphod, I have some good news for you. The website team is already tackling this with the Drupal implementation. In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice). The website team has been busy building the site over at a temporary domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org Although the site theme is only temporary, you can see most of the site sections operating. The site will include an 'Extensions Library' designed similar to the Firefox addins site. It is not finished but you can see our progress here: http://www.libreofficeaustralia.org/download/extensions The implementation of categories will be the next step, followed by making the layout of the displays a little more beautiful. The development site is almost ready for beta testers, so if you wish to have a look and suggest any changes please feel free to let us know over on the website mailing list. Michael Wheatland So libreoffice is not planning on using the already-established opendesktop.org websites for distributing its extensions? At this stage no change has been planned, we are using the opendesktop infrastructure but for the extensions web site no plans of any sort has been made. (We should, though!) Best -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
Michael, Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 00:28:58 +0930, Michael Wheatland mich...@wheatland.com.au a écrit : On 03/01/2011 8:46 PM, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hello everyone, Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:58:18 -, Zaphod Feeblejocks zapho...@gmail.com a écrit : On 3 Jan 2011 at 17:29, Michael Wheatland wrote: Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page? Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know functionality can be extended? Could addons be clearly posted in the menus? Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack of the most popular ones be compiled? Could the most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional extra included with the download? Zaphod, I have some good news for you. The website team is already tackling this with the Drupal implementation. In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice). The website team has been busy building the site over at a temporary domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org Great work! While I do thank Michael for its great work I believe there's a slight misunderstanding here: Michael's own exploratory work might be used one day for the LibreOffice website, but it is at this stage not considered for an upgrade. best, Charles. zf -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. Charles, Far from being 'my' exploration work, the majority of the website team has contributed towards this project after the Steering Committee discussion and the outcome of which, I am paraphrasing, to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org with a view to go with Drupal long term. to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org does not seem to mean anything to me. With a view to go with Drupal was rather: with the possible option of Drupal in the long term. The progress made by many of the contributing members has been fantastic, and although I have been the most vocal of the website development team regarding the implementation of a community building and tooling site there are many other people who have done fantastic work. I will be applying to the Steering Committee soon to set a target date for implementation in order to focus the website team on a tangible goal. Well there will be no target, I'm afraid. There does seem to be a little bit of misinformation out there regarding this SC decision, but it is quite clear if you listen to the decision outcome statement on the recording of the SC meeting. I am sure this will be clarified when the website team applies for a further decision on implementation. a little bit of misinformation, Michael, is perhaps your enthusiasm leading to understand things the way you would like them to be :-). At this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans to move to Drupal; there seems indeed to have been some early misunderstanding, but if you wish the SC will clarify its position (again) . But given that I'm a member of the said SC, it might be useful to you to take my words into account. Best, Charles. Michael Wheatland -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/3/11 7:38 AM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote: Where can I read it? Is it in the next decade manifesto? http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/announce/msg00016.html And they are not equal. That's my problem with it at the moment. I don't really understand how this democratic-meritocratic principle works. And what you explain below with Microsoft, for me it is not meritocratic or democratic that's an ethical aspect. Democracy means that everyone has the potential to contribute, meritocracy means that contribution are judged by the community for their value, continuity, quality, etcetera. There are some principles though, and one of them is that contributions have to be constructive (FOR) and not destructive (AGAINST). Asking to avoid writing support for OOXML in order to bash Microsoft is meaningless. Educating users about ethics related to Microsoft, OOXML and open standards is not a task for export filters. -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813 Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Update on the Foundation
We finally came to the following decision. We will incorporate a Foundation in Germany (called Stiftung in German) in early 2011. A german foundation will provide us with many advantages of various kinds, among them, 100% tax-deductible donations. Hello Charles, et al. 100% tax-deductible donations. Just to be clear here, you mean that donations to this foundation will be deductible by the individual making the donation? Donations, provided you are under the German tax law (you live in Germany or have a subsidiary in German) will be 100% tax deductible by you. That fiscal advantage might, depending on the ongoing legal works surrounding one common law for European Foundation, be extended to other european memberstates. Charles, Thanks, that is what I assumed and just wanted to be sure. In order to incorporate there we will however need some initial capital and resources (around fifty thousand (50,000) Euros). If we do not manage to collect this sum in a reasonable amount of time, we will switch to our second best option and incorporate a charity in the United Kingdom, which is much cheaper. Could you put some sort of time-frame to reasonable? [just your folks thoughts on what reasonable is here] I don't really know, but if we're stuck with 3 thousand bucks at the end of February it might be time to reconsider options. (that's just my own perception). Looking at the account statements Thomas has been publishing - What 2022 [with inflation that could slip to 2030, I suppose] isn't going to be soon enough for you? :-) Still with the decision being to form in Germany and a price tag of 50,000 Euros it seems that a bit more then two months would be in order. When you folks came to the decision there must of been some idea of where the monies would come from, yes? Is it assumed that most will come from a small number of large donations then and two months being sufficient time then to garner actual donations or pledges from these few large sponsors? Thanks again Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote: to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org does not seem to mean anything to me. With a view to go with Drupal was rather: with the possible option of Drupal in the long term. Sorry, I meant to write libreoffice.org not drupal.org a little bit of misinformation, Michael, is perhaps your enthusiasm leading to understand things the way you would like them to be :-). At this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans to move to Drupal; there seems indeed to have been some early misunderstanding, but if you wish the SC will clarify its position (again) . But given that I'm a member of the said SC, it might be useful to you to take my words into account. To make this clear in my mind I have listened and read the decision statement from the Steering Committee decision. The conversation on the conference call: I would ask the people working on Drupal to do a more detailed planning in the next month regarding additional services... There were some bits that I didn't quite understand (poor quality sound), but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider Drupal as the long term solution. The statement to the website list from the SC is as follows: the CMS decision was taken: it will be Silverstripe as a starter, with plans to migrate to Drupal later on. http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/592 I would have thought that this official statement is very clear in the outcome and the website team has had a large group of people (larger than that working on the current site) working towards this end, whom might I say have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time. Clearly the implementation is still a few months off as we start to involve Native Language teams and other functional teams. I hope this clarifies my point, and makes it quite clear that I am not just hearing what I want to. This was the official decision statement as communicated back to the website mailing list. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons
Hi, Am 03.01.2011 16:20, schrieb Charles-H. Schulz: a little bit of misinformation, Michael, is perhaps your enthusiasm leading to understand things the way you would like them to be :-). At this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans to move to Drupal; there seems indeed to have been some early misunderstanding, but if you wish the SC will clarify its position (again) . But given that I'm a member of the said SC, it might be useful to you to take my words into account. Micheal, this should not surprise you. I have been telling this for weeks. But maybe, reading this from a SC member, makes the message more creditable ;-). Stefan -- LibreOffice - Die Freiheit nehm' ich mir! -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft
Hi, Le 03/01/11 12:37, Zaphod Feeblejocks a écrit : I guess if you want to buy an iPad in France, now is a good time to do it! An iPad or any other mobile OS based device, including your telephone :-) (the tax, if finally passed into law, should also affect WindowsMobile phones) - the project targets embedded OSes not designed to run on normal PC hardware. Obviously, the definition retained at present is a nonsense in itself and shows just what a poor understanding French MPs have of operating systems and IT in general (or rather what they have been cleverly misled to understand). The current French government needs money, big time - the mobile/embedded market is still fairly bouyant - what better way to generate a revenue stream to fill the depleted coffers ? ;-) Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/3/11 8:43 AM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote: What's the background (for ESC) to decide what leads to the best software for users? I apologize for repeating myself, but the ESC will decide upon positive contributions, suggestions or requests. You suggest a feature, promote a technology, contribute a new export filter. It does not make any sense to take a decision in order to bash a single company. We are in the market to promote free software and good ethics in a positive way. Most office suite users are looking for software able to create and manage documents. They are looking for positive answers. Or is it just a lack of communication? I do not think it is a lack of communication. It is a different agenda: TDS's is FOR free software, other people's one is AGAINST Microsoft. Bashing Microsoft in the name of ethics is a total nonsense. Ethics is a positive concept, and cannot be used to justify any negative action whatsoever. -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813 Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format
El 30/12/10 11:27, Larry Gusaas escribió: I will not support or use LibreOffice until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file format. There is absolutely no need to write in this proprietary format. To do so is contrary to the principle of using ODF and open source formats. See the following: http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49t=2493p=169740#p169507 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828 Unless this changes I will strongly advocate in the support groups I participate the people stay with OpenOffice.org and not switch to LibreOffice. Thank's to LibreOffice. I can help to migrate and continue works with other people. Hurry to the liberty. hurry the free. -- Mi Office genera: Seguridad, Confianza y Ahorro J. Eduardo Moreno TOKONHU de México 044 55 2748 4840 -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons
Hi Michael, Michael Wheatland wrote (03-01-11 16:56) To make this clear in my mind I have listened and read the decision statement from the Steering Committee decision. The conversation on the conference call: I would ask the people working on Drupal to do a more detailed planning in the next month regarding additional services... There were some bits that I didn't quite understand (poor quality sound), but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider Drupal as the long term solution. 'Consider' yes. The statement to the website list from the SC is as follows: the CMS decision was taken: it will be Silverstripe as a starter, with plans to migrate to Drupal later on. 'Plan' plus 'consider' plus the fact that there was in my experience quite some disappointment about the early proof of concept for Drupal, does not logically lead to the conclusion that there 'shall be a move to Drupal'. On the other side: if you work in the website team and there is the clear conviction that the current CMS falls short for our needs and that Drupal will help, I see no reason why a move will not be made. (But that is just my personal POV). Best, Cor -- - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/3/11 3:40 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: Unfortunately, this means that most user-created documents going to those with more recent versions of Office will be handled by the MS ODF, which is especially unfortunate for spreadsheets. If we get a complaint about compatibility, we can (as usual) recommend using PDF if possible. But if not, which is the better choice -- XP or OOXML? Unless I can be fairly sure OOXML will be more satisfactory, I'll still recommend XP. But I'm willing to be convinced to recommend (very reluctantly) OOXML. Is there any way to assess this, or will we just have to wait and see? I know is a pain, but is really a case by case issue. -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813 Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/3/2011 4:55 AM, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote: snip It may be that without explicity aiming to remove users from our sister, OOo, aiming to take the other 20% who do not use MSO 07 (plus those who do!) may be a more effective way to spread the file format. If we can get ODT used enough - through users choosing to overlook docx output - many MSO users may find it helpful to have LibO (or OOo) installed also. At some point they will wonder why they keep paying for MSO. zf Unfortunately, those MSO users can easily remain unaware of the value of OOo/LibO (and other ODF applications), because since Office 2007 SP2, Office (on Windows, with no plugins) will read and write ODF formats. If one of these MSO users gets an ODF document from a non-MSO application, it will open. If they don't notice compatibility problems, they will have no reason to investigate. In many cases, though, especially with spreadsheets, there will be obvious problems. So who will get the blame -- MSO, or the other application? Will they be likely to install the non-MSO application, even though it's free? Will the non-MSO application user continue to use ODF, or switch to exporting XP or OOXML formats to maintain interoperability? (Out of self-preservation, they really need to do that; it's not clear at the moment which of these formats will be better for interoperability.) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
Hello Michael, Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 01:26:09 +0930, Michael Wheatland mich...@wheatland.com.au a écrit : On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote: to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org does not seem to mean anything to me. With a view to go with Drupal was rather: with the possible option of Drupal in the long term. Sorry, I meant to write libreoffice.org not drupal.org ah, okay. a little bit of misinformation, Michael, is perhaps your enthusiasm leading to understand things the way you would like them to be :-). At this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans to move to Drupal; there seems indeed to have been some early misunderstanding, but if you wish the SC will clarify its position (again) . But given that I'm a member of the said SC, it might be useful to you to take my words into account. To make this clear in my mind I have listened and read the decision statement from the Steering Committee decision. The conversation on the conference call: I would ask the people working on Drupal to do a more detailed planning in the next month regarding additional services... right. There were some bits that I didn't quite understand (poor quality sound), but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider Drupal as the long term solution. I might repeat Cor's statements here, but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider Drupal as the long term solution means: many people think we should decide whether Drupal would be a long term solution . It's hardly a Steering Committee decision requesting the use of Drupal. The statement to the website list from the SC is as follows: the CMS decision was taken: it will be Silverstripe as a starter, with plans to migrate to Drupal later on. http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/592 plans... later on. Not now let's rush towards creating the definitive Drupal website... I would have thought that this official statement is very clear in the outcome Obviously it is conditional, and makes clear that it's an option for the long term. and the website team has had a large group of people (larger than that working on the current site) working towards this end, whom might I say have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time. Clearly the implementation is still a few months off as we start to involve Native Language teams and other functional teams. And to our great dismay, calls for help for the current website, which has all the top priority, went lost in a sea of mails about the Drupal project, and despite several mails of people explaining Drupal was just an option. I hope this clarifies my point, and makes it quite clear that I am not just hearing what I want to. This was the official decision statement as communicated back to the website mailing list. Well you now see that the official decision was not a definitive statement about Drupal, and that it was *considered* as an option. Best, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format
Hi Italo, On 1/3/11 7:38 AM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote: Where can I read it? Is it in the next decade manifesto? http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/announce/msg00016.html Thanks for the Link. - And I could ask the next questions, but I save it for later. I try to get it clearer for me till the 3.3-Release, and eventually with a summary of the manifesto and other important things, to have lately: a better basis to clear things in the calm after the release eventually a shortform of the TDF-goals for people which come new to the project. To check the frame for me, in what time about could the 3.3-Release start? ... Thank You for your patience, Johannes -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote: Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: [...] inconsistencies. However, it's fortunately or unfortunately, should not be a problem: OOo LibO implement the existing and used version of MS *proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007 and 2010 that are called OOXML. They're not exactly the ISO standard, far from that; feel free to call them transitional if you wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call them MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer convenience to its This is the point. MS Office 2007 and 2010 doesn't implement ISO/IEC 29300 also called OOXML. Please change the subject because it's completely messing. Call simply MS XML proprietary formats. Davide They don't implement the Strict version -- but I think we'd have a hard time arguing that they don't implement the Transitional version that must also be considered standard, it's documented in that specification, and MS wrote it to cover themselves. If we called these formats proprietary, we could get into real trouble. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/3/2011 10:26 AM, Italo Vignoli wrote: On 1/3/11 3:40 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote: Unfortunately, this means that most user-created documents going to those with more recent versions of Office will be handled by the MS ODF, which is especially unfortunate for spreadsheets. If we get a complaint about compatibility, we can (as usual) recommend using PDF if possible. But if not, which is the better choice -- XP or OOXML? Unless I can be fairly sure OOXML will be more satisfactory, I'll still recommend XP. But I'm willing to be convinced to recommend (very reluctantly) OOXML. Is there any way to assess this, or will we just have to wait and see? I know is a pain, but is really a case by case issue. There's some very encouraging information elsewhere in this thread about test documents that already exist for this. I think we may have a plan going soon! -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft
On 3 January 2011 15:56, Alexander Thurgood alex.thurg...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Le 03/01/11 12:37, Zaphod Feeblejocks a écrit : I guess if you want to buy an iPad in France, now is a good time to do it! An iPad or any other mobile OS based device, ipad is hardly an OS based device. Well stretching the imagination we can trace the OS back to BSD but that could be said of other proprietary unix OSs. including your telephone :-) (the tax, if finally passed into law, should also affect WindowsMobile phones) - the project targets embedded OSes not designed to run on normal PC hardware. Obviously, the definition retained at present is a nonsense in itself and shows just what a poor understanding French MPs have of operating systems and IT in general (or rather what they have been cleverly misled to understand). The current French government needs money, big time - the mobile/embedded market is still fairly bouyant - what better way to generate a revenue stream to fill the depleted coffers ? ;-) I can think of several better ways. Raise the tax rate on proprietary software to encourage migration to open source. Overall that would save money as well as raise revenue. ;-) Once you have everyone shifted to FOSS you can tax that and effectively transfer the tax that was being paid to proprietary software producers to the government. That then costs no-one except the likes of MS who have plenty of cash and are largely outside the French economy in any case. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 3 January 2011 15:14, Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com wrote: On 1/3/11 7:38 AM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote: Where can I read it? Is it in the next decade manifesto? http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/announce/msg00016.html And they are not equal. That's my problem with it at the moment. I don't really understand how this democratic-meritocratic principle works. And what you explain below with Microsoft, for me it is not meritocratic or democratic that's an ethical aspect. Democracy means that everyone has the potential to contribute, Democracy simply means representation of the people (community). Even established democracies don't have referendums on every issue. Party political systems mean that there are real limits to what any individual can contribute. I can't go and contribute directly to new legislation other than by saying what I think and hope it will influence someone. That is not really much different from a FOSS project. meritocracy means that contribution are judged by the community for their value, continuity, quality, etcetera. Which is what voters do at election time with the records and manifestos of politicians in a democracy. Of course meritocracy often become a political argument - even with software. There are some principles though, and one of them is that contributions have to be constructive (FOR) and not destructive (AGAINST). Compare with In the national interest Asking to avoid writing support for OOXML in order to bash Microsoft is meaningless. Not meaningless but perhaps political rather than rational - but hey life is a peculiar mixture of rational and political perspectives. Educating users about ethics related to Microsoft, OOXML and open standards is not a task for export filters. In general I think this polarisation of meritocracy/democracy in FOSS is a myth. FOSS happens because there is freedom of speech which is an important tenant in any democracy. In the end some people make decisions and if they get them badly wrong enough often enough the demos votes with its feet. That is exactly what happened with OOo and LO. So while on this issue I'm in favour of writing OOXML after hearing the arguments, these discussions are important even though someone is going to be disappointed. Let's just accept that rather than muddying the waters with the democracy meritocracy myths. -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813 Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Barbara, Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600, Barbara Duprey b...@onr.com a écrit : On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote: Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: [...] inconsistencies. However, it's fortunately or unfortunately, should not be a problem: OOo LibO implement the existing and used version of MS *proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007 and 2010 that are called OOXML. They're not exactly the ISO standard, far from that; feel free to call them transitional if you wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call them MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer convenience to its This is the point. MS Office 2007 and 2010 doesn't implement ISO/IEC 29300 also called OOXML. Please change the subject because it's completely messing. Call simply MS XML proprietary formats. Davide They don't implement the Strict version -- but I think we'd have a hard time arguing that they don't implement the Transitional version that must also be considered standard, it's documented in that specification, and MS wrote it to cover themselves. If we called these formats proprietary, we could get into real trouble. Well, the problem is that it's not that documented. Really, Transitional OOXML was an honourable way out for MS at the ISO's JTC 1. Basically the deal was that the strict OOXML was rumoured to be clean (although I don't think it is and I'm not the only one) while the transitional was offering more features and was more in line with the existing and used formats used by MS Office 2007 and 2010. At this stage we have no evidence that the transitional OOXML and the formats used in MS office suites match, and I'm not even saying this out of bad will against MS: it's a really important question. best, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Hi Italo, On 1/3/11 8:43 AM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote: What's the background (for ESC) to decide what leads to the best software for users? I apologize for repeating myself, but the ESC will decide upon positive contributions, suggestions or requests. You suggest a feature, promote a technology, contribute a new export filter. ... What I mean now with a real example. What if I would propose to transform the startcenter into a individual desktop with drop and drag like the former integrated desktop of StarOffice. And I would also propose to make it choosable for users: ~ to have it in the LO-window like now the startcenter ~ to dock it like toolbars (perhaps with a constant distance from the dokument-window) ~ to use it like an external container of individual folders, files and links. How would someone decide whether it were a positiv feature for LO or not? Because no one has a crystall ball to look into the future. And it could be, that such a proposal is denied by LO but ten months later another producer of an office-suit succeeds with just such a feature. And if it were denied, is it lost than till somebody others makes the same proposal years later. Or is there a system to save proposals for a later check under new conditions. That's my problem with the decisions. But it hasn't to be answered right now. I'll ask such things after the 3.3-release again. Greetings, Johannes -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft
Medellin, enero 3 de 2011 Just look this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/28/rumored_ubuntu_tablet/ Best Regards, Luis E. Vásquez R. OpenOffice.org Volunteer Support Este mensaje se ha enviado desde Medellín, Colombia *10 Años usando exitosamente OpenOffice.org libre, seguro y abierto * http://facebook.com/ 2011/1/3 Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com On 3 January 2011 15:56, Alexander Thurgood alex.thurg...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Le 03/01/11 12:37, Zaphod Feeblejocks a écrit : I guess if you want to buy an iPad in France, now is a good time to do it! An iPad or any other mobile OS based device, ipad is hardly an OS based device. Well stretching the imagination we can trace the OS back to BSD but that could be said of other proprietary unix OSs. including your telephone :-) (the tax, if finally passed into law, should also affect WindowsMobile phones) - the project targets embedded OSes not designed to run on normal PC hardware. Obviously, the definition retained at present is a nonsense in itself and shows just what a poor understanding French MPs have of operating systems and IT in general (or rather what they have been cleverly misled to understand). The current French government needs money, big time - the mobile/embedded market is still fairly bouyant - what better way to generate a revenue stream to fill the depleted coffers ? ;-) I can think of several better ways. Raise the tax rate on proprietary software to encourage migration to open source. Overall that would save money as well as raise revenue. ;-) Once you have everyone shifted to FOSS you can tax that and effectively transfer the tax that was being paid to proprietary software producers to the government. That then costs no-one except the likes of MS who have plenty of cash and are largely outside the French economy in any case. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org discuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%252bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications The Schools ITQ www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft
Hi Alex, The current French government needs money, big time - the mobile/embedded market is still fairly bouyant - what better way to generate a revenue stream to fill the depleted coffers ? ;-) How cynical! You make them almost sound like the UK government, who put 5p onto the price of a litre of petrol or a pint of beer when money is needed! zf -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 1/1/2011 12:52 PM, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote: Did you know that anything running Linux in France is not a computer? The outworking of this is a skewed market in favour of MS operating systems, and therefore in favour of MS applications. This DOES affect LibO. [snip] As a result, the government needed a way to define what devices qualify as computers, which led to the decision to deem a device a computer only if it runs Microsoft Windows. This means that, as far as the French government is concerned, a tablet running any other operating system -- including Linux, Mac OS, or Android -- is just a device used by pirates who need to be taxed. As an attorney, my suspicion is that this story has something misleading about it. What I actually suspect is that there may have been an exemption created for Windows machines because MS may already be paying some kind of licensing-related tax, and taxing Windows machines would be a double-tax. There are hundreds of examples of this in tax law throughout the world, usually related to tariffs of some sort (i.e., the domestic manufacturers of Product X have to pay a tax that foreign manufacturers don't, so a tax is created on Product X that specifically exempts the domestic manufacturers). - -- Steven Shelton -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk0iDIQACgkQXUonIzCvpdNpVwCeO26EZ+5/joVMlBFeZx/roK18 9KkAnjUXOmpiO0cyXtWcj+DeYrJUK62F =QDAb -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Hello Johannes, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote (03-01-11 20:31) Hi Cor, ... Or is there a system to save proposals for a later check under new conditions. Not that I am aware of. Eventually it could be helfpul to have a list of such ideas in a common place (TDF or LO) with marks like: later on - not practicable - and so on and with short reasons. Because people could check such a list and see whether an idea was already in discussion and what the decision was, even why. This could prevent that the same proposals come again and again, or reduce that. And a workflow could be: You have an idea? First look at the List ... If your idea is not mentioned, mail it for discussion ... Perhaps developers and others could spare some time by that. Definitely a good idea. A must have somewhere on our wiki or site. ( AFAIK we do not have it yet. I always think of the wiki, rather than the website, because the content might be more subject to changes and of course on the wiki more can help ) But did you have a look at (I myself do it just now..) http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/ ? Maybe your idea is a logic addition for that section? That's my problem with the decisions. That many things are not clear, just because of the nature of a FLOSS-community? I think I do not understand what kind of clarity or confirmation you are looking for. In comparison with the real members here I'm from outer space ;-) Be aware - might change suddenly ;-) I have to put many things together like a puzzle to get an overview for myself. Don't think that any of us has a complete overview. But of course, the longer you are somewhere, the easier to find your way. But it hasn't to be answered right now. I'll ask such things after the 3.3-release again. And maybe too after the version after that? That's the reason why I ask such odd questions ;-) (BTW: 3.3 release is not fixed. In this specific case, it will be no earlier then the OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 release of course.) Is this a good plan from a psychological point of view? Because people out of TDF/LO and OOo are waiting for the 3.3, and now: OOo is personally weaked; some sites write it like is OOo at the end? LO is almost unknown for many potenzial users and has to prove that its new system of Open Office Suite works well. Is it good in this situation to come as the second? Eventually weeks after? In a race between two usually the second is the loser. That is one side of the subject. On the other hand, LibO 3.3.0 will be based on OpenOffice.org 3.3.0. Thus it is not easy to release at the same moment or even earlier. Even more so, since quite some developments started to at the LibO side, and changes from Novell and others have been integrated, I would not be surprised if we, especially since all is relatively very new, need more time for our final QA. And since I am very good in predicting the past, don't ask me ;-) Regards, Cor -- - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
On 1/3/2011 11:19 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Barbara, Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600, Barbara Dupreyb...@onr.com a écrit : On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote: Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: [...] inconsistencies. However, it's fortunately or unfortunately, should not be a problem: OOo LibO implement the existing and used version of MS *proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007 and 2010 that are called OOXML. They're not exactly the ISO standard, far from that; feel free to call them transitional if you wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call them MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer convenience to its This is the point. MS Office 2007 and 2010 doesn't implement ISO/IEC 29300 also called OOXML. Please change the subject because it's completely messing. Call simply MS XML proprietary formats. Davide They don't implement the Strict version -- but I think we'd have a hard time arguing that they don't implement the Transitional version that must also be considered standard, it's documented in that specification, and MS wrote it to cover themselves. If we called these formats proprietary, we could get into real trouble. Well, the problem is that it's not that documented. Really, Transitional OOXML was an honourable way out for MS at the ISO's JTC 1. Basically the deal was that the strict OOXML was rumoured to be clean (although I don't think it is and I'm not the only one) while the transitional was offering more features and was more in line with the existing and used formats used by MS Office 2007 and 2010. At this stage we have no evidence that the transitional OOXML and the formats used in MS office suites match, and I'm not even saying this out of bad will against MS: it's a really important question. best, Thanks! Very interesting. It still doesn't seem safe to call these proprietary formats, though, even though the standard's documentation is seriously flawed. Not sure I buy that honourable way out part -- pragmatic, yes, face-saving, yes, but honorable? I'd have a hard time applying that term to what happened there! I really feel for you guys who were in the thick of it, trying to stop the juggernaut that was rolling over the process. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Drupal discussion once more :-( [was: Addons]
Hi Marc, Michael, all, Marc Paré schrieb: Disclaimer: I am on the Drupal team and think that this is the better solution for the LibreOffice CMS solution. It's your right to think what you want to - you are even allowed to post your thoughts ;-) ... as long as these postings don't cause hindrances and drawbacks to the LibreOffice community. The SC decision was clear in one point: We need to create the LibreOffice website in the shortest possible time - and therefore SilverStripe was the CMS to start with and Drupal will be an option for the future. [...] It is therefore logical to consider that [...] if a group decides to work on a Drupal solution, it is their prerogative and, that these contributing members will therefore be able to work on this solution as their time permits. If so many of these members decide to work on the Drupal solution to the detriment of the Silverstripe solution, then, again, the SC will perhaps have to reconsider its choice of CMS accordingly. You're totally right. But the reconsideration might be different than you think of... I just rephrase your last sentence according to the SC decision: If so many of the community members decide to work on a version that might become a solution in the further future instead of contributing to the urgently needed short term solution, then the SC might have to reconsider its decision in a way that leads to more contributors for the website we need *now* - not later on. Of course it it everybody's free choice to work in any area of our community. But if this work begins to hinder other *more important* and *really necessary* work, it is on the Steering Committee's agenda to find a way that leads in the right direction. I'm not a member of the SC, so it's just my personal suggestion: Please avoid *any* action that might been understood as inviting people to the Drupal team instead of the general website team. Our website needs to represent the high quality of our product and the professionalism of our community - at the latest when LibO 3.3 will be released. If you don't see this urgency - or think it has lower priority than working on the Drupal site - you might be considered as not supporting the LibreOffice community, but want to establish a Drupal branch inside LibO. If you have the skills to work on the short term goal, so please donate your time and expertise to the community. The community doesn't need any work on the Drupal site now: It lacks of website content, design improvement and active contribution on the SilverStripe site. For the last three weeks David Nelson has done a tremendous work, creating the current LibO website from scratch without any help and improving the design now (together with one or two others being able to spend a bit of their time). In the meantime you created a Drupal website, filled it with content and created your own design around it. Please consider to contribute to the *real* website from Jan 10th on, when David presents his new design. If the Drupal site seems to have outpaced that of the Silverstripe, the credit should go to the Drupal team contributors who are more adept at creating a Drupal CMS site. It would make no sense to ask a Drupal experienced contributors to slow down because the Silverstripe team is not able to keep up to their development. As you read several times in this thread and elsewhere on the mailing lists, TDF and LibO are not AGAINST anything, they are FOR! This is not only meant for marketing activities outside the community, but even more for interactions inside the LibO community! So your competitive attitude AGAINST the SilverStripe team should be reconsidered in my opinion - especially as the SilverStripe team consists of the people who want to have a high quality website at the time of the LibO release! The Drupal team is currently working hard to deliver this solution within the 6 months delay accorded by the SC. It may, in fact, be able to present to the membership a working site within an earlier time frame that was firstly accorded, thanks to the team's hard work. And then the Drupal team might see that their work can't be considered by the relevant people in the community, because they still work hard on the existing website... I could imagine that the SC postpones any activity on Drupal until the *real thing* is in a professional state... It will then be up to the membership to give constructive criticism to the newly worked Drupal site to see if this is what will work best for LibreOffice. After all, the same is happening in the documentation team with their different projects. Let's keep an open mind. I'm not involved in documentation, so I can't comment on the activities there. But I don't know about a SC decision for one solution now and considering another solution later on. Here *is* a clear decision by the highest board in LibreOffice: We need the SilverStripe site *first* and will consider Drupal *later*. Open mind doesn't
Re: [tdf-discuss] Drupal discussion once more :-( [was: Addons]
Hi Bernhard, you forgot two things: http://www.libreoffice.org/admin for helping on the content http://pumbaa.documentfoundation.org:7780/ for the current work on the design Helping hands are needed by the great work, David has done (and does). -- Greetings k-j -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Drupal discussion once more :-( [was: Addons]
Hi Klaus, :-) On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 06:04, klaus-jürgen weghorn ol o...@sophia-louise.de wrote: http://pumbaa.documentfoundation.org:7780/ for the current work on the design Ivan and I are busy finalizing the implementation of Nikash' template as a SilverStripe theme, and the progress is much more than you actually see on the sandbox - expect to see it transposed there very, very shortly (Ivan now has SSH access there, too). We will be talking on the phone later today. After that, we'll be finalizing the SilverStripe templates, and I'll be doing some more work on the libreoffice.org content before the handover on Jan 10. Jan 10 should be considered the day on which the libreoffice.org site will have reached a satisfactory starting point for the community's needs, and for subsequent evolution and development by the LibreOffice website and design team(s), and by the SC and LibreOffice marketing people. David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] A how to
To keep from expanding an already over used thread I started a new one for this. Consider it as different view of a dead topic if you wish but it is written to help others understand ways to help and provide something beneficial to the community. Some weeks back I had an idea that I though might benefit Libo, a change in the way Calc sheets were copied and renamed. I sent a email to Michael with an idea. He replied and suggested that I add the idea to the Easy Hacks wiki, http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Easy_Hacks , which I did. Much to my surprise it was not to long I saw that one of the developers had picked it up and was working on the idea. The suggestion has now been added to the mail branch and should show up in the 3.4 version of Libo. The item has been moved to the Completed Easy Hacks section, http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Easy_Hacks/Completed#Change_Sheet_copy_process . To see how it will look see http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5215855/c-m-process.pdf , this is screen shots showing current and future looks. I wanted to try this myself but not being a programmer and not knowing where to even start I when to those that know how and when to make the change/addition. I would suggest to others, like myself, do the same. The saying Help me to change the things I can, accept the things I can't and the wisdom to know the difference sure comes to mind sometimes. Andy -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
- Original Message From: Barbara Duprey b...@onr.com On 1/3/2011 11:19 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Barbara, Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600, Barbara Dupreyb...@onr.com a écrit : On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote: Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: [...] inconsistencies. However, it's fortunately or unfortunately, should not be a problem: OOo LibO implement the existing and used version of MS *proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007 and 2010 that are called OOXML. They're not exactly the ISO standard, far from that; feel free to call them transitional if you wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call them MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer convenience to its This is the point. MS Office 2007 and 2010 doesn't implement ISO/IEC 29300 also called OOXML. Please change the subject because it's completely messing. Call simply MS XML proprietary formats. Davide They don't implement the Strict version -- but I think we'd have a hard time arguing that they don't implement the Transitional version that must also be considered standard, it's documented in that specification, and MS wrote it to cover themselves. If we called these formats proprietary, we could get into real trouble. Well, the problem is that it's not that documented. Really, Transitional OOXML was an honourable way out for MS at the ISO's JTC 1. Basically the deal was that the strict OOXML was rumoured to be clean (although I don't think it is and I'm not the only one) while the transitional was offering more features and was more in line with the existing and used formats used by MS Office 2007 and 2010. At this stage we have no evidence that the transitional OOXML and the formats used in MS office suites match, and I'm not even saying this out of bad will against MS: it's a really important question. best, Thanks! Very interesting. It still doesn't seem safe to call these proprietary formats, though, even though the standard's documentation is seriously flawed. Not sure I buy that honourable way out part -- pragmatic, yes, face-saving, yes, but honorable? I'd have a hard time applying that term to what happened there! I really feel for you guys who were in the thick of it, trying to stop the juggernaut that was rolling over the process. While I do agree per your honourable comment... OOXML in any form[1] is certainly not standard, nor is it open. So what _would_ you call it if you were not going to call it what it really is (proprietary)? Honestly, we shouldn't be trying to be politically correct, but rather honest, if not bluntly so. Call out Microsoft on their lack of following even their own standard; it'll have a greater impact as the community rallies behind that instead of trying to be politically correct and let them get away with doing what they've done. A goose by any other name is still a goose. Ben [1] Even Microsoft makes no qualms about not following ISO OOXML or even giving you options so that you know you are writing ISO OOXML - transitional or strict. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: Drupal discussion once more :-( [was: Addons]
Le 2011-01-03 16:38, Bernhard Dippold a écrit : Thanks for note Bernhard. So great, let's get back to site building and quit this vitriol jousting over the Drupal site. If the SC had NNOT called for a Drupal example over the next 6 months, then the Sc would certainly not have let the Drupal group of LibreOffice contributing members go on with the site building without having an official comment about abandoning it. The SC would certainly not have had a group of talented site builders go on for almost 2 months for nothing. As I said, in my note In the meantime, many of the Drupal team have put aside their time to help out. If the people building the Silverstripe LibreOffice site need any help, then please let us have a list and we will work on it according to our abilities. You can very well read my frustration in my postings over all of this strange behaviour. Cheers Marc -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hello Michael, Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 01:26:09 +0930, Michael Wheatland mich...@wheatland.com.au a écrit : On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote: to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org does not seem to mean anything to me. With a view to go with Drupal was rather: with the possible option of Drupal in the long term. Sorry, I meant to write libreoffice.org not drupal.org ah, okay. a little bit of misinformation, Michael, is perhaps your enthusiasm leading to understand things the way you would like them to be :-). At this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans to move to Drupal; there seems indeed to have been some early misunderstanding, but if you wish the SC will clarify its position (again) . But given that I'm a member of the said SC, it might be useful to you to take my words into account. To make this clear in my mind I have listened and read the decision statement from the Steering Committee decision. The conversation on the conference call: I would ask the people working on Drupal to do a more detailed planning in the next month regarding additional services... right. There were some bits that I didn't quite understand (poor quality sound), but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider Drupal as the long term solution. I might repeat Cor's statements here, but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider Drupal as the long term solution means: many people think we should decide whether Drupal would be a long term solution . It's hardly a Steering Committee decision requesting the use of Drupal. The statement to the website list from the SC is as follows: the CMS decision was taken: it will be Silverstripe as a starter, with plans to migrate to Drupal later on. http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/592 plans... later on. Not now let's rush towards creating the definitive Drupal website... I would have thought that this official statement is very clear in the outcome Obviously it is conditional, and makes clear that it's an option for the long term. and the website team has had a large group of people (larger than that working on the current site) working towards this end, whom might I say have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time. Clearly the implementation is still a few months off as we start to involve Native Language teams and other functional teams. And to our great dismay, calls for help for the current website, which has all the top priority, went lost in a sea of mails about the Drupal project, and despite several mails of people explaining Drupal was just an option. I hope this clarifies my point, and makes it quite clear that I am not just hearing what I want to. This was the official decision statement as communicated back to the website mailing list. Well you now see that the official decision was not a definitive statement about Drupal, and that it was *considered* as an option. Thanks for the clarification Charles, This makes a lot more sense than a couple of other abrupt, emotional statements made by others regarding the CMS decision that we have seen on the mailing lists. If everyone was as clear and concise as you there would be no confusion about any issues. As you can see, there is a lot of enthusiasm around the Drupal development which has been put to good use and we should not waste. From my conversations the only reason a lot of people have not been working on the Silverstripe site is that they don't understand the CMS and are not really interested in learning it. It is true, once you use Drupal, you will never install another CMS. Over the coming couple of weeks, I will put together a proposal for the Steering Committee to consider an implementation plan. Again, Thanks for clarifying this point. Michael Wheatland -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] LibreOffice 3.3 Release Party wiki page -- Let's celebrate our distro!
This is just another gentle reminder of our LibreOffice 3.3 Release Party wiki page. If you are planning on holding a release party or just celebrating our latest LibreOffice distro, feel free to advertise the date and location on the LibreOffice Release 3.3 Release Party wiki page.[1] You may also find some suggestions on this page on possible locations and activities. Make sure to take many photos and perhaps blog about it. Don't have a place to blog or to post your photos? Just leave us a note on our marketing list and we will see how we could help you. Why should we register our dates and locations? The Release Party wiki page may be seen by wiki site visitors who will then see how vibrant a community we are and how proud we are of our excellent product. Let's make ourselves heard. Cheers Marc [1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing/LibOReleaseEvents -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
