Re: [steering-discuss] New Accepted members to TDF (2011-07-13)

[Vitorio Furusho]

Jomar,


Parabéns ao mais novo membro da TDF


um abraço,

Vitorio FURUSHO
Ativista de Software Livre e Padrão Aberto de Documentos (ODF)
Prêmio Internacional ODF Alliance
Award
Free Software Furusho 
LibreOffice 
CoLibre-PR 
The Document Foundation - TDF 
Twitter: vfurusho  -  Skype: vyfurusho  -  Jabber: furusho
Google talk: vfurusho, vyfurusho, vitoriofurusho, broffice
MSN: vyfuru...@hotmail.com
IM Yahoo!: vyfurusho, furusho
Fone: +55 (41) 9977-3947 e 3256-3956
[image:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/6/65/Logomarca_CoLibre_Padrao.png]



2011/7/13 André Schnabel 

> Hi all,
>
> Here is the list of the accepted members during the last MC meeting on
> 2011-07-13.
>
> A warm welcome to them as TDF members
>
> - Christina Roßmanith- Developer, Code cleanups and Bugfixes
> - Romeo Mlinar - UI and help translations for Serbian localization
> -* Jomar Silva - Marketing of TDF, LibreOffice, FLOSS and Open Standars in
> Latin America*
> - Michael Natterer - Developer, patches to native GTK+
> - Christian Dywan - Developer, several fixes and cleanups
>
> The names will be added soon to the website.
>
> Kind regards
> André
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+help@**
> documentfoundation.org 
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.**documentfoundation.org/**
> Netiquette 
> List archive: http://listarchives.**documentfoundation.org/www/**
> steering-discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] OOo / LO Extensions

[Robert Derman]

Uwe Altmann wrote:

Hi

Am 12.07.11 20:38, schrieb drew:
  

hmmm - that is assuming that the two separate projects will maintain
enough common code base that shared extensions are possible - that is a
requirement that I for one would not want to see enforced. The fact that
we can share extensions today is, IMO, a remnant of a past history and
should not dictate decisions for going forward - so I would not be in
favor our hosting Apache OpenOffice.org branded extensions on a
TDF/LibreOffice service, nor would I be in favor or seeing
TDF/Libreoffice continue to point back to Apache OpenOffice.org for any
future end user services.



As in past some extensions required some special version of OOo, in
future they may require a special version of LO or only LO or only AOOo
at all. It's more testing but surely can be documented and handeled.
Besides that I dont't expect LO to refurbish the API on a
down-to-the-foundation level in the next years.
  
The application interface might not change, but the core code might.  
Oops, application interface, I was thinking user interface, no, the 
application interface might just change if a change results in better 
performance.  the same for core code.  It is best not to assume 
anything, as in the old saying, if you assume, you might make an ass of 
u and me. 



I think it would be best to consider any mutual hosting to be a 
temporary arrangement, since at some point in the future it might no 
longer be practical.  Also, at some point it might no longer be needed, 
as both projects become more mature, they might acquire the 
infrastructure to host whatever is needed on their own. 


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

Re: [steering-discuss] SC call notes for 2011-07-13

[drew]

On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 18:50 +0200, Christoph Noack wrote:
> Hi Charles,
> 
> thanks for the minutes - although I'd like to mention that I missed by a
> few minutes due to some day work issue :-\ Thus, I removed my name from
> the list of attendees.

Whilst I added mine - perhaps it was a case of mistaken identity... :)

Best wishes,

//drew


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] What does it mean to be in the Board of Directors?

[Florian Effenberger]

Hello,

here are some thoughts on the future Board of Directors, hoping that it
helps a bit for the upcoming elections:

http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/07/13/what-does-it-mean-to-be-in-the-board-of-directors/

Florian

-- 
Florian Effenberger 
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

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

Re: [tdf-discuss] OOo / LO Extensions

[Andor E]

Hi,
if there were an interest in standardizing a macro API for office
applications, I would be much in favor. But I wouldn't want to
standardize the current API. It's unnecessarily complicated and takes
a sizeable amount of time to learn, even for a seasoned programmer.
I'd rather create something new and modern.

Greetings

eymux

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:21 PM, RA Stehmann
 wrote:
> Olivier Hallot schrieb:
>>
>>
>> Em 13-07-2011 05:33, RA Stehmann escreveu:
>>> Uwe Altmann schrieb:
 Hi

 Am 12.07.11 20:38, schrieb drew:
> hmmm - that is assuming that the two separate projects will maintain
> enough common code base that shared extensions are possible - that is a
> requirement that I for one would not want to see enforced. The fact
> that
> we can share extensions today is, IMO, a remnant of a past history and
> should not dictate decisions for going forward - so I would not be in
> favor our hosting Apache OpenOffice.org branded extensions on a
> TDF/LibreOffice service, nor would I be in favor or seeing
> TDF/Libreoffice continue to point back to Apache OpenOffice.org for any
> future end user services.
 As in past some extensions required some special version of OOo, in
 future they may require a special version of LO or only LO or only AOOo
 at all. It's more testing but surely can be documented and handeled.
 Besides that I dont't expect LO to refurbish the API on a
 down-to-the-foundation level in the next years.
>>> There is a solution for that Problem: standardization of the API for
>>> example under the roof of OASIS.
>>>
>>> That doesn't necessarily mean, LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org will have
>>> the same API but a practical common set.
>>>
>>> Extensions could notice, whether they use only (parts of) the standard
>>> set.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Isn't this going to put the API into a cast? (for the good and for the bad)
>> Regards
>>
> No, it isn't. You can improve standards (like ODF). LibreOffice for
> example could develop new API elements especially for new features,
> which could be intergrated in a later version of the API standard.
>
> The standard should be only a practical set, supported by LibreOffice,
> OpenOffice.org and others. But that doesn't mean the standard describes
> the whole API of one of these products but only a great part. So there
> is room for improvement.
>
> Regards
> Michael
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
>

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

Re: [tdf-discuss] OOo / LO Extensions

[RA Stehmann]

Olivier Hallot schrieb:
> 
> 
> Em 13-07-2011 05:33, RA Stehmann escreveu:
>> Uwe Altmann schrieb:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Am 12.07.11 20:38, schrieb drew:
 hmmm - that is assuming that the two separate projects will maintain
 enough common code base that shared extensions are possible - that is a
 requirement that I for one would not want to see enforced. The fact
 that
 we can share extensions today is, IMO, a remnant of a past history and
 should not dictate decisions for going forward - so I would not be in
 favor our hosting Apache OpenOffice.org branded extensions on a
 TDF/LibreOffice service, nor would I be in favor or seeing
 TDF/Libreoffice continue to point back to Apache OpenOffice.org for any
 future end user services.
>>> As in past some extensions required some special version of OOo, in
>>> future they may require a special version of LO or only LO or only AOOo
>>> at all. It's more testing but surely can be documented and handeled.
>>> Besides that I dont't expect LO to refurbish the API on a
>>> down-to-the-foundation level in the next years.
>> There is a solution for that Problem: standardization of the API for
>> example under the roof of OASIS.
>>
>> That doesn't necessarily mean, LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org will have
>> the same API but a practical common set.
>>
>> Extensions could notice, whether they use only (parts of) the standard
>> set.
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
> Isn't this going to put the API into a cast? (for the good and for the bad)
> Regards
> 
No, it isn't. You can improve standards (like ODF). LibreOffice for
example could develop new API elements especially for new features,
which could be intergrated in a later version of the API standard.

The standard should be only a practical set, supported by LibreOffice,
OpenOffice.org and others. But that doesn't mean the standard describes
the whole API of one of these products but only a great part. So there
is room for improvement.

Regards
Michael



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

Re: [tdf-discuss] OOo / LO Extensions

[Olivier Hallot]

Em 13-07-2011 05:33, RA Stehmann escreveu:

Uwe Altmann schrieb:

Hi

Am 12.07.11 20:38, schrieb drew:

hmmm - that is assuming that the two separate projects will maintain
enough common code base that shared extensions are possible - that is a
requirement that I for one would not want to see enforced. The fact that
we can share extensions today is, IMO, a remnant of a past history and
should not dictate decisions for going forward - so I would not be in
favor our hosting Apache OpenOffice.org branded extensions on a
TDF/LibreOffice service, nor would I be in favor or seeing
TDF/Libreoffice continue to point back to Apache OpenOffice.org for any
future end user services.

As in past some extensions required some special version of OOo, in
future they may require a special version of LO or only LO or only AOOo
at all. It's more testing but surely can be documented and handeled.
Besides that I dont't expect LO to refurbish the API on a
down-to-the-foundation level in the next years.

There is a solution for that Problem: standardization of the API for
example under the roof of OASIS.

That doesn't necessarily mean, LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org will have
the same API but a practical common set.

Extensions could notice, whether they use only (parts of) the standard set.

Regards
Michael




Isn't this going to put the API into a cast? (for the good and for the bad)
Regards

--
Olivier Hallot
Founder, Steering Commitee Member - The Document Foundation
Voicing the enterprise needs
LibreOffice translation leader for Brazilian Portuguese
+55-21-8822-8812


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

Re: [tdf-discuss] OOo / LO Extensions

[RA Stehmann]

Uwe Altmann schrieb:
> Hi
> 
> Am 12.07.11 20:38, schrieb drew:
>> hmmm - that is assuming that the two separate projects will maintain
>> enough common code base that shared extensions are possible - that is a
>> requirement that I for one would not want to see enforced. The fact that
>> we can share extensions today is, IMO, a remnant of a past history and
>> should not dictate decisions for going forward - so I would not be in
>> favor our hosting Apache OpenOffice.org branded extensions on a
>> TDF/LibreOffice service, nor would I be in favor or seeing
>> TDF/Libreoffice continue to point back to Apache OpenOffice.org for any
>> future end user services.
> 
> As in past some extensions required some special version of OOo, in
> future they may require a special version of LO or only LO or only AOOo
> at all. It's more testing but surely can be documented and handeled.
> Besides that I dont't expect LO to refurbish the API on a
> down-to-the-foundation level in the next years.

There is a solution for that Problem: standardization of the API for
example under the roof of OASIS.

That doesn't necessarily mean, LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org will have
the same API but a practical common set.

Extensions could notice, whether they use only (parts of) the standard set.

Regards
Michael



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

Re: [tdf-discuss] OOo / LO Extensions

[Uwe Altmann]

Hi

Am 12.07.11 20:38, schrieb drew:
> hmmm - that is assuming that the two separate projects will maintain
> enough common code base that shared extensions are possible - that is a
> requirement that I for one would not want to see enforced. The fact that
> we can share extensions today is, IMO, a remnant of a past history and
> should not dictate decisions for going forward - so I would not be in
> favor our hosting Apache OpenOffice.org branded extensions on a
> TDF/LibreOffice service, nor would I be in favor or seeing
> TDF/Libreoffice continue to point back to Apache OpenOffice.org for any
> future end user services.

As in past some extensions required some special version of OOo, in
future they may require a special version of LO or only LO or only AOOo
at all. It's more testing but surely can be documented and handeled.
Besides that I dont't expect LO to refurbish the API on a
down-to-the-foundation level in the next years.
-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Uwe Altmann

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