Re: [tdf-discuss] Oracle copyright on LibreOffice ?
2010/10/8 Charles Marcus > On 2010-10-08 10:27 AM, El Cico wrote: > > If I go to help-->About LibreOffice I see: > > > > LibreOffice 3.3.0 > > > > OOO330m7 (Build:9526) > > ooo-build 2010-09-24 > > > > Copyright © 2000, 2010 > > Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. > > > > Don't think it's > > correct, is it? > > Its the very first beta being offered, it was inevitable some things > would be missed... > > Unless - maybe legally the copyrights have to stay (hope not)? > we will have to, as long as we integrate OOo code :-) Charles. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail to discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted. List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Oracle copyright on LibreOffice ?
Hey Jonathon, Welcome to this list. There is one thing which also needs to be understood and mentioned: the Document Foundation does not take the copyright of its contributors. So we should not be listed as copyright owners. Charles. Le 8 oct. 2010, 7:10 PM, "jonathon" a écrit : On 10/08/2010 02:37 PM, Charles Marcus wrote: >> Copyright © 2000, 2010 > > Oracle and/or its affil... Technically, it needs to read << Copyright © 1999 StarOffice GmHz; Copyright © 2000 Sun INC, Copyright © 2001 Sun INC, Copyright © 2002 Sun INC, Copyright © 2003 Sun INC, Copyright © 2004 Sun INC, Copyright © 2005 Sun INC, Copyright © 2006 Sun INC, Copyright © 2007 Sun INC, Copyright © 2008 Sun INC, Copyright © 2009 Sun INC, Copyright © 2010 Oracle INC, Document Foundation, Novell Inc, and other affiliates. >> Only when one is 100% guaranteed that no code from a specific copyright holder is included, can the specific copyright holder be dropped from the list. (Looking at the source code, I can't tell what pre-dates 2000.) Note # 1: I've gotten the name of the German company wrong. That needs to be replaced with the correct name; Note # 2: The list needs to start with when that German company started coding the project; Note # 3: I'm assuming that Sun, Inc was the sole copyright owner, for code added to OOo during the years it ran the project. If it wasn't, the other copyright owners need to have their names added; Note # 4: The copyright list states who the copyright holder was, when it was published, not who the current copyright holder is; Note # 5: "and other affiliates" needs to replaced with the name of the specific copyright holders; jonathon -- No human will see non-list, non-bulk, non-junk email sent to this address . It all gets forwarded to /dev/null -- To unsubscribe, e-mail to discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.orgAll messages you send to ... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail to discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted. List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
Re: [tdf-discuss] just a greeting from ja and qa project lead
Le Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:21:54 +0200, Sophie Gautier a écrit : > Hi Maho > > 2010/10/10 André Schnabel : > > Hi Maho, > > > > Am 10.10.2010 03:41, schrieb Maho NAKATA: > >> > >> Hi Folks, > >> > >> I'll do the best. > > > > It's great to have you here - warm welcome from my side. :) > > I join André and his welcome, it's great to have you here :) Maho, welcome to you and the Japanese Native-Language Project (and to all the other languages that I haven't greeted yet) :-) Maho, please subscribe to l...@libreoffice.org Best, Charles. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted. List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
Re: [tdf-discuss] Problem with wiki
Hi, Le Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:54:45 -0400, Drew Jensen a écrit : > > > > > I just tried again and the main page let me edit it. Typical! Ask a > > question and find the answer; report a bug and it starts working. > > LOL. I'll see what happens tomorrow. > > > > I edited those pages right after the site went live yesterday also - > did not want to make a page, just to make a page, this morning - > later this afternoon I will be upgrading to Ubuntu 10.10 and have at > least one more page planned for afterwards. I'll only post back here > again if there is a continuing problem. > > I run into the same issues this morning. I think all it takes is to completely logout of the wiki, wait for 5 minutes and then log back in (and of course validate your email address before). Best, Charles. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted. List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
Re: [tdf-discuss] Basic question about Oracle asking OOo community members to leave
Hello all, thank you for opening this thread. It is not in the intention of anyone -I don't speak officially for the Foundation in this mail- to sit in both projects. It would give a very bad signal, I think, a signal that we either don't believe in LibO and that we want to occupy seats just for the sake of it. So that's not going to happen, rest assured of that: but it's not even been a month since we've gone out in public, remember? :-) Just be patient. On the other hand, I and others do not tolerate being "fired" by Oracle. Resigning is one thing, being kicked out is another one. Resigning is a logical consequence of our actions that will actually happen soon, being kicked out and accepting it means we acknowledge that Oracle has the right of life and death over the OOo community. Good thing we went to open the Document Foundation then! Cheers, Charles. Le Mon, 18 Oct 2010 01:02:01 -0400, Drew Jensen a écrit : > > ... and above all their > > general opinion about what Ramon said and on how to handle the > > OOo/Oracle <-> LibO/TDF relation in the future. > > > > Hello Mr. Fioretti, > > It is my firm and deep belief that, given my experiences and > interactions, as limited as they may be in some cases, with all of > those _actively_ involved in the development, promotion and support > of these software packages having so much more in common with regards > to vision of purpose, as opposed to, the differences in vision of > implementation process, that it is and will be, only a small matter > of time before the groups are pursuing mutually beneficial activities > once again. > > Sincerely, > > Drew Jensen > > > > > > > > > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Basic question about Oracle asking OOo community members to leave
Hello Marco, Le Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:58:14 +0200, "M. Fioretti" a écrit : > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 12:00:56 PM +0200, Charles-H. Schulz > (charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org) wrote: > > > On the other hand, I and others do not tolerate being "fired" by > > Oracle. Resigning is one thing, being kicked out is another one. > > Resigning is a logical consequence of our actions that will actually > > happen soon, being kicked out and accepting it means we acknowledge > > that Oracle has the right of life and death over the OOo > > community. Good thing we went to open the Document Foundation then! > > Charles, > > reading stuff like this doesn't make me feel like I'm being treated > like an adult. > > Here's what I actually read in the paragraph I quoted: > >You will not acknowledge that you won't accept anymore the fact >that Oracle has right of life and death over the OOo community >now, by "being kicked out and accepting it". Because you've >already acknowledged that you wouldn't accept that right in the >very moment when you announced TDF, by creating it. > >You wanted since the beginning Oracle to fire you, to prove >that they are indeed tyrants (which they proved quite well, >IMHO) > >And this is the only reason why such a logical consequence of >your action as resigning didn't happen simultaneously to the >announcement of TDF. I honestly can't imagine any other >obstacle. > > If I completely misunderstood or missed something, please explain. In > any case, as far as I am concerned none of the above means that > creating TDF was wrong or that I approve what Oracle did. I am just > saying that this side of the whole messy matter doesn't seem to have > been managed properly, and that statements like the one above are, > uhm, a bit weak? What I may have not written clearly, is 2 things: -first and foremost we always kept the door open for Oracle. If we had wanted to do a fork, we would have indeed resigned almost on the same day I think. Now the behaviour of Oracle being what it is, the situation is being clarified, so to speak. -in French we say that there is "l'art et la manière". You can send me a private message, as an Oracle employee, asking me : "so Charles, when are you guys going away?" but if you send a public message kicking us out on vague grounds, ignoring our very own guidelines, that's very different. So of course, I'm not trying to say that I'm surprised that such consequences of our action happen, and I was not trying to be disingenuous or not treating you like an adult in my message. But what I'm saying is that we were surprised by the tone, the way, the brutality of Oracle's answer, which seems unnecessary, and too early. We have not even started to "talk" and we're being thrown out? Again, our doors are open, but Oracle, through that move, does not seem to be interested and is behaving in a rude and violent way. Also of interest: I am very surprised that Oracle, or rather the Oracle's employees contributing to OOo, are chasing us out as if we were 5 idiots. Let's not talk numbers here, but let's just say that it would be a conservative estimate if I said that 80 percent of the NLC and the QA project (and I'm not talking about the others) are moving to TDF. So Oracle has either become blind on what's going on on their mailing lists, bugtrackers and commits or it is effectively saying: we don't acknowledge that our community is leaving (and yes, there are and will always be exceptions). That, to me, is a failure, it's a community "management" failure. Hope that helps, Charles. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Basic question about Oracle asking OOo community members to leave
Le Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:29:37 +0100 (BST), ian.ly...@theingots.org a écrit : > > we > > don't acknowledge that our community is leaving (and yes, there are > > and will always be exceptions). That, to me, is a failure, it's a > > community "management" failure. > > So I guess that puts Louis in a difficult position? > He must surely be caught between a rock and a hard place. This being said, I don't think this attitude stems from him. I believe someone else is pulling the strings. -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define "Membership" within TDF?
Hello Gianluca, Le Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:37:02 +0200, "Gianluca Turconi" a écrit : > In data 18 ottobre 2010 alle ore 18:44:25, André Schnabel > ha scritto: > > > To get things started, I put some notes at the wiki: > >http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership > > I've read that post, but I think you're reiterating an old > misconception by confusing the Document Foundation with the wider > LibreOffice Community. > > I'll try to explain why. > > The Document Foundation should be like the kernel (or nucleus of a > cell) that pursue specific purposes (included in its Charter) that > the rest of the system (or cell, the Community) considers valuable > and agrees to support. > > What the TDF does and who formally belongs to its organization may > substantially differ from who cooperate with and belongs to the wider > OOo community. > > Hypothetical example: Google Corp. develops a large chunk of code > for LibreOffice. It's an important contribution, of course, and > Google would belong to the wider LibO community, but is this big > contribution enough to join the steering group of TDF? > > IMO, no, because you should contribute *and* formally and publicly > share TDF principles *in the past and present and facts*, in order to > join the foundation steering institutions. > > Another hypothetical example: tomorrow, Microsoft CEO wakes up and > says to TDF: "Here is a 20 million per year check in order to develop > XYZ future in LibreOffice, can we join TDF and its steering group?" > The twenty million income is surely a good thing ;-) , but I would > expect from TDF a reply like this: "Wait, we know your past. Join the > wider LibreOffice Community by paying independent developers, > sponsoring events and projects and then we'll evaluate your > application for membership. In a nutshell: we have to trust you in > the facts during a rather long period of time." > > Google has a past of open source and open formats support. It may be > a good member. Microsoft, instead... Well, it's Microsoft. > > IMVHO, a double request, contribution *and* acceptation *in the > facts* of the Charter's purposes, should be the base of any > "membership" within TDF. > > Of course, such approach involves a "cooptative membership procedure" > in which the current TDF members evaluate the actual contribution > and previous commitment to the Charter's purposes and Libreffice > Community made by the membership applicant. > > Indeed, always IMO, it's better a tinier group of members but with a > strong and evident commitment to the Charter's purposes rather than > a larger group with a questionable background and composed by members > who are contributing for *their* own purposes. I can understand why you want to make that distinction. My own interpretation, aside the fact that we stated at the beginning what we hear by "member", is that how we define the membership applies to anyone, but it is based on its role and contribution. An individual should be able to contribute and be recognized as a member. As such, no corporation, who might also be a member, shall be recognized as having a higher footing; contributions are what matters only. Perhaps I did misunderstand you there, but there is of course another kind of community, which is often referred as "an user community". I don't think we should have particular membership rules for general users, but if any user wants to contribute (based on the criteria defined on the page we're talking about), he/she should be welcome, encouraged and, based on his/her contributions, become a member according to these simple criteria. Users either go to users mailing lists (and we will /can/ should come up with specific mailing list courtesy rules and best practices, but that's the only thing needed imho). Is that what you had in mind? Best, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define "Membership" within TDF?
Hello Gianluca,
Le Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:05:50 +0200,
"Gianluca Turconi" a écrit :
> In data 19 ottobre 2010 alle ore 14:34:33, Charles-H. Schulz
> ha scritto:
>
> > I can understand why you want to make that distinction. My own
> > interpretation, aside the fact that we stated at the beginning what
> > we hear by "member", is that how we define the membership applies to
> > anyone, but it is based on its role and contribution. An individual
> > should be able to contribute and be recognized as a member. As
> > such, no corporation, who might also be a member, shall be
> > recognized as having a higher footing; contributions are what
> > matters only. Perhaps I did misunderstand you there, but there is
> > of course another kind of community, which is often referred as "an
> > user community".
>
> Yes, it's likely you misunderstood me. :)
>
> I didn't mean the "user community", but the dev community itself.
>
> However, I think there's another important misunderstanding about what
> *you* (Charles and Andre and maybe others) think a Foundation is and
> what *I* think it is.
>
> According to me, a Foundation is a central, independent legal entity
> that takes decisions about a productivity suite called LibreOffice
> (BTW, who owns the trademark?): how to protect its code base (without
> copyright assignment), how to further develop it, how to improve the
> open source ecosystem around its development.
>
> That kind of things cannot be done without a formal and well defined
> membership application.
>
> Contribution cannot be enough for a member's application acceptance,
> because in my conception of Foundation, there are actual principles
> that are not limited to "contribution".
>
> And they cannot be tested in the books ("I swear to respect the
> Foundation's Charter") but they must be clear in the facts ("I'm a
> well respected member of the community and I've always acted in good
> faith in the past").
>
> I mean: this time, after what happened with Sun/Oracle, we need to
> cancel any "gray zone" and keep in mind that ***Free Software***
> comes first.
>
> A larger members' base is useless for a Foundation if those "gray
> zones" are kept.
So, if I understand you well, you do indeed raise a good question, but
one which, to me, adds more gray zones. Let me rephrase how I
understand your position: you are afraid that we're mixing the
membership of the Foundation and the membership of the community, and
that by mixing the two we would be putting the foundation itself (the
legal object, the kernel as you called it) in jeopardy . Basically,
every contributor could come around and harm the foundation. (Did I get
this right?)
If that's what you implied, I... sort of don't agree with you but at
the same time see wisdom in your objection. We would need protect
certain parts of the foundation from direct, daily interference.
However, where I don't agree with you is that we should, provided a
majority of contributors do agree, be in charge of our own destiny.
This being said, I believe it's necessary to focus on the question of
the membership, and separate it from the question of the foundation
structure and its governance. Obviously, these questions are all
related, but if we handle more specific ones, we'll be able to generate
some valuable input I think.
Best,
--
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.
--
E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to
unsubscribe
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define "Membership" within TDF?
Le Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:42:00 -0500, Alexandro Colorado a écrit : > 2010/10/18 André Schnabel > > > Hi, > > > > as you all know, we are working to make The Document Foundation an > > independent self-governing meritocratic Foundation. This Foundation > > should be lead by it's members, based on their merit. > > > > One of the very basic questions to answer is: > > "Who is a member at TDF." > > > > Well - we (the Steering Committee) do not have a detailed answer on > > this, as we think that the voice of our contributors should be > > respected for this very important topic. So we want to discuss this > > here, before we come to a decision. > > > > To get things started, I put some notes at the wiki: > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership > > > > Maybe defining what is not a member, could help out clear things up. Well, we would like to avoid going into negative definitions. The idea is that we should be able to have people contributing effectively before claiming their membership, that's all. Best, Charles. > > > > > > > These are initial thoughts, but I hope, you get the idea, what we > > are heading for. Please read and send comments to the mailinglist ( > > discuss@documentfoundation.org). For the first days I would not > > suggest to go deeply into details - we should get the general > > picture first (e.g. the very basic principles). > > > > For discussion please use this mailinglist and try to keep the > > thread alive. If a new thread is started, please add at least the > > tag [SC] and the word "Membership" in the subject. > > > > I'm looking forward to a constructive discussion, > > > > André > > > > -- > > E-mail to > > discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgfor > > instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at > > http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you > > send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted > > > > > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define "Membership" within TDF?
Le Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:39:29 +0200, Gianluca Turconi a écrit : > Il 19/10/2010 17.19, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: > > [...] > > > So, if I understand you well, you do indeed raise a good question, > > but one which, to me, adds more gray zones. Let me rephrase how I > > understand your position: you are afraid that we're mixing the > > membership of the Foundation and the membership of the community, > > and that by mixing the two we would be putting the foundation > > itself (the legal object, the kernel as you called it) in > > jeopardy . Basically, every contributor could come around and harm > > the foundation. (Did I get this right?) > > Yes, that's the point. :) > > [...] > > > This being said, I believe it's necessary to focus on the question > > of the membership, and separate it from the question of the > > foundation structure and its governance. Obviously, these questions > > are all related, but if we handle more specific ones, we'll be able > > to generate some valuable input I think. > > Really, *how* can you separate the membership from the governance? > > You know: one head, one vote. ;-) Yes. But here we're only trying to define what one head means, and then we decide what the head can vote for :-) > > There are Foundations that have different classes of members (like > stockholders), but I see really difficult to apply such method to a > free software organization. yes indeed. > > In addition to this, I still feel I'm still missing something in your > argument. > > In fact, you seem considering the Foundation as a part of a larger > egalitarian group rather than the leading association that primarily > acts for the sake of LibreOffice. > > I see: The Document Foundation (members: Charles-H. Schulz, Google, > whoever-you-want) with its steering committee/council; > > While it seem you and others see: The Document Foundation + Google + > Whoever-you-want that collaborate with each other and have a common > council for the most important decisions. > > Frankly, if it's so, it isn't what I hoped when I heard about TDF for > the first time. :'( Well, I think that the split between these two visions is somewhat articifical. To be frank I don't think I ever had thought about this that way. And in fact I don't see why the two models you defined are so stringently different, but let's proceed according to your lines: why the model you see (let's put aside the model you think we see for a minute ;-)) is better than the other one. (I have no religion here, I'm trying to understand, and it's good because we're having a really important discussion which is not even an argument :-) ) As a side note, here's what I think should always lead our actions. Some call it meritocracy, but if we stop focusing on big names, here's how it is supposed to work: contributor A contribute x amount of work (code, qa tests, documentation, administrative tasks, localization, icon designs, etc.)At some point it's fair if he gets a say in what we do. Now there's the (valid) objection: but anyone with a sufficient force can come up, align contributors contributing stuff, and bing, they are in charge of the foundation. I don't think it's that simple. First of all, it takes time and meaningful contributions to become a member, and remember, memberships have to be accepted (see the lower administrative section on the wiki page) and contributions can be rejected on various reasons (the patch is not correct, the logo looks shady, etc.) So I think that this might not be the chaos that some here might fear imho... please advise. Best, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Basic question about Oracle asking OOo community members to leave
Marco, Le Wed, 20 Oct 2010 05:46:22 +0200, "M. Fioretti" a écrit : > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 13:27:55 PM +0200, Charles-H. Schulz > (charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org) wrote: > > > "M. Fioretti" a écrit : > > > > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 12:00:56 PM +0200, Charles-H. Schulz > > > (charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org) wrote: > > > > > > > On the other hand, I and others do not tolerate being "fired" by > > > > Oracle. Resigning is one thing, being kicked out is another one. > > > > Resigning is a logical consequence of our actions that will > > > > actually happen soon, being kicked out and accepting it means > > > > we acknowledge that Oracle has the right of life and death over > > > > the OOo community. Good thing we went to open the Document > > > > Foundation then! > > > > > > ... > > >You wanted since the beginning Oracle to fire you, to prove > > >that they are indeed tyrants (which they proved quite well, > > >IMHO) > > > > > >And this is the only reason why such a logical consequence > > > of your action as resigning didn't happen simultaneously to the > > >announcement of TDF. I honestly can't imagine any other > > >obstacle. > > > ... > > -in French we say that there is "l'art et la manière". You can send > > me a private message, as an Oracle employee, asking me : "so > > Charles, when are you guys going away?" but if you send a public > > message kicking us out on vague grounds, ignoring our very own > > guidelines, that's very different. > > Charles, > > of course it's very different, but you're simply changing the subject > IMO. The real question was not "did Oracle behave well last saturday?" > When I started this thread I was really not interested in debating HOW > Oracle implemented the firing, resignation or whatever we'll call > it. I didn't mean to ask that. > > The real question was "why didn't the TDF founders who have/had > official roles in OOo publicly resign from those roles on Sept 28th, > one second BEFORE announcing the birth of TDF? Would'nt it have been > much more proper, considering that creating TDF is basically saying in > public "the way Oracle is handling OOo sucks so much that we can't > take it anymore"? Why all this surprise now?" > > You can't justify with something that A (badly) did 3 weeks later > something else that B didn't do (but should have done, IMHO) 3 weeks > earlier. Unless the reason B didn't act then was just to cause that > specific reaction in A now. > > The fact that, eventually, Oracle handled this matter beyond > expectations, that is doing just what it had been stimulated to do, > but in the worst possible manner for Oracle's image, is a _separate_ > issue. > > Anyway, what's done it's done. I (and then Ramon) have explained why > we think not resigning immediately was bad. You have answered. Let's > move on. Well, when we announced TDF it was not clear what Oracle would choose. Besides, some of us were still contributing to OOo (localization, etc.) and having resigned just before would have clearly signified that we were not interested in OOo anymore. Best, Charles. > > Marco > > -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define "Membership" within TDF?
Ciao Gianluca, Le Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:01:55 +0200, Gianluca Turconi a écrit : > Il 19/10/2010 18.11, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: > > [...] > > > Well, I think that the split between these two visions is somewhat > > articifical. To be frank I don't think I ever had thought about this > > that way. And in fact I don't see why the two models you defined > > are so stringently different, but let's proceed according to your > > lines: why the model you see (let's put aside the model you think > > we see for a minute ;-)) is better than the other one. (I have no > > religion here, I'm trying to understand, and it's good because > > we're having a really important discussion which is not even an > > argument :-) ) > > Outside alliances and collaborations (the second model) are based on > commons interests that can be very volatile. Ok, sure. > > They can diverge because of a job change, market evolution, new CEOs, > graduation, family duties, and so on. > > On the other hand, the first model involves a *legal* commitment, > with stronger duties and rights, and a formal involvement in an > organization that has not *mere* interests, but statutory purposes. > > It's the same difference that there is between marriage and > cohabitation. > > They are two different level of engagement. Outside observers can see > the difference too. Think about the difference in perception about > these sentences: > > "Google *joins* TDF" > > and > > "Google *collaborate* with TDF" > > There is a completely different feeling of supporting strength. Of course > > Of course people and corporations can quit a foundation too, but it's > surely less easy that kind of disengagement, just like people think > thrice before divorcing. > > Furthermore, a central independent association with its own council, > that steers the Community efforts, allows not lo lose focus on > Chrarter's purposes. > > An enlarged "group" with a supreme committee may include people with > very different and transient interests that may or may not correspond > to the Charter's purposes. I agree with all that and I don't think we have a difference in opinion here. > > [...] > > > I don't think it's that simple. First of all, it takes time and > > meaningful contributions to become a member, and remember, > > memberships have to be accepted (see the lower administrative > > section on the wiki page) and contributions can be rejected on > > various reasons (the patch is not correct, the logo looks shady, > > etc.) So I think that this might not be the chaos that some here > > might fear imho... please advise. > > Well, we're now talking about *meaningful* contribution and > evaluation... ;-) > > That's an important step ahead. Yes. And even though it might seem artificial to separate the questions of governance and structure, it's also a matter of identifying specific questions. So now, it's about membership as in "when and how someone is becoming a contributor". > > On the wiki a read: "all these contributions need to be non-trivial > and last for a certain time frame". > > Then, there's a desperate need for a clear definition about what is > *enough* to join TDF: 10 lines of code? A logo? 1000 work hours? > > A too low entry level increases the risks of hijacking, a too high > entry level hinder the growing of the Foundation. Absolutely. And it's not being defined at this time. We may not want to define these in the most granular way now, but at least have some principles and specifics might be the right thing to do. > > In a two level acceptation process (contribution + evaluation of > contribution by current members) it's fundamental, IMO, to set a > level of contribution for membership that can be considered > *consistent* in time and/or work and is *certain*. > > The contributor has a goal and the foundation still keeps a partially > discretional "judgement of opportunity" about his/her membership. > > 10 lines of code or a logo? Too low, at least *if* there is only > *one* class of foundation members. yes. So now, do you like what you see? :-) Best, Charles. > > Regards, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define "Membership" within TDF?
Le Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:57:43 +0200, Gianluca Turconi a écrit : > Il 20/10/2010 16.36, Mike Dupont ha scritto: > > 1. what will it cost if you have to rewrite the authors code and all > > derived works. > > 2. what if you just remove the code > > Contributions are not only code. There are a lot of intangibles. > > Marketing, lobbying and advocating work are some examples. Yes, but even there we have to find tangible things: delivrables, events, activities, etc. BTW; this discussion is not about how the SC should be composed. It's about how and who we call contributors/members. Best, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define "Membership" within TDF?
Hello, Le Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:16:37 -0400, Drew Jensen a écrit : > On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 16:57 +0200, Gianluca Turconi wrote: > > Il 20/10/2010 16.36, Mike Dupont ha scritto: > > > 1. what will it cost if you have to rewrite the authors code and > > > all derived works. > > > 2. what if you just remove the code > > > > Contributions are not only code. There are a lot of intangibles. > > > > Marketing, lobbying and advocating work are some examples. > > Please let us not expand what defines contribution. > > Lobbying should not IMO garner admittance. Why? Lobbying done in a professional way is a lot of work... Best, Charles. > > Advocating should not. > > Working on this project(s) should be the only work that counts. +1 Charles. > > Thanks, > > Drew > > -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define "Membership" within TDF?
Ciao Gianluca, Le Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:37:14 +0200, Gianluca Turconi a écrit : > Il 20/10/2010 17.37, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: > > yes. So now, do you like what you see?:-) > > Well, generally speaking, yes. > > I'm just a bit worried about the point of view about membership > expressed by Drew Jensen. > > Developers are surely a part of the Community core, but just a part. Yes, but I think, at least in the part for the lobbying, that Drew thinks of that as something that amounts to what I call advocacy. I do lobbying professionally, and it involves expertise, writing papers, documents, filing forms, following strategies, etc. And its a lot of work, so if I were to do this -I'm not doing it for TDF- I would expect, to see my contribution recognized, and would have tangible evidences to show to the membership committee. > > I've read your opinion too and I hope it will definitely prevail in > the end by quantifying the "intellectual" contribution needed in > order to join TDF. > > I simply don't want to see a division and disagreement between devs > and laymen as a respin of the previous division between corporate > employees and volunteers in the OOo Community. While I do absolutely agree that there should be no divide, (heck, I'm no developer myself), I also think that certain activities are appreciated but cannot constitute the only basis for membership consideration. But here, we're going down into details, which is good. Best, Charles. > > Regards, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Draft user guide chapters on wiki
Hello Jean, Le Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:23:18 +1000, Jean Hollis Weber a écrit : > Apologies for posting to two lists, but I think this is of general > interest. > > I have placed copies of some draft chapters of a Getting Started guide > and a Writer Guide for LibreOffice (in .ODT format) on the wiki, > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation > > These chapters are ported from the same chapters for OOo3.3, so they > may contain incorrect information or screen captures for LibreOffice. > > Volunteers are needed to check and update these chapters before > publication. Contributors are encouraged to work on these chapters > through the OOoAuthors website, > http://www.oooauthors.org/english/libreoffice3/ where you will need a > login and "author" access. If individuals or a group wish to work in > other ways, go ahead. > > I intend to continue making chapters available for LibO as we update > them for OOo, but otherwise I do not have time to be involved in > organising or coordinating the work on LibO documentation. > > I have moved the Task List and Wish List to another page, > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/Produce > and updated the main page of the wiki. > > I am remaining in my position as Co-Lead of Documentation at OOo and > will be concentrating my efforts on OOo docs. That is already more > than I can keep up with, so despite my interest in LibO, at this time > I will not be continuing active work for/with the group. Of course, I > could change my mind at any time! If so, I'll let you know. > Thank you very much for your contribution. May I/is it appropriate to know why you intend to stick to OOo for the time being? Thank you, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] IBM and Google support for LibreOffice
Hello Samphan , Le Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:27:31 +0700, Samphan Raruenrom a écrit : > Hi, > > Other than the messages at > http://www.documentfoundation.org/supporters/ I didn't hear anything > from IBM and Google regarding LibreOffice (or I may missed > something). I guess that support (and sponsoring) from more than > single vendor is a benefit of being independent from Oracle. Is there > any progress in this area? The only news I heard is IBM just release > Lotus Symphony 3 using OpenOffice.org technology. > > Oracle just made it clear about its position. How about IBM and > Google? > Google has also a very clear position, they support us and they are a member of our community. As for IBM, I believe it's a complex matter but we would very much welcome their participation, should they be interested in joining us one day, of which I have for the moment no indication. The statements delivered by Rob Weir and Bob Sutor on their blogs explain their position, I think. Best, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
ll have lost your effective control over what you develop. One might object, then, that if someone sues you, you would be better off with an entity protecting you. Usually, the patent trolls and the suers on code of this world don't attack individuals. They attack entities with money. On to the money question... 7) what if we had money to protect our code? Well, we may still not want to lose developers for that. But we could do something else: acting as the defenders of all the copyright owners. And then, it does not require a copyright assignment, it only requires, if a problem arises, that enough contributors or all the contributors signs a small paper saying "The Document Foundation is representing us legally in xyz case". That's all. Your questions are welcome, but I hope it helped clarified this question. -- Charles-H. Schulz, Founding member of The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Hello BRM, Le Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:12:59 -0700 (PDT), BRM a écrit : > - Original Message > > > From: Charles-H. Schulz > > 4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have > > copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all > > today. There is a very simple explanation with respect to this > > issue; ask any lawyer and he/she will confirm this: Sun/Oracle has > > licensed the OOo code under LGPL v3. They could have put "LGPL v3 > > or later" or "LGPL v3 or +". But they didn't. And that's what > > makes impossible to turn OOo into a different license unless the > > sole copyright owner agrees to change it, which is unlikely with > > Oracle. > > While I like that TDF is not requiring copyright assignment, there is > one point missing here that is in its favor. > > True, Sun/Oracle has currently licensed OOo under LGPLv3. > But what's to stop them from going to LGPLv4 when it is available? > Absolutely nothing. At which point TDF may not be able to accept > changes from OOo any longer assuming it is still possible at that time > without updating the LO license to be the same or inclusive therein. > > Perhaps the way around that is to require those contributing TDF to > use the "or later" language; though some may not want to. > > Even without copyright assignment the only thing standing in the way > of changing the license - whether to LGPLv4 or even GPLv3 or whatever > else - is getting the permission of _all_ the copyright holders. Good objection indeed! Actually, the problem is partly solved, since we now license our software under "LGPL v3 or later". At least it would be solved for the LGPL side of things. But my real answer here though, is perhaps more provocative: if Oracle changes the licence, do we really care? for the 3.3 we stick to the codebase of OOo, but I'm unsure we'll stick that much to it in further releases. In fact, I can already point out, looking at our development activity, that we're not taking the path of being "OpenOffice.org, just recompiled by the community". I think as the time will go by, we will diverge more and more and end up becoming quite different software. > > >From what I understand this is already impossible to do under Linux > >due to > deaths of at least one contributor. Yes, and in this case a rewrite is needed. > > The main reason projects move towards having copyright assignment is > to be able to keep the licensing language up to date - to use the > latest GPL/LGPL license due to exactly the issue of how hard it is to > track down every contributor and get their permission in should they > want to change the license. At present the bulk of the code is held > by Oracle and such can be most easily changed by garnishing > permission from one entity; though that will not be true for long for > TDF without copyright assignment - in which case there would be two - > TDF and Oracle. > > The Linux Kernel guys don't require it; KDE E.v. does. Both methods > have their pros and cons. > > Ultimately, as long as TDF and the community are aware and accept > what may occur should Oracle radically change the license it doesn't > really matter. exactly. > > Just pointing out it's a little more complex than Oracle is not > likely to change the license since they very well could. Fortunately > they cannot do it retroactively, at least with the LGPL. > > $0.02 > Thanks! Charles. > Ben > > P.S. IANAL and such disclaimers. This is just from what I have > learned from years of watching the community and the licensing topics. > > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Hello Andrea, Le Sat, 30 Oct 2010 17:10:07 +0200, Andrea Pescetti a écrit : > Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > We initially agreed not to request the assignment of copyright for > > code contributions, and we can only witness that it's been so far > > the right decision: Many developers have joined us and contribute > > Honestly, I believe new developers joined because the bar for > contribution was lowered to the point that anyone who can use a text > editor can contribute to the code, even if he is unable to build > LibreOffice. The Easy Hacks were a nice way to attract new people. Of > course the paperwork reduction may have helped too, but I don't see > it as the most effective improvement. The paperwork was only a practical detail: not relinquising your copyright is the most important. > > > 3) ... In the CVS (and even SVN) there was a real hierarchy. ... > > BTW; LibreOffice uses Git, which is a distributed SCM. > > So did (and still does) OpenOffice.org with Mercurial, another > distributed SCM. But I don't believe this is relevant. > > > 4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have > > copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all today. > > There is a very simple explanation with respect to this issue; ask > > any lawyer and he/she will confirm this: Sun/Oracle has licensed > > the OOo code under LGPL v3. They could have put "LGPL v3 or later" > > or "LGPL v3 or +". But they didn't. And that's what makes > > impossible to turn OOo into a different license unless the sole > > copyright owner agrees to change it, which is unlikely with Oracle. > > Well, if you take for granted that cooperation between Oracle and the > Document Foundation will forever be impossible then you are right. > But who knows what will happen in months, years? If Oracle changes > attitude and wants to discuss licensing with the Document Foundation, > the Document Foundation will be in the awkward position of > "representing" the LibreOffice developers only in theory, because any > agreement would then need to be confirmed with every developer; while > with a copyright agreement/assignment in place, the Document > Foundation could effectively represent a measurable percentage of the > codebase, and its opinion be weighed accordingly. So we do take for granted that Oracle will not contribute to the Document Foundation, because that's what Oracle clearly implied in their last press release and what they told us (informally). This has to be very clear from now on. We are still open for future discussions, of course, but what you seem to imply is that conditions for a cooperation would require the document foundation to assign copyright (the contributions of the LibreOffice developers) back to Oracle again. Well this is something that will never ever happen. If Oracle wants to work with us, if we find a way to cooperate, I can assure you that the condition will not be that we give our copyright to Oracle. Everybody can keep its own copyright and it will be a very healthy situation. Best, Charles. > > Best regards, >Andrea Pescetti. > -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] LibO document format: strict ODF or extended ODF?
Ciao Gianluca, I think your question would be better asked to the developers' mailing list, but I will nonetheless try to answer it here: - there is no extended ODF version, unless of course you refer to the "extended" ODF format used in OpenOffice.org. This specific version had been enabled and was a vendor specific one because it was essentially the subsequent drafts of the ODF 1.2 specification that were implemented by OpenOffice.org. Once ODF 1.2 will be fully out, there will be no extended version, but only extended as in "subsequent draft specification". -for us it's only a matter to change the default setting in our software. I'm sure it would be interesting to discuss what would be the best solution -(i.e check the better defaults thread) and it needs to be discussed, but I wanted to clarify there was no real vendor specific extended format. Charles-H. Schulz who's sometimes also a member of the OASIS Consortium's board of directors... Le Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:40:33 +0100, Gianluca Turconi a écrit : > Hello *, > > my question is rather simple: will LibO use in the future versions > (post 3.3) a ODF strict format or an extended one? > > I've never liked a "per vendor" extension of ODF and I'll never like > it. However, some people may find it useful. > > TIA, for any reply. > > Regards, -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] LibO document format: strict ODF or extended ODF?
Gianluca, Le Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:08:37 +0100, Gianluca Turconi a écrit : > Thanks to you and André for your replies. > > See below for further comments. > > Il 31/10/2010 12.52, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: > > [...] > > > I think your question would be better asked to the developers' > > mailing list, but I will nonetheless try to answer it here: > > - there is no extended ODF version, unless of course you refer to > > the "extended" ODF format used in OpenOffice.org. This specific > > version had been enabled and was a vendor specific one because it > > was essentially the subsequent drafts of the ODF 1.2 specification > > that were implemented by OpenOffice.org. Once ODF 1.2 will be fully > > out, there will be no extended version, but only extended as in > >"subsequent draft specification". > > Well, this is the reason why I spoke about *future* LibO version. ;-) > > IMO, it isn't only a question about "better defaults", but a real > turning point for LibO. > > I'll try to clarify my point of view. > > Let's say that by the time ODF 1.2 will be out, every feature > currently supported from LibO will be in ODF specification too. That > would be simply great. > > Then, what? > > Will LibO 4.0/5.0 stay at ODF 1.2 until ODF 2.0 (or whatever version) > will be officially approved, becoming so the "Lingua Franca" in > exchanging documents for people and organizations or will LibO try to > implement more features that *may* be included in ODF 2.0, becoming > so a technical cutting edge application? > > They are two completely different visions of the project, I think. > > I hope you understand what my point is, here. So there are two things to understand here, aside the fact that you're asking a question which I think will have to be decided on the future; yet the principle is, if we have an ISO standard, why shouldn't we implement it? Now: - ODF does not change very quickly (it's a standard) - ODF is forward-compatible, meaning: ODF 1.0 has X features, ODF 1.2 will always have X +3 or 4 features, which means that unless you use these 3 or 4 features, you will always use the X feature set anyway. In a nutshell: the answer can be political, or practical (every other implementation uses a certain version, etc.) but it does not fundamentally affect users for the moment. best, Charles. > > Regards, > > Gianluca -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Support for OOXML
Hello Leif, Very interesting and important question. See below. Le Tue, 2 Nov 2010 12:49:16 +0100, Leif Lodahl a écrit : > Hi all, > > I am about to answer to a letter from the Danish "Expert committee > for open standards" settled by the Danish Government. > > I have been talking to Thorsten Behrens regarding the technical > details. Now I would like to discuss how I am going to express this > in my answer. My answer must be the truth and I can't risk to say one > thing and then something else is expressed in e.g., a press release > later. > > The question: > Which of the standards (by name and version number and amendment) are > supported in the application? > > The technical answer I got from Thorsten: > 1. ISO/IEC 29500:2008:OOXML Amendment 1 – LibreOffice is a conforming > base consumer according to ISO/IEC 29500-1:2008 §2.6, and a > conforming producer and consumer according to ISO/IEC 29500-4:2008 > §2.2 If you remember well, pretty much anything can be declared a conforming producer and consumer of the ISO 29500 format. It is also worth noting that there is still no implementation of that standard, and it brings me back to your second point below. > > My question is: Do we publicly and officially support ISO/IEC > 29500:2008:OOXML? > > Of cause if we do - then we do. But from a political point of view I > would rather write something about how we have not been able to > support it (several reason e.g., its a moving target, faulty and > inconsistant etc.) but we do what we can to support the file format > implemented by MS Office 2007: .docx. > > Please - what do you think? You are not just right, you are also making an important point: LibO and OOo (for that matter) are not supporters of ISO 29500; they implement what they can understand from the proprietary file format of MS Office 2007 and 2010 called OOXML. Best, Charles. > > > Cheers, > Leif Lodahl > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE : Re: [steering-discuss] Version numbering of LibO
Hi, Top posting from my phone... This is not an easy answer to give. Both strategies have pros and cons. My advice would be to start where we are but alter the numbering scheme wildly: 3.3, 3.5 and then 4.0 instead of 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 like OOo. Charles. Le 3 nov. 2010, 12:03 PM, "Michael Meeks" a écrit : Hi there, On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 14:57 +0100, Andre Schnabel wrote: > I'd rather continue OOo version number s... I think being similar enough to it is worthwhile. On the other hand, I think being slaved to Hamburg's development schedule is unfortunate overall. I'd like to release on a different cadence. But for now it is fine of course. And in future a major version bump - sounds reasonable. ATB, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgfor instructions on how to unsubscribe... -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Minutes of today's call online
Heh... Was on Preview mode. Sorry, it's fixed now. Best, Charles. Le Wed, 03 Nov 2010 22:11:50 +0100, André Schnabel a écrit : > Hi, > > Am 03.11.2010 21:52, schrieb Charles-H. Schulz: > > I've posted the minutes of our call today on the wiki, at the > > Steering Committee Meeting's page. > > Are you sure you actually *saved* them? - I don'T see any minutes at > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Steering_Committee_Meetings > > regards, > > André > > -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Gianluca, The last minutes of the SC meeting explains that we will revisit the issue once the Foundation is properly established. Charles. Le 7 nov. 2010, 2:37 PM, "Gianluca Turconi" a écrit : Il 07/11/2010 4.20, Michael Meeks ha scritto: > > The choice to not aggregate ownership is a deliberate one, and is by no > means a random choice... Please, let me know if this decision was already taken by the founders' group and if it's definitive. If the answer is yes to both questions, we can close this thread and go ahead. There isn't even any need for discussing about a compromise. Regards, -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgPosting guidelines: htt... -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
[steering-discuss] Community bylaws
Hello all, please read the first real draft of the Community Bylaws here: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws Feel free to comment on our beloved discuss list. best, -- Charles-H. Schulz Founding Member, The Document Foundation. -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE : Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Andrea, I disagree with your analysis, because it fails to include the development specifics. But anyway, we'll see. :-) Charles. Le 17 nov. 2010, 12:29 AM, "Andrea Pescetti" a écrit : On 07/11/2010 Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > The last minutes of the SC meeting explains that we will re... ...which means that at that point the only feasible solution will be to ask for agreement/assignment on a voluntary basis, or even reject completely this possibility. But, at the same time, waiting a few months will allow to finally discriminate whether the 50 or so new developers joined primarily because the required technical skills were lowered or because the copyright assignment was removed; if the removal of a copyright assignment was the main reason, then I see all of them moving to more substantial contributions by that time (and LibreOffice progressing dramatically!). Best regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundati... -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] [FAQ] new entries (here: CA/JCA/SCA)
Andrea, Michael, Le Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:00:43 +0100, Andrea Pescetti a écrit : > On 03/11/2010 Michael Meeks wrote: > > I wrote a huge screed on the subject here: > > http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/copyright-assignment.html > > ... If the argument is that there is some negotiation with Oracle > > that this makes possible - then, I have to wonder why Oracle is > > happy to ship millions of lines of Mozilla code (under the MPL) > > that they can never own as part of the product. > > Yes, more or less that would be my argument. Or, to use your own words > (from your article): "If you are faced with aggression from a > copyright owner, turn their asymmetry against them: ask them to > accept code under the same terms they provide to others. ... Failing > that, just soft-fork the project, a-la MariaDB - paradoxically you > may want to collect copyright assignment yourself to be able to > affect an eventual reconciliation". > > What I was hoping was that the Document Foundation would act as a > "trade union" of developers, and be delegated rights on their code to > become a powerful stakeholder in discussing OpenOffice.org and > derivatives. I think I have already repeated enough times that by > this I do NOT mean that I expect/wish that the Document Foundation > gives all the rights to Oracle, of course. But I would expect that, > with a copyright agreement in place, it could get more recognition in > a possible reconciliation phase than what it can get by merely > relying on moral suasion. What do you think of this idea? http://blog.nooku.org/2010/11/nooku-contributor-agreement/ (It does not involve copyright). -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
RE : Re: RE : Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments & the Document Foundation
Davide, Sure. I mean that development patterns varies on the tasks at hand and their difficulty. So explaining what devs might change or not change due to the absence of a CA is misleading. A CA is a barrier to contribution, not a code development pattern. Best, Charles. Le 17 nov. 2010, 10:53 AM, "Davide Dozza" a écrit : Hi Charles, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: > Andrea, > > I disagree with your analysis, because it fails to include the development > specific... What do you mean with "development specifics"? Maybe after we have clearly defined them we can deal with. Davide -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgPosting guidelines: htt... Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly ar... -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws
Hello David, Le Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:03:21 +0800, David Nelson a écrit : > Hi, :-) > > Having been given permission to proofread and revise the initial > draft, I presumed it would be OK to do the same for subsequent > amendments. I hope I did not overstep myself there; if I did, please > say so and I will, of course, desist. However, I came up with a > revised text as below (it simply states exactly the same things, but > re-worded). > thank you a lot for this!!! > It seems that there are still some big ambiguities that would need to > be resolved: > > "The Chairperson is elected by a special electoral college comprised > of the BoD, the AB and and the ESC (however, ESC members who are also > members of the BoD can only cast one single vote in this election, > regardless of their membership of both bodies). The vote by this > special college is not decided by the votes of the individual members > taken as a whole; instead, each respective body holds a vote among its > members, and returns a nomination of one candidate (a specific list of > names, or one name only, will have been submitted by the BoD and the > AB). The three bodies therefore arrive at a shortlist of three > nominees. If one of the three nominees has a majority within the > shortlist (has two votes out of three, or is a unanimous choice), the > outcome is deemed to be decisive and the electoral process is > concluded. However, if three different people are nominated, then a > conciliation process takes place, with the aim of eliminating one > nominee and making a choice between two nominees only. The > Chairperson's term of office is two (2) years, but he/she can serve as > many terms as are seen fitting." > > 1) "(however, ESC members who are also members of the BoD can only > cast one single vote in this election, regardless of their membership > of both bodies)": So which body do they cast their vote in? How and > when is that decision taken? The choice could change the outcome of > the voting. Right, that sounds clunky so let me clarify: members of the ESC who are also members of the BoD only vote at the BoD and not at the ESC. Is it better? > > 2) "(a specific list of names, or one name only, will have been > submitted by the BoD and the AB)": How would the list be drawn up? > Perhaps you need at least a cross-reference to another clause in the > bye-laws that resolves that question? If there's only one name, then > there would be no point in voting at all... I can clarify that, but in essence I guess 1)people will nominate themselves to the BoD and 1)that the BoD as well as the AB can nominate someone. > > 3) "However, if three different people are nominated, then a > conciliation process takes place, with the aim of eliminating one > nominee and making a choice between two nominees only.": That could > give rise to a difficult situation... Yes. :-) > IMHO, you would need to > establish a clear procedure for this, to avoid some tense deadlocks in > the future... Well, I think we can submit the Chairman's choice to the popular election then (understand the TDF contributors). Best, Charles. > > HTH. > > David Nelson > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws
Hello, Le Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:08:30 +, Michael Meeks a écrit : > Hi there, > > On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 21:03 +0800, David Nelson wrote: > > It seems that there are still some big ambiguities that would need > > to be resolved: > > Well detected :-) > > > "The Chairperson is elected by a special electoral college comprised > > of the BoD, the AB and and the ESC (however, ESC members who are > > also members of the BoD can only cast one single vote in this > > election, > > Oh - wow, what is the ESC doing in that mix. I would prefer > that the board simply elect the chairman, who is just a member of the > board that has some special meeting management role :-) > > Hopefully that de-complicates the whole process; then again I > havn't read the proposal in full recently. > > I believe there is a -huge- danger of over-engineering any > constitution > - particularly when you get engineers near it :-) and ending up with > some huge joke like the OO.o governance - where obscure rules seemed > to breed in dark corners :-) So, I'm going to rewrite the ESC part; it will at least simplify the chairman story. But having him/her part of the BoD would also nix its role I fear. Best, Charles. > > HTH, > > Michael. -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Take over of Novell
Le Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:04:27 -0800, NoOp a écrit : > On 11/22/2010 10:10 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: > > Is the take over of Novell going to affect the document foundation? > > > > Actually, isn't this sort of thing the reason TDF was created to > begin with? > Yes exactly. And I'm glad to have Michael, Thorsten and the Suse team on board with us, hopefully for a very long time. Cheers, Charles. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Take over of Novell
Le Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:31:00 +1300, Graham Lauder a écrit : > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 07:10:31 Ian Lynch wrote: > > Is the take over of Novell going to affect the document foundation? > > And my question would be; do any of the 882 patents sold to the > Microsoft consortium affect the go-ooo code and therefore expose TDF > to patent actions? I don't know, but even without it we're exposed to the Sun-MS patent deal that was only covering StarOffice. Software patents are a shame, and ought to be fought, so in our case it's cholera or malaria you're choosing... Best, Charles. > > Cheers > GL > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws
Hello David, Le Tue, 23 Nov 2010 04:20:48 +0800, David Nelson a écrit : > Hi Charles, :-) > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 00:18, Charles-H. Schulz > wrote: > > thank you a lot for this!!! > > No problem. I've got a watch on the page, and will visit whenever > there's a change then. ;-) :-) > > >> 1) "(however, ESC members who are also members of the BoD can only > >> cast one single vote in this election, regardless of their > >> membership of both bodies)": So which body do they cast their vote > >> in? How and when is that decision taken? The choice could change > >> the outcome of the voting. > > > > Right, that sounds clunky so let me clarify: members of the ESC who > > are also members of the BoD only vote at the BoD and not at the > > ESC. Is it better? > > I understood what you meant, no problem there. The ambiguity is how > the decision is taken about which body they vote on... Especially as > throwing their vote in on one body or the other could maybe weight the > election in one direction or another, and change the result. My > suggestion was that it would be good to lay down unambiguous rules for > this... yup. But after Michael's points, I also think we might clarify and simplify all this a great deal. In a nutshell 1) the ESC does not get to vote, it's not elected, and it's a technical body. The AB can propose candidate(s), but cannot vote. 2) BoD appoints the CH, by vote or by consensus. People can nominate themselves and send their nomination to the BoD no later than 2 months before the election date. The AB can also nominate one or several candidates and sends the name(s) to the BoD no later than 2 months before the election. That way, it's easier and faster. Any thoughts? Best, Charles. > > >> 2) "(a specific list of names, or one name only, will have been > >> submitted by the BoD and the AB)": How would the list be drawn up? > >> Perhaps you need at least a cross-reference to another clause in > >> the bye-laws that resolves that question? If there's only one > >> name, then there would be no point in voting at all... > > > > I can clarify that, but in essence I guess 1)people will nominate > > themselves to the BoD and 1)that the BoD as well as the AB can > > nominate someone. > > OK, I get the idea. Perhaps a separate, short paragraph explaining > that might be good? I could draft one tomorrow and submit it in a > standalone edit that will be easy to identify and roll back/modify if > it doesn't quite say what you want...? > > >> 3) "However, if three different people are nominated, then a > >> conciliation process takes place, with the aim of eliminating one > >> nominee and making a choice between two nominees only.": That could > >> give rise to a difficult situation... > > > > Yes. :-) > > I guess this is the point that, IMVHO, might be in most need of an > unequivocal procedure, as it could give rise to controversial > situations... > > HTH. > > David Nelson > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Take over of Novell
Nathan, It means tis people are working for Novell and that I'm glad to have them with us. Charles. Le 23 nov. 2010, 6:12 PM, "Nathan" a écrit : On 11/23/2010 05:05 AM, Graham Lauder wrote: > > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 21:14:39 Charles-H. Sch... can you clarify what you mean by having " And I'm glad to have Michael, Thorsten and the Suse team >> on board with us, hopefully for a very long time." are these people that used to be employed by novell, have left and are now working with TDF? Personally, off topic i know, I stopped any association with SUSE once they jumped in bed with M$ (no matter how, through what subsidiary/organization/movement/non-profit or contractual agreement). The Patent and copyright infringement discussions are going to get very interesting. I for one like to acknowledge all the comments made by trust worthy adversary in the open source world and understand why they say implementing any sort of mono functionalities or dependencies is a large risk for your project and open source in general. -- Thanks for your time, Nathan Heafner -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgArchive: http://www.do... -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws
Hello David, Le Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:42:12 +0800, David Nelson a écrit : > Hi, :-) > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 00:52, Charles-H. Schulz > wrote: > > yup. But after Michael's points, I also think we might clarify and > > simplify all this a great deal. In a nutshell > > > > 1) the ESC does not get to vote, it's not elected, and it's a > > technical body. The AB can propose candidate(s), but cannot vote. > > 2) BoD appoints the CH, by vote or by consensus. People can nominate > > themselves and send their nomination to the BoD no later than 2 > > months before the election date. The AB can also nominate one or > > several candidates and sends the name(s) to the BoD no later than 2 > > months before the election. > > > > That way, it's easier and faster. Any thoughts? > > > > Best, > > Charles. > > Yes, I get the idea. If it's alright with you guys, I'll figure out > how to draft that in, and will give a heads-up when I've done so (over > the next 24 hours, because I'm slave to a client for the coming > hours). Is that OK? it's more than ok, thank you again! > > Also, I have an idea about a couple of legal experts I could contact > and, if they're willing, invite them to jump in on this thread and > maybe help arrive at some really bullet-proof bye-laws... should I do > that? Well, we do have lawyers to, for instance we have Gianluca here (but I'm sure there are others) and also Florian Effenberger who despite any evidence of the contrary, is not a system administrator :-) Best, Charles. > > David Nelson > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Vision/Mission
Hello all, I would be very surprised if the original mission statement were to be changed at that stage. So perhaps the Mission page that was opened recently may not be where your contributions may be the most effective. May I kindly remind you that we absolutely and urgently need to populate the website (currently accessible here: http://test.libreoffice.org) and that we do have other tasks listed here: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Work_Items Your help is welcome! Charles-H. Schulz. 2010/11/25 David Nelson > Hi, :-) > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:20, Sonic4Spuds wrote: > > "productivity software for home and office" > > +2 > > David Nelson > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws
Bernhard, Cor, 2010/11/25 Cor Nouws > Hi , > > Bernhard Dippold wrote (24-11-10 23:51) > > > Vote only once a year (as any election draws action from the "normal" >> tasks a shorter term will take too much resources) and elect all BoD >> members. >> > > Voting each year for all members, that can serve for two years > consecutively, requires that from our community every year on average 4-5 > new people (with 9 BoD members) stand up. People that are known, qualified, > have time, like to do the work and cooperate in the team. Each year. > Do we think it it reasonable to expect or ask that? > So that's what I had written in the latest version I think; on the other hand, let's remember there will be an Executive Director in charge of the Daily Business :) Best, Charles. > > Cor > > > -- > - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation - > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws
Bernhard, 2010/11/24 Bernhard Dippold > Hi Michael, all, > > one question on the ESC: > > Michael Meeks schrieb: > >> Hi Drew, >> >> On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 07:56 -0500, drew wrote: >> >>> [...] >>> >> >> The ESC, do you see this as a very active group, for instance working as >>> the release team, meeting often and looking at individual issues? >>> >> >>Wrt. looking at individual issues, probably not - unless they have >> wide >> reaching consequences; but to better co-ordinate on the burning issues >> of the day, and have a final say on things like: >> >>"Do we port entirely to Java" (I think 'no' but ... ;-) >> >>And to be a responsible backstop for technical issues - which often >> simply require a decision - any decision being far better than none. >> > > I fully understand the necessity for an entity to decide on mere technical > issues. > > What I only see described between the lines, is something we should > consider, as is has led to a very disappointing situation in OOo: > > Can ESC decide on topics related not only to coding and development, but > influencing larger parts of the community? > > Probably all of you know about the OOo-ESC decision on implementing the > color"less" ODF icons. > > The topic has been discussed in an ESC meeting, where nobody objected loud, > then presented in a blog entry after the first version had been finished and > despite very strong opinions against their implementation implemented in > OOo3.2.1 with the negative feedback foreseen by their critics. > > I don't want to experience another similar situation - well knowing, that > the OOo-ESC is special because of Oracle. > > But every now and then there will be a situation, where developer have a > certain opinion on strategic decisions and directions of development. > Marketing and / or UX might think differently. As the developer are the ones > able to include their solution in the product, they have a quite strong > position. How can we assure that other groups' expertise will have the same > impact? > > The Bylaws state that the ESC "provides technological guidance on strategic > matters". That's guidance, not decision. > > Will the BoD be the entity to decide in such a situation? > Yes, it will be up to the BoD to settle things down if such a situation were to arise. Best, Charles. > > On which list do we discuss strategic matters at all? > > Marketing? Discuss? Steering-Discuss? > A closed list to avoid counter-activity by our competitor(s)? > > Sorry for coming up with such a more or less hypothetical case, but I > really want to avoid problems as we had them in OOo... > > Best regards > > Bernhard > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Vision/Mission
Thorsten, 2010/11/25 Thorsten Wilms > On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 10:09 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > > I would be very surprised if the original mission statement were to be > > changed at that stage. So perhaps the Mission page that was opened > recently > > may not be where your contributions may be the most effective. > > Quoting Bernhard Dippold on the marketing list, who did understand me > right: > > >If I understand Thorsten right, his aim is not the TDF mission > >statement you link to, but the LibreOffice community mission statement. > > > >On the TDF page the mission is stated as "to facilitate the evolution > >of the [...] community into a new structure ... and co-ordinate > >activity across the community." > > > >This is about the way TDF supports LibreOffice. > > > >But our goals as community have not been defined by now - we just > >inherited them from OOo. > > Archived at: > http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/marketing/msg01404.html > Well, again, we need to populate to website that currently sits on test.libreoffice.org I would be grateful if you could help with this. This is an urgent task. The rest can wait. Thanks Charles. > > > -- > Thorsten Wilms > > thorwil's design for free software: > http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hello everyone, Here is the latest version of the bylaws: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws Latest change include mostly amended details on the Chairperson, as well as some more details on the BoD and a bit more clarity on salaries, expenses, etc. Since we've been discussing this for quite some time now, we would welcome your comments on this list until this week-end. If no strong veto is cast until then, we'll consider them to be adopted. David, as usual, please feel free to review the language... thanks! -- Charles-H. Schulz Founding Member, The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hello Olivier, Le Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:17:16 -0200, Olivier Hallot a écrit : > Hi > > Some thoughts and questions from my personal experience: > > 1) I am a bit concerned of the definition of project: It looks like > TDF will foster several software projects, which is fine for me, but > then (may be I am a bit biased by OOo structure), how do we manage > NLC, L10n, Marketing and other "projects"? Does "software > development" include all these activities? Well, indeed you think like we're still on the Collabnet infrastructure :-) . I think we would refer to teams for L10N, marketing, etc, not "projects". I was rather referring to different types of software when talking about software projects. > > 2) I really appreciate *oxygenation*. Letting a chairman "ad > aeternam" in place is a source of trouble and will let him build > strong and unbreakable ties with the BoD, the employees and selected > sectarian members of the Foundation (the "goodfellas"), aiming to > preserve his status and position and offering whatever is needed to > keep support on him. > > A one or two year term with one further nominaton will ensure fresh > air (sort of) to the TDF Chairmanship. The leaving chairman can be > reconducted later, but only after another one took his place for at > least xxx month. Let's put it that way: the Chairman is fireable at will, and is an employee of the foundation. Otherwise, I fear we're going to go back into byzantine considerations, that will end up being abused or impractical. > > Oxygenation also improves governance and transparency. yes it does: but the Chairman (or any other officer for that matter) is changeable at will by the BoD, so it's not an elected mandate. > > 3) About disputes: It seems that the disputes will be settled "inside > TDF" by the BoD, then the Chairman. Question: Is it advisable, for > the sake of transparency, to let the members decide as the upper > instance? What do you mean? that they can pick either one of them? > > 4) On conflict of interest, I personnaly prefer 20% figure instead of > 30%. So it would be two instead of three members. It's possible I think... any further thoughts? > > 5) Should any member of the Membership Committee (MC) have a "veto > power"? No. > > 5a) Oh, by the way, what is the decision process of the MC with > respect to the aplication? votes by simple majority, 2/3 members, 4/5? Simple majority or consensus (most of the information collected about an application should ideally be automated), but the MC is a committee formed by the BoD and I don't think we should go all the way explaining how the MC will work. I think several "versions" of the MC will have to be enabled before we reach the right balance. > > 6) How many members will take place in the MC and how are they > appointed, for how long, how often they meet? See above. > > Are we going to allow memebers of the BoD, AB, and the Chariman to be > in the MC? I don't see why we should forbid them this access, but I also think that the MC will have a certain amount of work that will be incompatible with the existing duties of these people. > > 7) "If a Member stops contributing, such that the merit criteria are > no longer met, membership status will be revoked after a certain > period of time. > > Does it means that a founding member of the TDF will be revoked if > he/she does not participate on a xxx period of time? Shall we give > them a "honorary membership" (dangerous). Honorary membership is indeed a dangerous path. But on the other hand, any member can regain its membership status after three months of continued contributions , so it's only a temporary and easily remediable issue in the scenario you're describing... Best, Charles. > > Regards, > > Em 29-11-2010 15:23, Charles-H. Schulz escreveu: > > Hello everyone, > > > > Here is the latest version of the bylaws: > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws > > > > Latest change include mostly amended details on the Chairperson, as > > well as some more details on the BoD and a bit more clarity on > > salaries, expenses, etc. > > > > Since we've been discussing this for quite some time now, we would > > welcome your comments on this list until this week-end. If no strong > > veto is cast until then, we'll consider them to be adopted. > > > > David, as usual, please feel free to review the language... thanks! > > > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Last call: are we good on this? best Charles. Le Mon, 06 Dec 2010 08:19:18 +0100, Florian Effenberger a écrit : > Hi, > > Cor Nouws wrote on 2010-12-06 08.09: > > If those two or three employ so many developers on LibO that they > > can have a very large majority when voting for BoD seats, that > > could happen. But hey, two or three major sponsors cooperating in > > such an harmonius way in the project, would be so great ;-) > > generally, yes, but on the other hand, this once again makes us very > dependent, while we claim to be independent. Who can ensure that > decisions are not made just for corporate benefit (once again playing > paranoia)? :) > > Well, I'm totally undetermined on this point, so just as a thought > from my side. :-) > > Florian > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hello Drew, Well spoken. And with that, I declare the Community Bylaws adopted (provided nobody from the SC punches me in the face right away)... Huzzah! Charles. Le Mon, 06 Dec 2010 06:25:16 -0500, drew a écrit : > On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 11:08 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > Last call: are we good on this? > > > > > Le Mon, 06 Dec 2010 08:19:18 +0100, > > Florian Effenberger a écrit : > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Cor Nouws wrote on 2010-12-06 08.09: > > > > If those two or three employ so many developers on LibO that > > > > they can have a very large majority when voting for BoD seats, > > > > that could happen. But hey, two or three major sponsors > > > > cooperating in such an harmonius way in the project, would be > > > > so great ;-) > > > > > > generally, yes, but on the other hand, this once again makes us > > > very dependent, while we claim to be independent. Who can ensure > > > that decisions are not made just for corporate benefit (once > > > again playing paranoia)? :) > > > > > > Well, I'm totally undetermined on this point, so just as a thought > > > from my side. :-) > > > > > > Hello Charles, Florian, et al, > > The document reads like a final statement of intentions for me. > > Florian's earlier points regarding not excluding all TDF employees > from the board made good sense, particularly given the size of the > foundation currently,and a board consisting of 9 members, fewer board > members (half that) and I might disagree. > > The one month governor in the solemn address clause I think was a good > addition. Opening us up to unwarranted agitation in the community was > my biggest concern in raising the point regarding a call for early > elections and this is a good way to mitigate that risk. > > As for the later points on future full autonomy vs control by a small > group of corps. I think in the end there is no way to codify that risk > away, it just comes down to the people here. I would suggest that if > the board members act as stewards versus owners of the roles they > take on for the community, then the community and therefor the > foundation should flourish, independently. Given what I know of, who > I know here, my belief is that there is a good chance of just that > happening. > > IMO the likelihood of our staying independent, is much more dependent, > on the next phase of the Foundation's history. Constructing by > convention and act, rather then text, the 'nitty gritty' details of > how, as teams we will work together. > > Guess that's a long winded +1 on the current draft as final. > (typos not withstanding :-) > > Drew Jensen > > > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hello Michael, Le Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:59:07 +, Michael Meeks a écrit : > Hi Charles, > > On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 11:08 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > Last call: are we good on this? > > Sigh; I only just got to reading the final draft, busy day > yesterday. Overall it seems to be excellent, I have a few > un-addressed concerns: > > Members are expected to refrain from any kind of expression of > racism, xenophobia, sexism and religious or political > intolerance. > > This sounds like a vow of chastity :-) It appears to apply to > the whole of life, and not just to engagement with TDF etc. As such > is is somewhat offensive, and in itself an oxymoron: "I can't > tolerate your intolerance" ;-). Many communities have people with > strong, colorful and opposing views expressed in strong terms. This > to me is a sign of health and diversity - instead of some bland > pea-soup of non-expression :-) > > I'd like to excise that; though clearly we need some minimal > good behaviour policy I don't believe it belongs here. I rather prefer > relying on the much more helpful text in the "Revocation of > membership" section, that talks about ad-hominem, attacks, abuse, > insulting, etc. - sounds like a much more sensible line that is > supportable :-) > > Every membership applicant must have been active for at least > three (3) months, and should make a moral commitment to at > least six (6) months activity (not counting the first three (3) months > of fulfillment of qualification). > > Again - this moral commitment to future work is a problem for > people that take their commitments seriously. I can't commit to work > on LibreOffice for six months: anything could happen - I might be > incapacitated, die suddenly, loose my mind (arguably this has already > happened) :-) IMHO the "future commitment" is sufficiently built on an > (already over-long) three month history with the project - I would > like to see that removed. > > Continuity of membership section. > > This is much improved, I like the renewal process, makes a > lot of sense. > > Anyhow - otherwise, I am completely behind this, it seems > rather polished now, and the checks and balances seem more than > adequate. > > With the removal of one paragraph, and the end of that 'moral > commitment' sentence I'm 100% behind this. So I didn't write the first paragraph, and I believe it is of no consequence at all; as for the moral commitment I'm the one who added the term "moral". It might have been me using a french expression more than anything. By adding "moral" I was emphasizing that it wasn't "legal", meaning: you can commit "in spirit", but it's not a fundamental problem affecting your membership if you don't. Remember that non-members can contribute patches, submit bug reports, etc. If you want to become a member it's gotta be for a reason :-) Is this something that clarifies the sentence ? best, Charles. -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hello again, Le Tue, 07 Dec 2010 12:15:22 +, Michael Meeks a écrit : > > On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 11:59 +, Michael Meeks wrote: > > IMHO the "future commitment" is sufficiently built on an > > (already over-long) three month history with the project - I would > > like to see that removed. > > To expand on this; is it -really- our intention to deny > membership to people who have contributed a huge amount to > LibreOffice already, and are entirely new ? - having started work on > LibreOffice only when it was announced ? We needed to put a date, but reading that sentence I'm sure that there's enough flexibility to it to accommodate most of the tangential cases... (Eventually the Membership Committee is going to come up with all sorts of micro-rules and assessment that will give many of us a complete headache)... Best, Charles. > > There is a lot to dislike in this: > > "Every membership applicant must have been active for at least >three (3) months, and should make a moral commitment to at >least six (6) months activity (not counting the first three > (3) months of fulfillment of qualification)." > > Can we not simply defer to the "significant contribution" > piece ? ultimately, if someone has made a really significant > contribution in the last week, I'm well up for them not being > excluded from membership; and I think we cover that in the criteria > for membership elsewhere: good reputation, and doing non-trivial work. > > Or do we plan some special one-off thing for entirely new > contributors since we created LibreOffice ? > > Thanks, > > Michael. > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Community Management
Hi everyone, 2010/12/14 Sigrid Carrera > Hi Johannes, > > > 2010/12/14 Johannes A. Bodwing : > > Hello Benjamin, > >> > >> ... > > > >> ... > >> Jono has written a book called "The Art of Community," which describes > his > >> approach. It's available to purchase or download under a CC license from > his > >> site: http://www.artofcommunityonline.org/get/ > > I've downloaded the book and started reading. It is a pleasant read. > > [...] > > > That's a good thing. And if he helps us - OK. > > On the other side: We need just our brain to find the right solutions. > > We have goals. That leads to: What is to do, to make this goals real, in > a > > global dimension? > > We build a worldwide community. - That leads to: How can it realy work > with > > good results? > > And basically: What is to do, to find an optimal structure for all of > this? > > And so on. > > > > We need a kind of selforganizing structure that leads to what we want. > Even > > in a phase when communication breaks. > > That's the problem of every group that is to great to reach the members > by > > speaking in front of them. > > And that's a point, OOo did not understand. > > > > Therefore, we will not come very far if we copy OOo. > > I agree with what you said, Johannes, but why should we invent the > wheel ourselves again? Let's check what's in the book that Ben > mentioned, learn from the mistakes, that Jono made himself and avoid > all the trouble. > > For all those who don't know Jono Bacaon, he is the Community Manager > for Ubuntu. So I would think, that he has some experience in building > a worldwide community. > I will download the book. This being said I'd like to share some thoughts about the notion of Community Management. Going out of OpenOffice.org community, I'm not the only one who feels an intense need for a community that seizes its own destiny and fulfills it. What this means, beyond the nice words, is that I will not be -will never be - a community manager and don't wish one for our community. I don't really like the notion of managing a community in the context of FOSS. you can certainly organize a community but I believe that it's important that contributors see their contributions valued and that they feel a sense of ownership. Beyond that point, proper governance make the sauce. What's important is to have a community of contributors that behave in an adult way; and community management include the notion of "management", or rather, the notion of management from the outside. I don't like that. Inside OOo, if you remember, we had several layers of community management. We know how it ended. My two eurocents (sorry if that sounds a bit grumpy), Charles. > > Sigrid > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Community Management
Hi, Le Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:45:29 +0100, Cor Nouws a écrit : > Benjamin Horst wrote (14-12-10 16:21) > > > I agree with you about the possible negative connotations of the > > term "manager," but I think it's just a terminology problem. You > > could think of the role as "Community Facilitator" or even "host" > > if you prefer. The actual tasks inherent to the role are similar to > > the host of a party--introducing people to others with similar > > interests, helping to coordinate times, places and necessities, etc. > > > > In practice, it's hugely helpful to have someone walking around to > > make sure that good ideas don't get lost and plans receive > > encouragement and assistance until they are completed. They can also > > play the role of matchmaker, to help find volunteers for important > > initiatives that don't have enough helpers. > > > > I also understand the desire to form a clean break from the past and > > to build our own thing this time. I think it's the right approach, > > but I don't think it means we can eliminate the role of the > > community manager, though renaming it to better suit our project's > > culture certainly makes sense. > > +1 > Very well said, IMO. > A good manager serves the community. A manager is not a commander. > Being a good manager is a time-consuming task. It involves knowing > what is going on, understanding the 'how-to's' of many community > members, and finding a balance between letting flow, and linking > actively, proposing, intervening etc. > I am sure our bye-laws provide us with some officers, of which I > expect one to do this job. Yes, that would be the Executive Director. But it cannot be its only role. He/she can facilitate, help out, provide leadership in case it's needed, but he's neither the mummy, nor the commander of the powers that be in front of the community. It also means that the culture of our community -again let me insist on that- has to change. We should be doing things, and contributing is how we're recognized. Playing by the rule is one thing, but on the other hand asking for permission to some overlord is not what we're doing and won't be doing. Hence, from a posture of audience -in spite of all the good will- we need to switch to a posture of contribution. Don't get me wrong, that's pretty much what we are doing, so I'm cautiously optimistic :-) Best, Charles. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Community Management
Johannes, Barbara, Did you have a look at our community bylaws? Most of your points are addressed there. Best, Charles. Le 16 déc. 2010, 9:41 PM, "Johannes A. Bodwing" a écrit : Hello, > > On 12/16/2010 3:45 AM, Cor Nouws wrote: >> >> Benjamin Horst wrote (14-12-10 16:21) >> >>> I ag... What's the construction we talk about? If we install someone like a community coordinator, than the term says he/she coordinates the community. What than does TDF or the steering committee? Their mission is to evolve the OpenOffice.org-Community into a new open ... and so on. I think we have not enough clearness about the things TDF/LO consists of. There is in a rough form: a Community - a Product (LO) the Community is build of developers, users, sponsors, contributors and so on the Product is at the moment the sequel of OOo; later on it could be additional software too in the kind of open-source the Community as a whole works to offer the software to the public. and that all should "work" with a global dimension as well as with national or local basis. I propose to think it from the core. And that is at the moment: We construct an organisation (TDF) to develop and contribute a software-product (LO). Or a little bit harder: We build a kind of MS in an open and non-profit-oriented form ;-) Than the elementary question is: How has a structure to be to fulfill our goals in the best way it could be done? Also this structure has to include the "tools" to reach as many people as possible (for development, testing, marketing, sponsoring and so on). With this aspects we have to proof the current form of TDF, trim it to a better level, proof the goals, check the construction, trim it and so on. For that we need an adequate exchange of information. For example the best configuration of mailing-lists, collaborative working, and others more. Because nearly all of this has a global basis and a national one, regional or local, the relevant information has finally to spread to every member of the community. Also every (good) idea of a member has to reach the national or global basis. And now another important question: Should we begin right now - or should we wait till the final release of LO? Because many people are in the preparation of this release. Otherwise the clock is ticking and some people dont develop, test and so on. They could work on a (rough) sketch of the fundamental aspects of the TDF-structure, to bring it forward as fast as possible. At last back to the "Community Coordinator". This function we have install on the best position inside the best construction of TDF we could make. Eventually in the beginning like a joker without a determined position. Regards, Johannes -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgArchive: http://www.d... -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Happy New Year 2011
Dear all, In a few hours the year 2010 will come to an end. While I don't think there's any reason to panic about that I would suggest to look a bit backwards and reflect on what we have accomplished altogether. 2010 was quite a year, and 2011 is going to be an exciting year as well. I would like to thank you for your support ever since -or even before- this now famous day of the 26th of September 2010 when we announced the birth of the Document Foundation. Last but not least, I would like to wish you a happy, healthy, joyful and successful new year 2011. Cheers & best wishes, Charles-H. Schulz Co-Founder & Steering Committee Member, 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
Hello everyone, 2011/1/2 M. Fioretti > On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 19:58:41 PM +0100, Italo Vignoli > (italo.vign...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > OOXML has been cleared from copyright and patent issues by Microsoft > > itself before entering into the standardization process, as this is > > a pre-condition of ISO standards. In addition, all Microsoft > > document formats and related technologies are now fully documented > > (also those totally proprietary). It looks like many people have not > > followed the OOXML standardization process. > > Italo, > > I HAVE tried to follow that process as much as I could through the > years, and my understanding, from the links below and many others, is > that, in practice, even today things aren't really so easy, 100% clear > and risk-free with OOXML. > > http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2010/03/what-should-happen-with-ooxmlo.html > http://techrights.org/2010/01/11/ooxml-depending-on-country/ > http://techrights.org/2010/10/03/amicus-briefs-in-i4i-vs-microsoft/ > http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/02/by-metes-and-bounds.html > http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/09/recipe-for-open-standards.html I would like, if possible, to appease everyone here by clarifying two questions. - to my knowledge most of the OOXML "intellectual property" has been indeed cleared from most issues, although Marco rightly pointed to some existing 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 users: if it weren't I would suggest not to import/export in the old .doc format as well, as it would follow the same pattern of thoughts. - I would like to clarify that when we talk about a community, we do talk about a community of contributors. I hope everyone has read our bylaws. It's not just developers who contribute (yes, also QA testers among others) but it's not anyone posting on a mailing list. In fact, posting on a mailing list is not exactly a contribution. LibO is a meritocracy, not a shoutocracy or a democracy. What Italo was explaining was that the choice to offer save as OOXML (again, the format you find MS Office 2007 and 2010) has been made by the people who contribute code at this stage. As the bylaws will progressively become effective, we will gain more and more contributors and perhaps this choice, through contributions, will change. But at this stage it's unnecessary to argue over that on mailing lists. Thank you. Charles-H. Schulz Co-Founder, The Document Foundation & sometimes Member of the OASIS Consortium BoD. > > > Marco F. > > -- > 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 *** > > -- 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 2011/1/3 Johannes A. Bodwing > Hi, > >> ... >> >> >> But ultimately someone or some group has to make the final decision >> about what is and is not going to be included. In the case of TDF, it >> is the ESC. The people in that group have the authority to make a >> final decision. >> > ... > OK for that. Where can I find the criteria for this decisions? > What I mean: > The german website says: TDF is founded to get a greater indipendence from > commercial influence. > The TDF-site adds on: ... and will deliver the best software for users ... > But how will anyone find out what the best software is? Is it from the > number of downloads? Is it a very good review from IT-experts? > What's the background (for ESC) to decide what leads to the best software > for users? > If one says: It's the experience of ESC - OK, what experience does that > mean? I don't know it. > Don't get me wrong but I feel like in front of a black box. > Or is it just a lack of communication? > I would just that we're barely 3 months old :-) so not everything's ready. Please have a look there, it might answer some of your questions: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws As for the general tone of this mailing list and this discussion, you (not you Johannes, in particular) will read in the same documents that offensive and improper behavior can lead to exclusion. Thanks, Charles-H. Schulz > > 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 *** > > -- 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 everyone, Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:58:18 -, Zaphod Feeblejocks 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. -- 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 a écrit : > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Michael Wheatland > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Zaphod Feeblejocks > > 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 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 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] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)
Hello Michael, Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 01:26:09 +0930, Michael Wheatland a écrit : > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Charles-H. Schulz > 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] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Barbara, Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600, Barbara Duprey 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] Addons
Michael, 2011/1/4 Michael Wheatland > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Cor Nouws wrote: > > Michael Wheatland wrote (04-01-11 02:59) > >> > >> If everyone was as clear and concise as you there would be no > >> confusion about any issues. > > > > No, to me this is an obvious example of someone apparently unable to > > understand, > > Please do not result to personal insults. > > >> working on the Silverstripe site is that they don't understand the CMS > > > > using silly arguments, > > If you are going to quote my emails, ensure you do not 'snip' parts > which can be taken out of context. > > > >> Over the coming couple of weeks, I will put together a proposal for > >> the Steering Committee to consider an implementation plan. > > > > and only interested in his own plan. > > I am interested in the best outcome for the community. > My skill set is limited, as I am a chemical engineer, not a > programmer, who is putting time and effort into this community part > time. > > I think the whole website team is doing a great job, I am contributing > everything that I can to help the community. > I would appreciate a little more respect. > Certainly. What we -the SC- would like you to understand is that the Drupal option is just this; an option. Right now, we have one website to work on: it turns out it uses Silverstripe. I can understand that some people like Marc feel surprised or frustrated about it, but frankly it's not like several people haven't tried to remind everyone what was the actual choice, but to at least my great surprise I also felt that informal messages about the actual validity of Drupal as a firm choice were simply disregarded. I hope it will be very clear from now on that the website we are working on is the actual website, developed under Silverstripe. As for Marc's earlier message: the decision was to use Silverstripe. Trying to get around it by pointing out that more volunteers want to work on a different CMS overlooks two things: - the legitimity of the decision : you basically claim that no matter what your representatives will choose you'll do what pleases you first (and what pleases you in this context does not seem to be LibreOffice but Drupal) - the process: there was a call for consultation about a platform with two last remaining options. One was chosen; claiming the other one was more popular is a moot point as it means all the other options and their supporters never matter. Last but not least, I believe one of the reasons we created LibreOffice was precisely to avoid arbitrary decisions in favor of directions and decisions everyone understand and to avoid ineffectiveness. We have rules, we cannot change them because a few out of many are ready to sacrifice the whole to see their own options prime over everything else. best, Charles. > 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 *** > -- 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, 2011/1/4 Michael Wheatland > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Charles-H. Schulz > wrote: > > Hello Michael, > > > > Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 01:26:09 +0930, > > Michael Wheatland a écrit : > > > >> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Charles-H. Schulz > >> 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. > I really -for what&#x
RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
Jesper, We are not interested in OOXML, a standard that became one only after a campaign of deception and unacceptable pressures driven by Microsoft. We are interested in ODF, an open standard developed by many players including Microsoft. We are only offering convenience to our users by letting them interact with the poprietary formats of ms office product range. Therefore the OOXML standard is not really something we are interested to help. Thanks, Charles. Le 4 janv. 2011, 12:38 PM, "Jesper Lund Stocholm" <4a4553504...@gmail.com> a écrit : Hello Charles (et al), 2011/1/3 Charles-H. Schulz : > Barbara, > > Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600, > Barbara Duprey < b...@onr.com> a écrit : > >> On... > Well, the problem is that it's not that documented. Really, > Transitional OOXML was an honourable... As one of those actually trying to maintain OOXML in ISO, your discussions are really interesting to me. As per your discussions around S vs T, there are a couple of points I'd like to make. 1. About conformance to OOXML (S or T): Leif mentioned that implementing OOXML would display Microsoft's dirty laundry. I am looking very much forward to your findings and where Microsoft Office does not comply with the conformance rules in OOXML. I hope you will share these with us - and the world in general, and any test documents generated by Microsoft Office you make during your implementation would be extremely interesting to look at. 2. T vs S: Please bear in mind that S is basically a limited version of T. The only major obstacle/difference is that alle the namespaces of S are different than those of T. Also, Microsoft Office uses these namespaces during import as some sort of white-list, and AFAIK the new namespaces of S have not yet been added to this whitelist (since the addition of them is relatively recent and was after launch of Microsoft Office 2010). Basically, if Microsoft Office doesn't recognize the new namespaces, the docs will all fail on import in Microsoft Office and you'd have zero interop. Finally I ancourage you to make a public place to put your findings while implementing OOXML in LibreOffice. It could serve as a very usefull reference for a lot of people - including people like Leif lobbying our politicians to use/mandate usage ODF. PS: when trying to do interop with e.g. Microsoft Office always consult their implementer notes available at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee908652(v=office.12).aspx If any of you need additional information, I'd be happy to help. PPS: for those of you on this list actually implementing OOXML in LibreOffice - are you considering implementing MCE (OOXML, Part 3) fully in LibreOffice? -- Jesper Lund Stocholm www.idippedut.dk SC34/WG4 http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgArchive: http://listarc... -- 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
Johannes, all, Le Tue, 04 Jan 2011 14:34:42 +0100, "Johannes A. Bodwing" a écrit : > Hi Ian, > > ... > >> > >> 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. > > ... > > What you say about democracy, political parties eg is the today > situation. But eventually think about this: > Democratic systems have the power and lot of money for secret > "cyber-tasks", for a hidden worldwide web of information and > spy-systems and so on. They find it important, they give the money to > do it and they have the will to do it. That's possible but not a > better flow of information between citizens and politicians to create > a more real democracy. There is no "democratic-task", no > worldwide-web of democratic informations. There is no will to involve > more people in decisions or for the prefield of decisions. > What will I say with this? > Can we organize the structure of LO with examples in mind which have > not the will for transparancy? > Or must there be a thinking like: > ESC has the final decision, OK. > And for that, what are the best conditions that they have the best > informations to make the best decisions for the best (open) Office > Suite? Eventually this is one other task for the time after the phase > of beginning. > > Greetings, > Johannes > I would like to close down that thread now. We have bylaws that people were involved in and that have been stabilized: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws And we have lots of things that need to be done and require volunteers. Let me give you some pointers: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/Produce http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing Among other things.. Happy hacking! -- 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] Mac App Store
Jonathan, I believe there are some specific legal issues that are related to FOSS licences, but we do need to investigate some more (help is welcome). Best, Charles. Le Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:41:52 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina a écrit : > Would we do something with LO, or would there be GPL licensing issues? > > On 01/07/2011 10:04 AM, Uwe Altmann wrote: > > Am 07.01.11 04:57, schrieb todd rme: > > > >> - It is not packaged and submitted using Apple’s packaging > >> technologies included in Xcode – No third party installers are > >> allowed (I thought this was a major goal of LibO) > > It /is/ "packaged and submitted using Apple’s packaging > > technologies" as far as the Mac Version of OOo is concerned - it's > > a *.dmg file containing an *.app folder, which his a common way of > > installing programs on a Mac. > > > > NeoOffice is listed since years in the download area of apple.com so > > this can not be that problematic. > > -- 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: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hello David, See my comments inline. Le Fri, 7 Jan 2011 23:12:29 +0800, David Nelson a écrit : > Hi guys, :-) > > I would like to make a proposal. I consider that the libreoffice.org > website is a resource that can be of strategic importance to TDF and > the community. I have a bunch of ideas for further developing it and > using it to further the project's aims and interests. > > To do that job, I would ask - for a period of 4 months, subsequently > renewable on condition of the SC's approval - for complete authority > and final veto on all content on the libreoffice.org website. I want > to be considered *the boss* of the libreoffice.org website, and my > decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members. > Anything short of that, my decision wins. I would not go for that, but as I and others say, we would like to have the leadership on the website. > > This would give me the necessary authority to try some imaginative and > ambitious plans that I will put to Marketing. > > I would ask for the title of "Executive editor of the libreoffice.org > website". The only reason I have for asking for this title is that it > gives me a handle to use in relations with outside parties, such as > the press. > > If you feel able to grant me this trust, you can be sure that I will > act responsibly and wisely, and that my sole aim will be to advance > and protect the interests of the LibreOffice project and community. > > I believe in teamwork and community-building. I would be keen to > listen to and to learn from others, and to take the smartest decisions > possible. I would seek to leave behind a positive contribution. > > Your decision would be sealed by an official vote at the next SC > meeting. > > What do you say, guys? ;-) Can we try this experiment and see what it > produces? I'm not really comfortable with this extraordinary powers over that period and I would rather favour you driving a team (-an official team that is-) . However, this is the Steering Discuss list, which means that you have written an official and public request to the SC and we are bound to discuss it at the next SC call, which we will do. Best, Charles. -- 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] Re: Mac App Store
Larry, Let me remind you that we expect courtesy on our lists. Thank you, Charles. Le 7 janv. 2011, 6:55 PM, "Larry Gusaas" a écrit : On 2011/01/07 9:38 AM Fabián Rodríguez wrote: > > You're right, at least for now. Apple controls i... Your unsubstantiated idle speculation is pure FUD. Larry -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website... Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgArchive: http://listarchives... -- 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] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?
Fabian, 2011/1/10 Fabián Rodríguez > On 11-01-09 08:28 PM, Andy Brown wrote: > > On Sun Jan 09 2011 07:04:12 GMT-0800 (PST) RGB ES wrote: > >> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/forums/ > >> They are "hidden" (no link on the help page) and you cannot post on > >> them yet, but they exists and you can register ;) So my question is: > >> how those forums will be organized? There will be one for each local > >> site or only one on English? Categories? Organization (moderators, > >> etc.)? > >> Regards > >> Ricardo > >> > > > > Why add another forum? There is already a LibO Forum at > > http://libreofficeforum.org/forum . The "Official" OOo Forum at > > http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/ not only supports OOo > > but off shoots such as Libo, NeoOffice and StarOffice. The > > "Un-official" Forum at http://www.oooforum.org/ is the oldest and > > largest OOo related support forum around and has received LibO > > questions and answers in the past few months. > > > > Andy > > > > I just registered to http://libreofficeforum.org and I am fairly certain > it uses Drupal. I took the liberty to contact its creator and he's > already indicated he's willing to collaborate: > > "I would be glad to see LibreOfficeForum.org as the official forum. I > personally am not a developer, and I don't have any official role in > LibreOffice. For years I have been a heavy user of OpenOffice, spending > many hours on it every day. And now I'm sure that the way forward is > LibreOffice. I'm not an expert yet, just a heavy user. ;-) > > I created the site immediately after LibreOffice was announced, because > I saw that they had no web forums, and I personally don't like mailing > lists. And I know that there are several unofficial forums as well for > OpenOffice (like oooforum.org), so I'm sure that this site could also > occupy that role if the Document Foundation doesn't approve it officially. > > It appears likely that LibreOffice will continue to diverge more and > more from the code base of OpenOffice, and it would be confusing to see > bugs and support requests for two different products in the same forum. > So for that reason I would personally recommend that the Document > Foundation not continue to use the same user.services.openoffice.org > forum for LibreOffice. > > - Sam" > > I supposed someone from TDF / steering committee could maintain this > contact more formally than me, I hope I am not overstepping anyone when > doing this. > Well, this could be a great solution. Sophie, we should discuss this -at least quickly- at the next SC call, what do you think? Best, Charles. > > Cheers, > > Fabian > > -- > LibreOffice questions ? Des questions sur LibreOffice ? Preguntas acerca > de LibreOffice ? Ask LibreOffice: http://libreoffice.shapado.com/ > ~ > Fabián Rodríguez > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:MagicFab > > > -- > 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 *** > > -- 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 : Re: [libreoffice-website] Re: [tdf-discuss] Using free, open microblogging
Ivan "Dents", they arecalled dents :-) Best, Charles. Le 12 janv. 2011, 10:13 AM, "Ivan M." a écrit : Hi David, all, On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:41 PM, David Nelson wrote: > Hi, :-) > > On We... Thanks! The identi.ca API includes search which outputs JSON [1], which is what we currently use on the Twitter widget, so it should be no problem to make the widget work with that. However, from my design POV, there is the question of how to represent these... um... *insert identi.ca's equivalent of the term 'tweet' here*? Twitter is great from a semiotic perspective: the bird icon is easily recognised and the microblog post is called a tweet. This makes it easy to distinguish what you're looking at very quickly - if we move to a more obscure symbol (that is, replace the bird with something else), it makes it harder for people to figure out what they're looking at. Maybe identi.ca has its own icons and terminology that act as Twitter-equivalents (A quick Google search revealed 'dent' ... doesn't sound too appealing at first glance), so feel free to correct me here. Regards, Ivan. [1] http://status.net/wiki/TwitterCompatibleAPI?source=laconica#JSON -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgArchive: http://listarc... *** 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: [libreoffice-website] Re: [tdf-discuss] Using free, open microblogging
Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:44:50 +0100, Italo Vignoli a écrit : > On 1/12/11 10:38 AM, David Nelson wrote: > > > I really wonder why this is necessary... I'd stay with Twitter... > > It's what everyone knows Or should we get off Facebook, too? > > identi.ca is totally (I mean TOTALLY) unknown in most geographies, so > it does not make any sense to abandon the popular services for the > sake of the unknown ones because they are free and open. Twitter, in > this specific acception, is a costless marketing tool, and it makes a > lot of sense to continue using it now. In the future, we will see. > No worries, you can use identi.ca and twitter at the same time (each time you 'dent' it's synced with Twitter, so we can have both of them. 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: Mac App Store
Larry, Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:35:06 -0600, Larry Gusaas a écrit : > > On 2011/01/12 8:49 AM Mirek M. wrote: > > 2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilina > > > >> > Why not license it under an appropriate license that would > >> > allow us to put it in the app store? would that mean we would > >> > need to remove the GPL or can it be dual licensed to go on the > >> > app store? > > I'm no expert, but as I understand it, LibreOffice is licensed > > under the LGPL, which should allow it to be used with DRM (whereas > > VLC was GPL). In order for LibreOffice to change its license, it > > would need to get an OK from all its contributors, including > > Oracle, which is not too likely to happen IMHO. But I don't think > > that's necessary in this case. > > There is no DRM used on the Mac OS X App Store. There is DRM on the > Apple iOS AppStore. They are two separate entities. The FSF > objections are to the DRM on the iOS AppStore and do not apply to the > OS X App Store. Of course, the FSF objects to Apple and any other > company that does not give away their software for free. > There is more than the DRM issue that is stake here. We are mostly talking about the legal terms of the store. The FSF explains it adds more terms than what the GPL can allow. This being said Jonathan is making an interesting point about the LGPL, we'll need to check that. Please let me reiterate, Larry, that the tone of our discussion on the mailing lists should be civil. Therefore, understand that not everyone shares your passion or interest for the Mac platform. Thank you, -- 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: Mac App Store
Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:05:16 -0600, Larry Gusaas a écrit : > > On 2011/01/12 11:00 AM Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > Please let me reiterate, Larry, that the tone of our discussion on > > the mailing lists should be civil. Therefore, understand that not > > everyone shares your passion or interest for the Mac platform. > > And please tell me, what was uncivil about my post? The tone of your post Larry. Please re-read it. > > Kind of ironic coming from someone who dismisses as "Soapboxing" the > raising of legitimate concerns. My blog is not one of the project's mailing lists. Thank you, -- 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: Mac App Store
Hey Jonathan, 1) Sigrid is right, we would need to ask for Oracle to relicense. 2) The new, non-Oracle patches are however licensed under a dual (L)GPL v3 + (note the + which allows us to upgrade) and MPL + as we found we had several code lines written under that license inside the existing OOo code. 3) would Oracle object to it? I'm not Oracle and can't speak for them, but I don't think they're our best friends for life... :-) More seriously, why would they want to help us ? Best, Charles. Le Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:51:52 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina a écrit : > In all honesty would they object to it? > > On 1/13/11 11:46 AM, Sigrid Carrera wrote: > > Hi, > > > > 2011/1/13 Jonathan Aquilina: > >> You would still need permission even though its a fork of the > >> original code? > > yes, since the original contributors agreed to use a specific > > license. This cannot changed without consent from those people. > > > > Sigrid > > > > -- 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 ***
[steering-discuss] Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Hello everyone, Please find the more or less final draft of the trademark policy of the Document Foundation: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy I would like to thank Italo for his outstanding effort in putting together the various input of the SC members and collecting the different types of trademark policies of major FOSS projects. As it turns out you will find this policy to be quite standard. However, we are looking for a legal review of this document. We shall bring it to several lawyers. Yet as I know we do have lawyers around here, please feel free to comment. Best regards and happy new year to everyone, -- Charles-H. Schulz Co-Founder & Steering Committee Member, 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] Proposal of workgroup creation...
Hi, I believe that Olivier has a point here, but Francesc (welcome, Francesc!) has an interesting idea. Wiki pages collecting methodologies, feedback on migrations, knowledge, etc. can only help rising the level of service providers and help even our developers and marketeers gain a deeper understanding of these issues. In fact I could go even further and claim there aren''t many people who have a solid understanding of these matters, even here. So I would like to support the creation of this "workgroup" (let's be informal here), knowing that indeed it cannot replace actual consultancy but can generate interesting and valubale materials. Francesc, please feel free to open page(s) on the wiki: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org, I'll be glad to help if I can , and perhaps would Olivier add some more content too :-) Best, Charles. Le Sun, 16 Jan 2011 09:03:48 -0200, Olivier Hallot a écrit : > Francesc, > I am working on a 120.000 desktop migration. I think I saw many > things that is good and evil. > > This is a change management project, and you can put it entirely into > a PMBOK vanilla change management project. That does not means it > will be easy to execute. > > Vendor lock-in thru specific proprietary extensions in migration > projects is the holy grail of all users that hate the idea of loosing > their beloved old and costly proprietary suite. If you fix this, they > will cut their wrists and bleed to death. Beware! :-) > > You may publish tons of recomendations in a workgroup for this > purpose, it will not avoid the need of a high qualified consultancy > in migration. Whoever attemps to migrate large corporation just > reading a couple of pages if doomed. You don't do change management > that big without external help. > > Olivier > > Em 15-01-2011 12:30, Francesc Mediterranean escreveu: > > Dear colleagues, > > > > > > I write to you to ask for your opinion relating to the evolution of > > libreoffice. I believe that could be very interesting to create a > > group for the creation of the methodology of migration of > > libroffice . I propose that the group should be called "Process& > > Methodology" > > > > In my opinion, we must create the element to solve the change > > between MS office to Libre office, that is the methodology of > > migration / implementatin, defining the phases to developing, the > > content of this phases, the priorización, and other. > > > >> From here I offer volunteer to initiate the development of this > >> methodology, because I believe that it will be the tipping point, > >> to promote the presence of libreoffice in the companies and public > >> organizations, > > > > > > I will be grateful for your comments > > > > Regards > > > > > > Francesc X. Berjano > > Mail:franc...@mediterranean-consulting.com > > Twitter; @fxberjano > > Skype: FX_Mediterranean > -- 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] Proposal of workgroup creation...
Francesc, it's really easy. Go to http://wiki.documentfoundation.org , create yourself an account, create a page, write :-) Best, Charles. 2011/1/16 Francesc Mediterranean > Ok, > > I´m sure that this new group will be a repository of practices, methods, > feedback migrations , and others. > Then, now which is the following step to create the group. ? > > Touch in contact, > > Francesc > > > El 16/01/2011, a las 22:09, Olivier Hallot escribió: > > > Oh yes, don't get me wrong, I am OK with the workgroup. We will collect a > set of best practices in migration projects. Just that it will not lead to a > single push of a button. > > > > Olivier > > > > Em 16-01-2011 09:49, Charles-H. Schulz escreveu: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I believe that Olivier has a point here, but Francesc (welcome, > >> Francesc!) has an interesting idea. Wiki pages collecting > >> methodologies, feedback on migrations, knowledge, etc. can only help > >> rising the level of service providers and help even our developers and > >> marketeers gain a deeper understanding of these issues. In fact I could > >> go even further and claim there aren''t many people who have a solid > >> understanding of these matters, even here. > >> > >> So I would like to support the creation of this "workgroup" (let's be > >> informal here), knowing that indeed it cannot replace actual > >> consultancy but can generate interesting and valubale materials. > >> > >> Francesc, please feel free to open page(s) on the wiki: > >> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org, I'll be glad to help if I can , and > >> perhaps would Olivier add some more content too :-) > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Charles. > >> > >> > >> Le Sun, 16 Jan 2011 09:03:48 -0200, > >> Olivier Hallot a écrit : > >> > >>> Francesc, > >>> I am working on a 120.000 desktop migration. I think I saw many > >>> things that is good and evil. > >>> > >>> This is a change management project, and you can put it entirely into > >>> a PMBOK vanilla change management project. That does not means it > >>> will be easy to execute. > >>> > >>> Vendor lock-in thru specific proprietary extensions in migration > >>> projects is the holy grail of all users that hate the idea of loosing > >>> their beloved old and costly proprietary suite. If you fix this, they > >>> will cut their wrists and bleed to death. Beware! :-) > >>> > >>> You may publish tons of recomendations in a workgroup for this > >>> purpose, it will not avoid the need of a high qualified consultancy > >>> in migration. Whoever attemps to migrate large corporation just > >>> reading a couple of pages if doomed. You don't do change management > >>> that big without external help. > >>> > >>> Olivier > >>> > >>> Em 15-01-2011 12:30, Francesc Mediterranean escreveu: > >>>> Dear colleagues, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I write to you to ask for your opinion relating to the evolution of > >>>> libreoffice. I believe that could be very interesting to create a > >>>> group for the creation of the methodology of migration of > >>>> libroffice . I propose that the group should be called "Process& > >>>> Methodology" > >>>> > >>>> In my opinion, we must create the element to solve the change > >>>> between MS office to Libre office, that is the methodology of > >>>> migration / implementatin, defining the phases to developing, the > >>>> content of this phases, the priorización, and other. > >>>> > >>>>> From here I offer volunteer to initiate the development of this > >>>>> methodology, because I believe that it will be the tipping point, > >>>>> to promote the presence of libreoffice in the companies and public > >>>>> organizations, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I will be grateful for your comments > >>>> > >>>> Regards > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Francesc X. Berjano > >>>> Mail:franc...@mediterranean-consulting.com > >>>> Twitter; @fxberjano > >>>> Skype: FX_Mediterranean > >>> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Olivier Hallot > > Founder, Steering Commitee Member - The Document Foundation > > Voicing the enterprise > > Translation Leader for Brazilian Portuguese > > > > -- > > 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 *** > > > > > -- > 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 *** > > -- 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: Mac App Store - or else ?
Jonathan, You should also ask all the other devs now :-) What I would like to have, more seriously, is lawyers working on this... Best, Charles. Le Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:27:17 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina a écrit : > I know an iphone dev, and he has told me the review process does take > time, but i think in time this app store will be just as good as the > app store found on the iphone. I am more then willing to head up a > team to get this ball moving in regards to getting permission from > oracle to relicense their code as well as getting it into the app > store itself. i think though for that someone will need a developers > license, which i am more then willing to get. > > On 01/14/2011 08:34 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote: > > Le 13/01/11 23:44, Larry Gusaas a écrit : > > > > Hi Larry, > > > > > >> Make it available in the App Store. OOo was always listed in the > >> Open Source software download page at Apple support. That service > >> has now been replaced by the App Store. > >> > > I checked out the App Store the day before yesterday and was rather > > disappointed by the paucity of "freeware" actually available. I had > > rather hoped that I would indeed find a similar array of content to > > that which used to be (still is ?) available under the Freeware / > > Open Source filter of the Apple Software Download page. Perhaps I > > missed something, or perhaps the store is just too recent (despite > > it being announced for a while already) for that software to have > > been included, or then again, perhaps it is the necessity of > > Apple's Review process that is putting people off. I assume that > > Apple reviews all of the software that an author might want to put > > on the store and has the final say in whether the app actually > > appears there or not ? > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > -- 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: Mac App Store
Hello Bob, Le Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:18:17 -0700, Robert Holtzman a écrit : > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 04:37:55PM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote: > > On 2011-01-12 12:25 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > > Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:05:16 -0600, > > > Larry Gusaas a écrit : > > >> And please tell me, what was uncivil about my post? > > > > > The tone of your post Larry. Please re-read it. > > > > Fwiw Larry, I circular filed your email address a while back > > precisely because: > > > > a) the tone of your emails are (often subtly) condescending and > > offensive, and > > > > b) when this is pointed out to you, you just don't seem to 'get > > it'... > > > > Don't bother replying, as I won't see it, unless someone else > > replies to it. > > I couldn't agree more. It's a crying shame that everyone doesn't > conform to your rules of etiquette isn't it? > > Face it. The condescension and offensiveness in Larry's posts exist > only in your mind. > I'm afraid it doesn't. I did find it offensive too, and so did many people. Now I just want everyone to remember that this list is hosted by the Document Foundation. We would like to keep the discussions here civil and focused. In case of abuse, we may exclude any potential offender. This being said, this list should also be used to gather interest on LibreOffice. If you take a look here: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Main_Page You will find many potential areas where you can contribute. Looking forward to your help and contribution(s)! Best regards, -- Charles-H. Schulz Co-Founder & Member of the Steering Committee, 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: Mac App Store - or else ?
Many of them are not here (too much traffic). Let's see if I can raise this at one of our next SC calls. We're really busy with other stuff, but... best, Charles. Le Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:39:13 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina a écrit : > The devs are more than welcome to comment > > What do some of the big boys think? > > On 01/17/2011 05:32 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > Jonathan, > > > > You should also ask all the other devs now :-) > > What I would like to have, more seriously, is lawyers working on > > this... > > > > Best, > > Charles. > > > > Le Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:27:17 +0100, > > Jonathan Aquilina a écrit : > > > >> I know an iphone dev, and he has told me the review process does > >> take time, but i think in time this app store will be just as good > >> as the app store found on the iphone. I am more then willing to > >> head up a team to get this ball moving in regards to getting > >> permission from oracle to relicense their code as well as getting > >> it into the app store itself. i think though for that someone will > >> need a developers license, which i am more then willing to get. > >> > >> On 01/14/2011 08:34 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote: > >>> Le 13/01/11 23:44, Larry Gusaas a écrit : > >>> > >>> Hi Larry, > >>> > >>> > >>>> Make it available in the App Store. OOo was always listed in the > >>>> Open Source software download page at Apple support. That service > >>>> has now been replaced by the App Store. > >>>> > >>> I checked out the App Store the day before yesterday and was > >>> rather disappointed by the paucity of "freeware" actually > >>> available. I had rather hoped that I would indeed find a similar > >>> array of content to that which used to be (still is ?) available > >>> under the Freeware / Open Source filter of the Apple Software > >>> Download page. Perhaps I missed something, or perhaps the store > >>> is just too recent (despite it being announced for a while > >>> already) for that software to have been included, or then again, > >>> perhaps it is the necessity of Apple's Review process that is > >>> putting people off. I assume that Apple reviews all of the > >>> software that an author might want to put on the store and has > >>> the final say in whether the app actually appears there or not ? > >>> > >>> > >>> Alex > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- 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] An Interesting Mockup
I love those! May the designer of these please stand up! :-) best, Charles. Le Mon, 17 Jan 2011 23:20:58 +0530, animesh meher a écrit : > > > Hi! All, > > > I found an very interesting mock-up or Open Office UI, on DevianArt . > > Now that most screens are wide screen > A side bar based UI is the best usage of space. > > Here is the link. > > http://pauloup.deviantart.com/gallery/28216273#/d37dxkj > > Even IBM Symphony's UI are very good. > > Please its really time to change our UI to something more Usable. > An UI like this saves a lot of verticle space and most of the main > editing options are clearly visible. We can surely work on this and > improve. > > > Cheers, > Animesh Meher > -- 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 : Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store - or else ?
Alex. I hope nothing too bad happened to you... Take care Charles. Le 17 janv. 2011, 7:21 PM, "sophie" a écrit : On 17/01/2011 21:14, Alexander Thurgood wrote: [...] > > This lawyer is busy trying to find time to get its head round the draft > TM usage policy/guide... Oups, I hope you're safe, please take care of you Alex! Kind regards Sophie -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgArchive: http://lista... -- 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] Membership ODF Alliance
Rainer, We are a bit behind this these days, but thanks for the reminder ;) Best, Charles. 2011/1/20 Rainer Bielefeld > Hi, > > I can't find us on http://www.odfalliance.org/members.php#viewall. > > May be TDF should become member? > > Or is a.m. page only outdated? > > Regards > > Rainer > > -- > 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 *** > > -- 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] Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Hi, Le Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:21:14 +, Michael Meeks a écrit : > Hi there, > > On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 15:46 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > Please find the more or less final draft of the trademark policy of > > the Document Foundation: > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy > > We've done some analysis internally on it, and the good news > is that the text looks fairly good. > > There is some concern about the lack of clarity on whether > incorporating libreoffice (or other marks) into a domain name > is allowed - this is an area people often want to tread on, > and we should probably directly address it. > > Similarly - it does not mention including 'libreoffice' into a > business name - I think we should simply prohibit that. > > So I suggest we add a clarification of both of these to the > end of the "Non permitted use section". > > "Thus uses of the Marks in a domain name, or business name >without explicit written permission from TDF are prohibited." That does sound sensible. We should also think about having maybe differentiated logos... > > Another point is around the licensing of the policy itself; I > suggest we place it under some sort of open license - e.g., creative > commons attribution share-alike, or something like that, so other > projects can freely re-use it. That is relatively easy to do, but I'd > like to get Karen's feedback first. That's trivial indeed. > > Finally - I just realised that I'd like the "substantially > unmodified" clause to include a few more bundling bits: so > > "Substantially unmodified" means built from the source code >provided by TDF, possibly with minor modifications including >but not limited to: the enabling or disabling of certain >features by default, translations into other languages, > changes required for compatibility with a particular operating system > - distribution, or the inclusion of bug-fix patches)." > + distribution, the inclusion of bug-fix patches, or the > bundling > + of additional fonts, templates, artwork and extensions) > > Since that seems like it is something people would want to > call LibreOffice and just extends the "package other translations" > scope to other common things. > > So - do people have problems with any of that ? Not from my side. Here's the feedback I gathered elsewhere (from other lawyers): -the substantially unmodified clause was found vague so what you just proposed above might help. - there was the question of the clause requesting that any distributor mentions one can get LibreOffice for free (on our website) and provide a link to it. The question was about whether we should request distributors to put that more proeminently. I have to say I didn't really understand that comment; but the answer was that Mozilla does not even allow to make a profit from the distribution of the software on a physical medium (you can charge a fee covering costs, but not make a profit on it apparently). I think we want to leave our clause the way it is, it sounds reasonnable. Best, Charles. > > HTH, > > Michael. > -- 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: [steering-discuss] connecting external services to our domain
Hello all, Short note: We will be discussing this tonight at our SC confcall.It has been put on our agenda. Best, -- 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] Automatic Update / Update info
Hello Jaime, Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:49:03 +0100, "Jaime R. Garza" a écrit : > Hello all, > > for when is it planned to have Automatic Update for Windows & Mac > LibreOffice, for Linux usually makes no sense? > > My opinion, the user should be able to decide if it's completely > Automatic, or they only get an info pop window, offering a one click > update. > > Cheers! > > Jaime It would be an excellent idea, and many thought about it, but the question is how feasible it is. I'm sure it is possible but it requires quite a lot of resources, time, etc. So don't expect it in the 3.4... best, Charles. -- 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] Automatic Update / Update info
Hi, Actually that does already exist, if I'm not misstaken, except it does not do anything with uninstall the old version. But there's an alert on the desktop that notifies the user when there's a new version (same with extensions btw). Best, Charles. Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:08:58 +0100, "Jaime R. Garza" a écrit : > Why not make a simple solution in the meantime? > > Only tell the user there is a new version, and a link to the new > version. Obviously the installable of the new version should be able > to automatically de-install the old version. That should be actually > very easy, don't you think so? > > Cheers! > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:09, Charles-H. Schulz < > charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > > > Hello Jaime, > > > > > > Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:49:03 +0100, > > "Jaime R. Garza" a écrit : > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > for when is it planned to have Automatic Update for Windows & Mac > > > LibreOffice, for Linux usually makes no sense? > > > > > > My opinion, the user should be able to decide if it's completely > > > Automatic, or they only get an info pop window, offering a one > > > click update. > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > Jaime > > > > > > It would be an excellent idea, and many thought about it, but the > > question is how feasible it is. I'm sure it is possible but it > > requires quite a lot of resources, time, etc. So don't expect it in > > the 3.4... > > > > best, > > Charles. > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 *** > > > > > -- 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] Automatic Update / Update info
It does work only for stable releases (unless we dumped that update component???) . Anyway, if you have any ideas on the implementation of such a feature, you're welcome to upload a patch :-) Best, Charles. Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:51:36 +0100, "Jaime R. Garza" a écrit : > I have LibreOffice 3.3.0 rc3 and I was not notified of the rc4. > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:17, Charles-H. Schulz < > charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Actually that does already exist, if I'm not misstaken, except it > > does not do anything with uninstall the old version. But there's an > > alert on the desktop that notifies the user when there's a new > > version (same with extensions btw). > > > > Best, > > Charles. > > > > > > Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:08:58 +0100, > > "Jaime R. Garza" a écrit : > > > > > Why not make a simple solution in the meantime? > > > > > > Only tell the user there is a new version, and a link to the new > > > version. Obviously the installable of the new version should be > > > able to automatically de-install the old version. That should be > > > actually very easy, don't you think so? > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:09, Charles-H. Schulz < > > > charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello Jaime, > > > > > > > > > > > > Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:49:03 +0100, > > > > "Jaime R. Garza" a écrit : > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > for when is it planned to have Automatic Update for Windows & > > > > > Mac LibreOffice, for Linux usually makes no sense? > > > > > > > > > > My opinion, the user should be able to decide if it's > > > > > completely Automatic, or they only get an info pop window, > > > > > offering a one click update. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > Jaime > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be an excellent idea, and many thought about it, but > > > > the question is how feasible it is. I'm sure it is possible but > > > > it requires quite a lot of resources, time, etc. So don't > > > > expect it in the 3.4... > > > > > > > > best, > > > > Charles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > > > *** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 *** > > > > > -- 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] Automatic Update / Update info
So, we're talking about some discussions that took place during the OpenOffice time, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away :-) I don't remember why we had chosen not to implement it for betas/RC , there was supposedly a good reason for that but I completely forgot about it. Let me ask anyway. @Mike: apps that notifies users when another software can be updated exist a lot on the mac but here Jaime was mentioning one specific feature of LibreOffice that notifies the user directly and, possibly, updates LibO by itself. best, Charles. Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:06:46 +0100, "Jaime R. Garza" a écrit : > I would love to, if I could! Maybe I'll have to learn how to make > extensions and probably make one. > > If it's already implemented for the stable releases, why not add it > to the RCs too, as optional? > > Cheers! > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:06, Charles-H. Schulz < > charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > > > It does work only for stable releases (unless we dumped that update > > component???) . Anyway, if you have any ideas on the implementation > > of such a feature, you're welcome to upload a patch :-) > > > > Best, > > > > Charles. > > > > > > Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:51:36 +0100, > > "Jaime R. Garza" a écrit : > > > > > I have LibreOffice 3.3.0 rc3 and I was not notified of the rc4. > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:17, Charles-H. Schulz < > > > charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Actually that does already exist, if I'm not misstaken, except > > > > it does not do anything with uninstall the old version. But > > > > there's an alert on the desktop that notifies the user when > > > > there's a new version (same with extensions btw). > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Charles. > > > > > > > > > > > > Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:08:58 +0100, > > > > "Jaime R. Garza" a écrit : > > > > > > > > > Why not make a simple solution in the meantime? > > > > > > > > > > Only tell the user there is a new version, and a link to the > > > > > new version. Obviously the installable of the new version > > > > > should be able to automatically de-install the old version. > > > > > That should be actually very easy, don't you think so? > > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:09, Charles-H. Schulz < > > > > > charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Jaime, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:49:03 +0100, > > > > > > "Jaime R. Garza" a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for when is it planned to have Automatic Update for > > > > > > > Windows & Mac LibreOffice, for Linux usually makes no > > > > > > > sense? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My opinion, the user should be able to decide if it's > > > > > > > completely Automatic, or they only get an info pop window, > > > > > > > offering a one click update. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaime > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be an excellent idea, and many thought about it, > > > > > > but the question is how feasible it is. I'm sure it is > > > > > > possible but it requires quite a lot of resources, time, > > > > > > etc. So don't expect it in the 3.4... > > > > > > > > > > > > best, > > > > > > Charles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > *** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > > > *** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 *** > > > > > -- 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] odftoolkit and LibO
Hello Le Wed, 2 Feb 2011 00:11:29 +0700, Nguyen Vu Hung a écrit : > Hello, > > Just a simple question: > > Is that odftoolkit a part of Oracle? It's vague. Technically no, it's a joint IBM-Oracle project that requires you to assign your copyright and contribute to the project under an Apache License. The infrastructure is owned and run by Oracle. > Is there any cooperation between odftoolkit and LibO? Not directly at least. Given that you have to request rights on the server to Oracle engineers to post any patch, I would be surprised if they'd grant us anything :-) Best, Charles. > > http://odftoolkit.org/ > -- 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: [steering-discuss] poll on next SC confcall
Le Tue, 1 Feb 2011 18:32:35 +0100, Thorsten Behrens a écrit : > Florian Effenberger wrote: > > you all know how it works... :-) Here's the poll for the next SC > > confcall: > > > > http://www.doodle.com/psis3q75u3xrvbh8?newDesign=true > > > Gonna be a bit tough - many folks will be at FOSDEM starting Friday > - maybe have 1-2 days of next week, too? > > Cheers, > > -- Thorsten > Yes, I would much rather try to work on the ongoing issues (TM policies, fundraising/foundation)... -- 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] purpose of this list?
Hello Kevin, Sigrid, Le Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:49:04 +0100, Sigrid Carrera a écrit : > Hi Kevin, > > 2011/2/2 Kevin Hunter : > > Hullo List, > > > > I'm having a difficult tracking down the exact topic for this list. > > Specifically, is this a list for discussing LibreOffice (the > > product) or more Document Foundation topics? > > I'd say it's more about topics concerning the Document Foundation. > > > > If it's the latter, would someone kindly tell me the list address > > for the LibreOffice general discussion? > > The general discussion list for LibreOffice would be then > disc...@libreoffice.org. > > HTH > > Sigrid > For the moment, we'll only keep one discuss list, the present one, for both TDF and LibreOffice. 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] purpose of this list?
Le Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:11:18 +0100, Sigrid Carrera a écrit : > Ups, sorry. > > 2011/2/2 Charles-H. Schulz : > > Hello Kevin, Sigrid, > > > > Le Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:49:04 +0100, > > Sigrid Carrera a écrit : > > > >> Hi Kevin, > >> > >> 2011/2/2 Kevin Hunter : > > [...] > > > > > For the moment, we'll only keep one discuss list, the present one, > > for both TDF and LibreOffice. > > thanks for the clarification. I confused it with the germanspeaking > discuss-list of LibreOffice. > > Sigrid > Waaas? This is not a german speaking list? (just kidding) -- 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] purpose of this list?
Le Wed, 02 Feb 2011 16:47:58 +0100, Florian Effenberger a écrit : > Hi, > > drew wrote on 2011-02-02 16.44: > > It must be pushing 100 mail lists by now is there really any reason > > not to setup a discuss @ tdf.org at this point, so that the > > international discuss @ libo.org could focus on the application? > > we're right now restructuring a few lists, and indeed plan to have a > separate discuss@tdf and discuss@libo. > > Florian > Well, do we want to have 2 discuss lists? We're going to have some more reading to do :-/ -- 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: [steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Hi, I uploaded the latest changes and modified the text accordingly, it incorporates many, if not most of the changes from RH: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy best, Charles. Le Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:39:14 +, Michael Meeks a écrit : > > On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 10:24 +0100, Italo Vignoli wrote: > > > are we good on the TM policy? I'd like to move forward on this... > > I am, of course. > > Oh ! did we fold in the Redhat advice ? (which seemed good to > me) - I believe we did not, it would be worth someone carefully doing > that I suppose. > > ATB, > > Michael. > -- 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] Feature request for LibreOffice Impress
Chynte, thank you for your email. I believe although I'm not sure that PyUno is deprecated . But your suggestions are of technical nature, may I suggest you continue that part of the discussion on our developers' mailing list? http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice Best, Charles. 2011/2/15 Chynte > On 23.01.2011 00:53, Christoph Noack wrote: > >> Hi Chynte! >> >> Am Samstag, den 22.01.2011, 22:13 +0100 schrieb Chynte: >> >>> Hi, >>> after following this mailing list for a while, today I want to ask for >>> your opinion about two features I miss in Impress. >>> >>> The first feature is linked to the custom slide shows. [...] >>> The problem is, that the automatic >>> page side numbering is not able to handle custom slide shows. >>> >> Mmh, I don't know a solution for this. Sorry :-\ >> >> But since Impress usually supports jumping to other (hidden) slides in >> the presentation in any case, this might be required ... even if you >> exclude (e.g.) slide 5, you can change to slide 5 by "5 ENTER" (another >> feature important for some other users). To solve this, it requires a >> bit more work ... >> >> The second missing feature is support for automatic ToC- and >>> Index-Tables as they are implemented so nicely in Writer. >>> >> Concerning the ToC - what is missing when using the "Insert - Summary >> Slide" feature? >> >> [...] >> >> What is your opinion? Do you agree that these two features could be >>> helpful for others? >>> >> I think yes - do you know whether there are issues (request) for this at >> OOo or LibreOffice? This might help to evaluate how much this is >> requested by others as well. >> >> Regards, >> Christoph >> >> >> > After digging around, I think, I should be able to program the needed > features (ToC, slide numbers matching custom slide show) on my own. > I would prefer to use Python and PyUNO for this. > > Before I start, I would like to ask the list for giving me feedback for the > following questions: > 1. For generating a ToC I need to store somewhere, if the title should > appear in the ToC or not. > Where can I store this information? > I found the "Description" and the "Name" tags I could use but I fear, that > this will interact with other software also using these tags... > > 2. Maybe I want to add also an alphabetical Index linking to the most > important keywords at the end of the presentation (remember, people will get > a printed version of the slide show). > Where can I store the information, that a specific word should appear in > this Index? You know I see problem with using "Description" and "Name" tags. > For an index it is again more complicate since a word itself has no > "Description" tag. > Using the "Description" tag of the object, in which the text appears, gives > the problem, that deleting the text does not automatically delete the entry > --> How can I detect in that case, that the word is deleted except doing a > rescan all the time? > > 3. Is Python/PyUNO the good choice for programming this feature in Impress? > Can you tell me Pro´s and Con´s? > > 4. What´s about the needed skills? Do you think, this project is feasible > for someone who made up to now only very small standalone apps "just for > fun" in Python? > > Thanks for your remarks > > Chynte > > > > -- > 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 *** > -- 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] Oracle Contributor Agreement and LibreOffice contributions
Hello Christophe, Le Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:28:43 +0100, Christophe Strobbe a écrit : > Hi, > > I have a question about licences and copyright. As many of you know, > contributing code to the core of OpenOffice.org requires that one > signs the Oracle Contributor Agreement [1] (which is identical to the > Sun Contributor Agreement). Extensions are exempt from this [2]. So, IANAL, I'm not Oracle, this is not a TDF official statement, don't put your cat in the microwave, etc, etc > > 1. Now imagine that I contribute code to LibreOffice and the > contribution is accepted. Is it then still acceptable (from a > copyright point of view) to sign the Oracle Contributor Agreement and > submit the same code to OpenOffice.org? Yes. > > 2. Conversely, if I sign the Oracle Contributor Agreement and submit > code (and it gets accepted, otherwise the copyright reverts to me), > can I then still submit the same code to LibreOffice or would that > cause problems for LibreOffice (because Oracle now shares copyright > of the code I submitted)? Yes. Actually that's what we do when we "pull" the OOo codebase over to us. > 2.b. Can I contribute the code to LibreOffice while the acceptance of > my patch to OpenOffice.org is still pending? Yes. Best, Charles. -- 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] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Hi, @Bernhard: now we "just" need the logos without the TDF mention to be put on a page with its source on the wiki, and I think we'll be ready to announce our trademark policy Do you think you or Christoph can do that? Thank you, Charles. 2011/2/15 Charles-H. Schulz > Hi, > > I uploaded the latest changes and modified the text accordingly, it > incorporates many, if not most of the changes from RH: > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy > > best, > Charles. > > Le Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:39:14 +, > Michael Meeks a écrit : > > > > > On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 10:24 +0100, Italo Vignoli wrote: > > > > are we good on the TM policy? I'd like to move forward on this... > > > I am, of course. > > > > Oh ! did we fold in the Redhat advice ? (which seemed good to > > me) - I believe we did not, it would be worth someone carefully doing > > that I suppose. > > > > ATB, > > > > Michael. > > > > > > -- > 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 : Re: [tdf-discuss] Strange OpenOffice Email from a new universe
You can copy and paste it here,of course :-) Charles. Le 26 févr. 2011, 5:25 PM, "Howard Barr" a écrit : On 27/02/2011 00:54, Italo Vignoli wrote: > > Any chance of getting a copy of such emails? I would l... I can forward it to you? Howard -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.orgArchive: http://listar... -- 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 ***
[steering-discuss] Approval of our Trademark Policy
*** SC Members and their deputies*** Please vote +1 or -1 in order to approve the trademark policy (text is here: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy) Please also make sure you have read the additional material here: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Logo_Policy and there: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing/Branding#Resources_for_external_use I would like to close this vote in about 24 hours from now. Thank you, -- 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: [steering-discuss] Minor incosistencies in our ByLaws
Hello André, Le Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:13:04 +0100, "Andre Schnabel" a écrit : > Hi, > > as we are currently preparing the legal documents for the Foundation > in Germany, we found some minor inconsistencies in the bylaws. > > I'd like to ask the Steering Commitee, if we should do some > modifications to our bylwas, so that the meaning is more clear. > > The issues we found are: > > 1st - definition of BoD deputies > > The bylaws only mention that "Each member of the BoD must appoint one > deputy ..." There is no obligation, that a deputy needs to be a > community member. There might be a risk, that BoD votes are > influenced by non-TDF members. I think, we just implicitly meant that > deputies should be TDF members, but did not exlicitly write this. > > > 2nd - "Provisions Concerning Possible Conflicts of Interest" > > In this paragraph we list 3 rules to prevent possible conflicts. Each > of the rule is written in a way that it would justify BoD's action if > the rule is not followed. But the sentence "In the event of a > contravention of the above three (3) rules, ..." seems to suggest > that all three rules need to be contravened at the same time to > trigger BoD's action. > > I'd guess, we meant that a contravention of any of the rules would > call the BoD to action. > > > 3rd - quorum for "Solemn Address" > > There is one sencence which suggests that Addresses *should* be signed > by 30% of active members: "The Solemn Address should ... be > undersigned by thirty per cent (30%) of the Community's active > Members;..." But the second part of this sentence tells, that the MC > "must formally validate that the thirty-per-cent (30%) quorum is > fulfilled." > > So - the quorum seems to be mandatory but this is not written in the > first sentence. > > > > All these issues would be quite easy to fix (imho). We just need to > agree ;) (I can write the suggestions after some time of disussion > and then call for a vote.) > > regards, > > André > I agree that these are inconsistencies and to your analysis, so +1 for these minor fixes. Best, -- 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: [libreoffice-website] Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Disclaimer
Hello everyone, Sorry for jumping so late... Le Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:04:35 +0100, Italo Vignoli a écrit : > On 3/9/11 3:51 PM, Jesús Corrius wrote: > > > If there are no objections in 24 hours, I'll edit the pages to point > > to the official lists. > > 24 hours have officially gone by now. Jesus, please change the page > ASAP. I will draft a media advisory ASAP. > I read that Daniel was told by someone from OOoES that they had discussed the mailing lists problem with TDF. While it is accurate we never reached an agreement and it's clear to me we requested them to use our mailing lists. The point is not to prohibit people to use their own tools. It is to avoid confusion (OOoES is not TDF and I don't see why OOoES should dictate anything to the rest of the Spanish speaking contributors) and also that TDF feels there's a problem with respect to how OOOES is handling its positioning (no, no conflict of interest, but a lack of transparency in how it deals with its contributions to several projects). So while people are free to contribute through various teams, it is also the right of TDF to choose how and with whom it wants to work. Sorry Daniel for this inconvenience, -- 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 ***
