subject:"RE\: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal\: Collaboration with TDF\/LO"

Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
from ASF into their products.

(and typo in the first sentence)

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:03,  robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
 I'm perceiving that we're circling around on the same points with no new
 options coming up.  So I'd like to record the state of the issue.  If
 there is consensus on this formulation, I'll place it in the wiki.  Of
 course, if the discussion advances the issue or positions move, I can
 always go back and revise,

 -Rob


 =Collabration with LibreOffice=

 LibreOffice uses a dual licesne LGPLv3/MPL.  This limits the degree to
 which OpenOffice and LibreOffice can collaborate on code.  However, we
 would be glad to discuss, as a project, ways in which we can collaborate
 with them in a way that respects the chosen licenses of both projects.
 This could include collaboration on jointly sponsored public events,
 interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared build management
 infrastructure, etc.  And if TDF decides at a later point to change to a
 compatible license, then this would open up additional ways in which we
 could collaborate, and we would welcome that as well.  We believe that in
 practice, the extent to which we may actually collaborate will be
 determined by the licence compatibility issue rather than any
 unwillingness to collaborate.

 ---

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



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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

Your proposed text also does not recognise possibilities for collaboration
to protect the OpenOffice consumer end-user community in the interim while
your project sorts itself out.

S.

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/03/2011 02:33:21 PM:

 
 Your proposed text also does not recognise possibilities for 
collaboration
 to protect the OpenOffice consumer end-user community in the interim 
while
 your project sorts itself out.
 


Can you state this in the form of a collaborative activity?  I'm being 
neutral as to the intent or particulars on the wiki.  I'm noting the kinds 
of activities.  In the end the nature of the activity, with respect to the 
license and ASF policy, not the intent of the collaboration, is what will 
determine whether it is permissible. 

For example, mixing GPLv3 and Apache 2.0 with the intent of feeding 
starving children is not permissible, but providing a library that Wall 
Street tycoons can use to design butterscotch pudding swimming pools is 
permissible.  Saying collaboration...to protect the OpenOffice consumer 
is not really sufficient.


-Rob

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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50,  robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
 Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM:


 Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
 from ASF into their products.


 This is true, but would you call that collaboration?

ABSOLUTELY.

Q: How does the TDF work with the ASF?
A: Snarf our code at will.

Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in
our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They
can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our modified
code into LO.

If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues.

 I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take source
 code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they wish.  I'm
 not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was thinking that
 the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee
 collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are inherent in
 the license.

Calling TDF/LO one of many who can take our source is disingenuous.
They are VERY definitely NOT just one of the crowd.

If you're going to write a section on collaboration, then it must
include how they can use our code.

...

Cheers,
-g

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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

2011-06-03 Thread Leif Hedstrom


On 06/03/2011 12:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote:

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50,robert_w...@us.ibm.com  wrote:

Greg Steingst...@gmail.com  wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM:


Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
from ASF into their products.


This is true, but would you call that collaboration?

ABSOLUTELY.

Q: How does the TDF work with the ASF?
A: Snarf our code at will.


Although, IF the two code bases continue to diverge, it would probably 
get prohibitively difficult to lift code in many cases.


-- Leif

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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50,  robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
  Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM:
 
 
  Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
  from ASF into their products.
 
 
  This is true, but would you call that collaboration?

 ABSOLUTELY.

 Q: How does the TDF work with the ASF?
 A: Snarf our code at will.


:-)

Actually I am pretty sure there will be upstream code from TDF. Maybe not
everything, but they are good people with a heart for OpenOffice.

S.

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 02:57:48 PM:

 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50,  robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
  Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM:
 
 
  Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
  from ASF into their products.
 
 
  This is true, but would you call that collaboration?
 
 ABSOLUTELY.
 
 Q: How does the TDF work with the ASF?
 A: Snarf our code at will.


This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal.  So we should be 
talking about what collaborative activities we foresee undertaking.  We 
can't speak for others.  We can only talk about what we're willing to do. 
Since ASF mandates the Apache 2.0 licence, there is zero additional the 
*project* needs to do to allow others to Snarf our code at will.


 Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in
 our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They
 can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our modified
 code into LO.

 If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues.
 

That would certainly be collaboration, but that is in the nature of having 
user lists and a bug tracker.  I was thinking that the IPMC would 
especially want to see any *extra* things that the proposers foresaw that 
should be noted.

There might be more concrete things we could do, but that would be in the 
details, e.g., synching schedules for coordinated releases, coordinating 
version numbers, etc.  I can add that.

  I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take 
source
  code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they wish. 
 I'm
  not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was thinking 
that
  the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee
  collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are inherent 
in
  the license.
 
 Calling TDF/LO one of many who can take our source is disingenuous.
 They are VERY definitely NOT just one of the crowd.
 

I see this distinction:

-- An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice

versus

-- An extraordinary collaboration


I'll grant you that TDF/LO could be seen as the former.  But that might be 
best emphasized in the community section of the proposal where we talk 
about the larger ecosystem.  We can highlight their importance.  But I'm 
not seeing anything that speaks to any collaboration that is qualitatively 
different than what any other downstream consumer does.  Different in 
importance perhaps, but not different in nature.


 If you're going to write a section on collaboration, then it must
 include how they can use our code.
 

The Apache 2.0 license states how they can use our code, right?

But let me see if I can get your point worked in.  We probably don't 
disagree on this, just maybe where to stick it in the proposal.


Regards,

-Rob

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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12,  robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
...
 This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal.  So we should be

This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal.

Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the
name of purity (and division of community), or you can be inclusive.
The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It
would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to
try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we
want to see here.

...
 Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in
 our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They
 can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our modified
 code into LO.

 If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues.

 That would certainly be collaboration, but that is in the nature of having
 user lists and a bug tracker.  I was thinking that the IPMC would
 especially want to see any *extra* things that the proposers foresaw that
 should be noted.

 There might be more concrete things we could do, but that would be in the
 details, e.g., synching schedules for coordinated releases, coordinating
 version numbers, etc.  I can add that.

  I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take
 source
  code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they wish.
  I'm
  not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was thinking
 that
  the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee
  collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are inherent
 in
  the license.

 Calling TDF/LO one of many who can take our source is disingenuous.
 They are VERY definitely NOT just one of the crowd.


 I see this distinction:

 -- An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice

 versus

 -- An extraordinary collaboration


 I'll grant you that TDF/LO could be seen as the former.

Could be? If you don't start writing down that they *will* and that
the project should *plan* for that, then they never will be.

I'm starting to get annoyed by your reticence here. Gonna end this
email now. Come back later.

-g

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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:
 
 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12,  robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
 ...
  This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal.  So we should be
 
 This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
 consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal.
 
 Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the
 name of purity (and division of community), or you can be inclusive.
 The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It
 would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to
 try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we
 want to see here.


Greg,  TDF/LO are already mentioned in the proposal. If you have concrete 
suggestions, fire away.  But please do not accuse me of excluding them 
from the proposal or purity or division of community or suggest that 
I'm pretending anything.  It seems to me that you are being very quick 
to take offense, and I don't see where this is coming from.  Please be 
civil and assume that I am being sincere.  I will strive to do the same of 
you.

 
 ...
  Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in
  our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They
  can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our 
modified
  code into LO.
 
  If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues.
 
  That would certainly be collaboration, but that is in the nature of 
having
  user lists and a bug tracker.  I was thinking that the IPMC would
  especially want to see any *extra* things that the proposers foresaw 
that
  should be noted.
 
  There might be more concrete things we could do, but that would be in 
the
  details, e.g., synching schedules for coordinated releases, 
coordinating
  version numbers, etc.  I can add that.
 
   I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take
  source
   code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they 
wish.
   I'm
   not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was 
thinking
  that
   the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee
   collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are 
inherent
  in
   the license.
 
  Calling TDF/LO one of many who can take our source is disingenuous.
  They are VERY definitely NOT just one of the crowd.
 

I did not say one of the crowd.  Please don't put words into my mouth. I 
merely said that the target of this proposal is the IPMC, and suggested 
that we ought to respect their time and not list things that are inherent 
with the Apache 2.0 license and ASF policy.  We should draw attention to 
any special considerations that we foresee.  The fact that Apache 2.0 code 
can be used is not special.  If the Lord Almighty decided to use our code, 
but did nothing more, I would not note that fact in the collaboration 
section of the wiki.  But I would note Him among important downstream 
users.


 
  I see this distinction:
 
  -- An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice
 
  versus
 
  -- An extraordinary collaboration
 
 
  I'll grant you that TDF/LO could be seen as the former.
 
 Could be? If you don't start writing down that they *will* and that
 the project should *plan* for that, then they never will be.
 

A citation please, Greg. 

I have not seen anyone from TDF/LO state that they *will* take Apache 
code.  Thus the conditional statement.  Do you have a better way of saying 
it that is also an accurate way of saying it?

 I'm starting to get annoyed by your reticence here. Gonna end this
 email now. Come back later.
 

Regards,

-Rob

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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

2011-06-03 Thread dsh

Rob,

I think being more open concerning collaboration can't hurt what do
you think? So it would be nice if the proposal could be open and
diplomatic in this regards. Probably the intention should be to not
shut the door in the very beginning and thus omit collaboration with
other parties. Tho, whether those parties accept the invitation or not
can't probably assured by the proposal BUT at least you tried your
very best.

Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to
the community to add such a tone to the proposal.

What do you think?

Cheers
Daniel

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12,  robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
...
 This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal.  So we should be

 This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
 consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal.

 Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the
 name of purity (and division of community), or you can be inclusive.
 The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It
 would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to
 try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we
 want to see here.

...
 Collaboration is not always reciprocal (heh). We can make changes in
 our codebase to support them. They can take any and all changes. They
 can ask us if we could do $X and then they'll incorporate our modified
 code into LO.

 If you don't call that collaboration, then we've got big issues.

 That would certainly be collaboration, but that is in the nature of having
 user lists and a bug tracker.  I was thinking that the IPMC would
 especially want to see any *extra* things that the proposers foresaw that
 should be noted.

 There might be more concrete things we could do, but that would be in the
 details, e.g., synching schedules for coordinated releases, coordinating
 version numbers, etc.  I can add that.

  I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take
 source
  code from our projects and reuse them on whatever fashion they wish.
  I'm
  not opposed to saying that explicitly in the wiki, but I was thinking
 that
  the proposal is a good place to note any places where we foresee
  collaboration that goes beyond the downstream rights that are inherent
 in
  the license.

 Calling TDF/LO one of many who can take our source is disingenuous.
 They are VERY definitely NOT just one of the crowd.


 I see this distinction:

 -- An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice

 versus

 -- An extraordinary collaboration


 I'll grant you that TDF/LO could be seen as the former.

 Could be? If you don't start writing down that they *will* and that
 the project should *plan* for that, then they never will be.

 I'm starting to get annoyed by your reticence here. Gonna end this
 email now. Come back later.

 -g

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



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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh daniel.hais...@googlemail.com wrote:

 Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
 add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
 and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to
 the community to add such a tone to the proposal.

 What do you think?

The reason it is a wiki is exactly for this reason.  Go for it!

 Cheers
 Daniel

- Sam Ruby

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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh daniel.hais...@googlemail.com wrote:
 
  Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
  add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
  and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to
  the community to add such a tone to the proposal.
 
  What do you think?

 The reason it is a wiki is exactly for this reason.  Go for it!


What are the exact rules, Sam? Those of us who aren't insiders will be very
reticent indeed about editing.

S.

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh daniel.hais...@googlemail.com wrote:
 
  Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
  add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
  and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to
  the community to add such a tone to the proposal.
 
  What do you think?

 The reason it is a wiki is exactly for this reason.  Go for it!

 What are the exact rules, Sam? Those of us who aren't insiders will be very
 reticent indeed about editing.

Rules?  :-)

From http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html :

The incoming community needs to work together before presenting this
proposal to the incubator. Think about and discuss future goals and
the reasons for coming to Apache. Feel free to ask questions on list.

As long as people are constructive and working together, there will be
no interference.  If it turns out that there are groups with multiple
visions, we can split this page into separate proposals.  Defacement
of the proposal will be quickly reverted.

 S.

- Sam Ruby

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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

2011-06-03 Thread Benson Margulies

I started the process by adding a couple of TBD's.

My little vision is that IPMC members might add notes of the form:

I cannot vote +1 for this proposal until this section addresses issue X'

When all those comments are gone, we have, in effect, voted.


On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh daniel.hais...@googlemail.com wrote:
 
  Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
  add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
  and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to
  the community to add such a tone to the proposal.
 
  What do you think?

 The reason it is a wiki is exactly for this reason.  Go for it!

 What are the exact rules, Sam? Those of us who aren't insiders will be very
 reticent indeed about editing.

 Rules?  :-)

 From http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html :

 The incoming community needs to work together before presenting this
 proposal to the incubator. Think about and discuss future goals and
 the reasons for coming to Apache. Feel free to ask questions on list.

 As long as people are constructive and working together, there will be
 no interference.  If it turns out that there are groups with multiple
 visions, we can split this page into separate proposals.  Defacement
 of the proposal will be quickly reverted.

 S.

 - Sam Ruby

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



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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

dsh daniel.hais...@googlemail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 04:11:43 PM:

 
 Rob,
 
 I think being more open concerning collaboration can't hurt what do
 you think? So it would be nice if the proposal could be open and
 diplomatic in this regards. Probably the intention should be to not
 shut the door in the very beginning and thus omit collaboration with
 other parties. Tho, whether those parties accept the invitation or not
 can't probably assured by the proposal BUT at least you tried your
 very best.


Daniel, please be concrete and critical, not accusatory.  Please critique 
the proposal, not the person.  I attach the latest version of this section 
of the proposal.  I am unable to find the part of the proposal you refer 
to when you say it shuts the door in the very beginning.  Can you please 
point that out?

You also use the word invitation.  This is not an invitation.  This is a 
section of the incubation proposal.  The audience is the IPMC to inform 
their vote on the proposal.  I think we owe them our candor and our honest 
appraisal, not a press release.  I'm not opposed to the *project* doing a 
formal invitation to TDF/LO, and in fact I'd welcome that.  An invitation 
would obviously take on a different form.  But I don't think this proposal 
is the right vehicle for doing that.

As always, I welcome improvements to this proposal. 

Regards,

-Rob


=Collabration with LibreOffice=

LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL.  This limits the degree to 
which OpenOffice and LibreOffice can collaborate on code.  However, we 
would be glad to discuss, as a project, ways in which we can collaborate 
with them in a way that respects the chosen licenses of both projects. 
This could include collaboration on jointly sponsored public events, 
interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared build management 
infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of build schedules, 
version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream requirements. 
Additionally, collaboration could include LibreOffice use of project 
deliverables per the Apache 2.0 license and  their reporting of defects. 
If TDF decides at a later point to change to a compatible license, then 
this would open up additional ways in which we could collaborate, and we 
would welcome that as well.  We believe that, in practice, the degree to 
which we are able to actually collaborate will be determined by the 
licence compatibility issue more than than any unwillingness to 
collaborate.


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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
  On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
 
  On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh daniel.hais...@googlemail.com
 wrote:
  
   Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
   add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
   and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to
   the community to add such a tone to the proposal.
  
   What do you think?
 
  The reason it is a wiki is exactly for this reason.  Go for it!
 
  What are the exact rules, Sam? Those of us who aren't insiders will be
 very
  reticent indeed about editing.

 Rules?  :-)

 From http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html :

 The incoming community needs to work together before presenting this
 proposal to the incubator. Think about and discuss future goals and
 the reasons for coming to Apache. Feel free to ask questions on list.


Got any special rules for where the incoming community is already divided?
:-)


 As long as people are constructive and working together, there will be
 no interference.  If it turns out that there are groups with multiple
 visions, we can split this page into separate proposals.  Defacement
 of the proposal will be quickly reverted.


So to be clear, the wiki page for the OOo proposal is open for anyone to
edit and not just Apache members or the project's proposers.

S.

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

sa3r...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 05:17:46 PM:
 
 Rules?  :-)
 
 From http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html :
 
 The incoming community needs to work together before presenting this
 proposal to the incubator. Think about and discuss future goals and
 the reasons for coming to Apache. Feel free to ask questions on list.
 
 As long as people are constructive and working together, there will be
 no interference.  If it turns out that there are groups with multiple
 visions, we can split this page into separate proposals.  Defacement
 of the proposal will be quickly reverted.
 

And if we split the page into separate proposals (not unlikely given the 
clear differences of vision expressed on the list already), which one is 
voted on?  All of them?

-Rob

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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

2011-06-03 Thread Benson Margulies

Please do not turn this thread into *ANOTHER* however polite argument
the possible construction of the community.



 So to be clear, the wiki page for the OOo proposal is open for anyone to
 edit and not just Apache members or the project's proposers.


Yes: As Sam wrote:

.  Defacement
 of the proposal will be quickly reverted.


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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

2011-06-03 Thread Benson Margulies


 And if we split the page into separate proposals (not unlikely given the
 clear differences of vision expressed on the list already), which one is
 voted on?  All of them?

Rob,

Splitting the page would be an extreme situation, and it would
indicate, to me, that the incubator PMC is faced with multiple
competing groups of people proposing multiple incompatible visions for
a podling.

I'm not sure it's ever happened. My organization instinct is to write
that, in this case, the IPMC would vote on ALL of them, and possibly
end up approving more than one.

Now, before anyone tees off on that, I realize that this would be an
absurd situation.

The ASF members in the room here, I think, can all agree that it is
our goal to help you all avoid reaching this pass. On some other
thread specific to the particular point of controversy, I for one am
happy to try to keep pouring oil on the troubled waves.

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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:01,  robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
 Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:

 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12,  robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
 ...
  This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal.  So we should be

 This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
 consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal.

 Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the
 name of purity (and division of community), or you can be inclusive.
 The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It
 would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to
 try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we
 want to see here.


 Greg,  TDF/LO are already mentioned in the proposal. If you have concrete
 suggestions, fire away.  But please do not accuse me of excluding them
 from the proposal or purity or division of community or suggest that
 I'm pretending anything.  It seems to me that you are being very quick
 to take offense, and I don't see where this is coming from.  Please be
 civil and assume that I am being sincere.  I will strive to do the same of
 you.

It is the pattern of query and response that I am objecting to.

Consider the string of emails:

R: The first email didn't mentioned anything about LO consuming our source.
G: I said it should, as that is a very real possibility
R: You said is that really collaboration?
G: Of course it is, and here is why
R: this is *our* proposal. not theirs. We don't need to talk about them.
G: give up

It is like pulling teeth to have you simply recognize that LO is a
part of this proposal and the eventual community. It's like you don't
even have that in your *mindset*, and that very much scares me. When
you argue to *not* put them into the proposal, then I call that
exclusive rather than inclusive.

And we should note that collaboration also means a tight
relationship between our development and theirs. That they will
consume our source, and we should incorporate that into our plans.

But at each point, there is some pedantic rationale around wording and
phrasing (ref: An extraordinary downstream consumer of OpenOffice
versus An extraordinary collaboration).

So yah. I'm giving up on this for now. My suggestions are hitting a
teflon wall. But it shouldn't. Including the LO community in this
proposal should be a no-brainer. I don't think that including them by
reference [to the Apache License] is a cop-out. Several times, you
fallen back to but they can just use the code like anybody else. But
they're AREN'T ANYBODY ELSE.

bye.
-g

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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:

 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
  On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
 
  On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh daniel.hais...@googlemail.com
 wrote:
  
   Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
   add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
   and proactive collaboration with other parties is important it's up to
   the community to add such a tone to the proposal.
  
   What do you think?
 
  The reason it is a wiki is exactly for this reason.  Go for it!
 
  What are the exact rules, Sam? Those of us who aren't insiders will be
 very
  reticent indeed about editing.

 Rules?  :-)

 From http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html :

 The incoming community needs to work together before presenting this
 proposal to the incubator. Think about and discuss future goals and
 the reasons for coming to Apache. Feel free to ask questions on list.


 Got any special rules for where the incoming community is already divided?
 :-)

There are two common patterns at the ASF: RTC and CTR, which are
Review The Commit and Commit Then Review.  Most places operate with a
CTR policy.

If it turns out that there are controversial topics that need to be
ironed out on list, then I encourage people to voluntarily follow a
Review Then Commit policy, i.e., discuss proposed modifications here,
attempt to build consensus and then proceed based on that consensus.

Non-controversial changes can continue with as CTR.

- Sam Ruby

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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:01,  robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
 Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:

 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12,  robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
 ...
  This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal.  So we should be

 This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
 consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal.

 Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the
 name of purity (and division of community), or you can be inclusive.
 The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It
 would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to
 try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we
 want to see here.

 Greg,  TDF/LO are already mentioned in the proposal. If you have concrete
 suggestions, fire away.  But please do not accuse me of excluding them
 from the proposal or purity or division of community or suggest that
 I'm pretending anything.  It seems to me that you are being very quick
 to take offense, and I don't see where this is coming from.  Please be
 civil and assume that I am being sincere.  I will strive to do the same of
 you.

 It is the pattern of query and response that I am objecting to.

 Consider the string of emails:

 R: The first email didn't mentioned anything about LO consuming our source.
 G: I said it should, as that is a very real possibility
 R: You said is that really collaboration?
 G: Of course it is, and here is why
 R: this is *our* proposal. not theirs. We don't need to talk about them.
 G: give up

 It is like pulling teeth to have you simply recognize that LO is a
 part of this proposal and the eventual community. It's like you don't
 even have that in your *mindset*, and that very much scares me. When
 you argue to *not* put them into the proposal, then I call that
 exclusive rather than inclusive.

I may have failed at mentoring.

This could also be a bit of a telephone game where what I thought I
said and what ultimately resulted after passing through several
people's retelling is not recognizable to me.

My principles were to suggest that people focus on what they bring to
the table, and to and to actively seek out others and get THEM to
identify what they bring to the table.

Again, the end result clearly did not come out that way, and I will
see what I can do to rectify that.

- Sam Ruby

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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 05:42:14 PM:

 
 So yah. I'm giving up on this for now. My suggestions are hitting a
 teflon wall. But it shouldn't. Including the LO community in this
 proposal should be a no-brainer. I don't think that including them by
 reference [to the Apache License] is a cop-out. Several times, you
 fallen back to but they can just use the code like anybody else. But
 they're AREN'T ANYBODY ELSE.
 

But I'm not giving up on you, Greg, or this section of the proposal. 

I am attaching this section of the proposal as it stands now. 

Would you or anyone else like to contribute any improvements?  Personal 
attacks, please, to /dev/null.

Regards,

-Rob


LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL. This limits the degree to 
which OpenOffice and LibreOffice can collaborate on code. However, we 
would be glad to discuss, as a project, ways in which we can collaborate 
with them in a way that respects the chosen licenses of both projects. 
This could include collaboration on jointly sponsored public events, 
interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared build management 
infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of build schedules, 
version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream requirements. 
Additionally, collaboration could include LibreOffice use of project 
deliverables per the Apache 2.0 license and their reporting of defects. If 
TDF decides at a later point to change to a compatible license, then this 
would open up additional ways in which we could collaborate, and we would 
welcome that as well. We believe that, in practice, the degree to which we 
are able to actually collaborate will be determined by the licence 
compatibility issue more than than any unwillingness to collaborate. 



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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

I suggest:

The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the
GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We
will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationship so that
the source code developed at Apache can be readily used downstream by
LibreOffice, as well as exploring ways for upstream contributions to be
received as much as possible within the constraints imposed by mutual
licensing choices.

There will be other ways we may be able to collaborate, including jointly
sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared
build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of
build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream
requirements. We will make this relationship a priority early in the life of
the podlet.

S.

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

2011-06-03 Thread dsh

+1 (I like the positive tone that tries to omit words having a
negative connotation)

Cheers
Daniel

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
 I suggest:

 The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
 community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the
 GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We
 will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationship so that
 the source code developed at Apache can be readily used downstream by
 LibreOffice, as well as exploring ways for upstream contributions to be
 received as much as possible within the constraints imposed by mutual
 licensing choices.

 There will be other ways we may be able to collaborate, including jointly
 sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared
 build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of
 build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream
 requirements. We will make this relationship a priority early in the life of
 the podlet.

 S.


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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

2011-06-03 Thread Davanum Srinivas

Simon,

As a Incubator PMC member, I'd like to hear what the TDF folks think about this 
suggested path. In the end the people
who do the day-to-day work will end up collaborating or not...But, here's my +1 
that implies that i'd like folks who are
signing on to this podling do their best to make this happen.

-- dims

On 06/03/2011 06:26 PM, dsh wrote:
 +1 (I like the positive tone that tries to omit words having a
 negative connotation)
 
 Cheers
 Daniel
 
 On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
 I suggest:

 The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
 community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the
 GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We
 will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationship so that
 the source code developed at Apache can be readily used downstream by
 LibreOffice, as well as exploring ways for upstream contributions to be
 received as much as possible within the constraints imposed by mutual
 licensing choices.

 There will be other ways we may be able to collaborate, including jointly
 sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared
 build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of
 build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream
 requirements. We will make this relationship a priority early in the life of
 the podlet.

 S.

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


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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

2011-06-03 Thread Ross Gardler

Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)

On 3 Jun 2011, at 23:01, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:

 If 
 TDF decides at a later point to change to a compatible license, then this 
 would open up additional ways in which we could collaborate, and we would 
 welcome that as well.

It's not necessary to suggest TDF changes it's chosen licence. It's true that 
if they did new possibilities would be opened but why should we expect them to 
do so. Some will find the suggestion insulting others will be happy to 
contribute their code to shared code under the Apache License 2.0 where it can 
be reused in LibreOffice, there is no new for a wholesale change of philosophy. 

 We believe that, in practice, the degree to which we 
 are able to actually collaborate will be determined by the licence 
 compatibility issue more than than any unwillingness to collaborate

Again, I don't think this is necessary, but if the first sentence (above) is 
removed I find it more reasonable. Personally I'd remove both. 

Ross


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

RE: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

2011-06-03 Thread Allen Pulsifer

 As a Incubator PMC member, I'd like to hear what the TDF folks think about
this suggested path.
 In the end the people who do the day-to-day work will end up collaborating
or not...But, here's
 my +1 that implies that i'd like folks who are signing on to this podling
do their best to make this happen.

Of course, there are many things on which it would be good to get input or
feedback of the TDF community.  But we (and I'm using the abstract we
here), should not be so self-important that we insist they come here to give
us their input.  Someone (someone like a sponsor of the proposal), needs to
head over to their place and engage them there.  That it simply common
courtesy, that when you want to get someone's involvement, you have the
courtesy to pay them a visit at their place.

Allen



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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

Excellent. Thanks, Simon!

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:16, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
 I suggest:

 The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
 community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the
 GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We
 will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationship so that
 the source code developed at Apache can be readily used downstream by
 LibreOffice, as well as exploring ways for upstream contributions to be
 received as much as possible within the constraints imposed by mutual
 licensing choices.

 There will be other ways we may be able to collaborate, including jointly
 sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared
 build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of
 build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream
 requirements. We will make this relationship a priority early in the life of
 the podlet.

 S.


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

RE: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

2011-06-03 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

I've edited it a tiny bit and may do more.  If we get into a Wikipedia 
edit-reversion war, I am sure that there are wiser heads who will intervene.  
(It is unfortunate that this wiki doesn't come with Discuss pages, but that 
doesn't mean we can't introduce one or more as our own convention.)

My suggestion is to take small steps. 

For bigger steps, it is probably a good idea to make new pages and have focused 
discussion on those pages until there is some apparent consensus on merging 
back into the main proposal text.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] 
 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktimkdxoce12t-xggq5ls+nmkluo...@mail.gmail.com%3e
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 14:21
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

[ ... ]

So to be clear, the wiki page for the OOo proposal is open for anyone to edit 
and not just Apache members or the project's proposers.

S.


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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

Discussion should appear here, rather than on the wiki. Leaving quick
questions and thoughts is fine, but for actual discussion: here.

Cheers,
-g

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:11, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
I've edited it a tiny bit and may do more. If we get into a Wikipedia
edit-reversion war, I am sure that there are wiser heads who will intervene.
(It is unfortunate that this wiki doesn't come with Discuss pages, but that
doesn't mean we can't introduce one or more as our own convention.)

My suggestion is to take small steps.

For bigger steps, it is probably a good idea to make new pages and have
focused discussion on those pages until there is some apparent consensus on
merging back into the main proposal text.

- Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com]

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktimkdxoce12t-xggq5ls+nmkluo...@mail.gmail.com%3e
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 14:21
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with
TDF/LO

[ ... ]

So to be clear, the wiki page for the OOo proposal is open for anyone to edit
and not just Apache members or the project's proposers.

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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

Given the generally positive response I've edited that text into the wiki.

S.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:

 Excellent. Thanks, Simon!

 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:16, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
  I suggest:
 
  The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
  community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on
 the
  GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We
  will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationship so
 that
  the source code developed at Apache can be readily used downstream by
  LibreOffice, as well as exploring ways for upstream contributions to be
  received as much as possible within the constraints imposed by mutual
  licensing choices.
 
  There will be other ways we may be able to collaborate, including jointly
  sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared
  build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of
  build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream
  requirements. We will make this relationship a priority early in the life
 of
  the podlet.
 
  S.
 

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




-- 
Simon Phipps
+1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/03/2011 06:16:22 PM:

 
 I suggest:
 
 The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
 community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on 
the
 GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We
 will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationship so 
that
 the source code developed at Apache can be readily used downstream by
 LibreOffice, as well as exploring ways for upstream contributions to be
 received as much as possible within the constraints imposed by mutual
 licensing choices.
 
 There will be other ways we may be able to collaborate, including 
jointly
 sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared
 build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of
 build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream
 requirements. We will make this relationship a priority early in the 
life of
 the podlet.
 

Simon,

Could you say a little of when you had in mind with this segment:

potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well 
as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users

By one definition, complementary means non-overlapping, pieces that are 
incomplete separately, but sum to 100%.  By that definition the statement 
could be read as saying that LO would focus on Linux, Windows and Mac 
consumer end-users, and Apache would not.

Would you agree that majority of users of this code base on Windows and 
Mac are using OpenOffice.org today, not LibreOffice?  I'd grant you that 
the opposite is likely true for Linux.

So by that definition of complementary, the statement in the wiki is not 
really true.

Assuming that is not what you intended to say, I hope it is not 
controversial to fix this in the wiki as:

The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org 
community, with an established focus on the GNU/Linux community as well as 
on Windows and Mac consumer end-users.

(the waffling with potentially doesn't seem to do anything in the 
sentence)

-Rob

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

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO