Re: Troll warning
Oh dear, this is starting to feel like meta-trolling. Let's move on, please --tim On Tuesday, May 8, 2012, Simon Phipps wrote: On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.comjavascript:; wrote: On May 8, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: On 8 May 2012, at 21:18, wrote: Just another warning to not feed the trolls. Now that AOOo 3.4 has been announced, we are starting to see some really untoward behavior by some of the more vocal LO people. Just let them go... the world will see that it's those people who are fighting against cooperation between LO and AOOo and, hopefully, wiser and saner minds will prevail. Do you have specifics, Jim? I've not seen any, just messages of congratulations[1]. If you forward me links I'll make sure the TDF Membership Committee takes a look. Yes, I do. But I'd prefer to not share them. All one needs to do is simply spend a minute on GOOG. I did, and I found nothing that was even as questionable as the stuff you dismissed. Perhaps you can send me the searches you are using? S.
Re: Google Analytics on download.openoffice.org
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I'd like to enable Google Analytics on our download page. This would allow us to collect some important data, such as the geographical distribution of download requests. This information has been sought for 3.4 mirror distribution planning. It can also provide continuity of our download statistics which we would otherwise lose when moving off of MirrorBrain. Of course, if some else is willing to implement an alternative way of collecting this info, then I'd love it hear it. But I think GA is the most direct method. Lazy consensus, 72 hours, etc. Hi Rob, As long as it's accompanied by a link to a privacy policy, you should be fine. Jackrabbit's[1] is, I think, the canonical example around here... Thanks, --tim [1] - http://jackrabbit.apache.org/privacy-policy.html
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote: On 2011-11-16 3:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: Hi Martin; --- On Wed, 11/16/11, Martin Hollmichel wrote: ... On 11/16/11 6:33 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 16 November 2011 16:56, Martin Hollmichel martin.hollmic...@googlemail.com wrote: ... What kind of a release are you talking about. OOo releases can only be made from the Apache Software Foundation. Perhaps you are planning a downstream release that conforms to our trademark policy. Please let us know your plans. we're offering to provide an interim release of OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 with a joint messaging of ASF and Team OpenOffice.org. This would fill the gap between the 3.3.0 release from beginning of this year (with some known severe issues) and the first AOO release in the future. I'm convinced that this proceeding will help strengthen the trust in OpenOffice.org / AOO. Based on the very little bit of information provided here on the Apache lists, I can't see how your plans would possibly be approved by the ASF. Obviously, having more information about your plans, and being able to see your work in the form of patches or commits to the AOO podling's Subversion tree would be a great start to be able to do this kind of work. So my first suggestion is to start doing some of the actual coding work here, on the ooo-dev@ list. Then, work with the podling to show the PPMC that this is a good idea, and deserves to proceed together with the excellent progress the PPMC is making on the 3.4 release. Then, if the PPMC has a clear consensus to work with such an interim release plan, we can discuss any trademark, legal, or press/messaging questions you might have. What is difficult for me to understand is that both Stefan Taxhet and Martin Hollmichel signed up as Initial Committers to the Apache project, but have never signed an iCLA. What makes you think that? See: http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html --tim
Re: [VOTE] Trademark and Brand
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Allen Pulsifer apulsi...@apache.org wrote: The ballot is open for a full 7 day week closing 12:00 p.m. EST ( UTC - 5 ) on Wednesday, November 16, 2011. Question: Does 12:00 p.m. refer to 12 noon or 12 midnight, and if it refers to 12 midnight, does it refer to the start of the day on November 16 or to the end of the day on November 16? I always thought 12pm was noon. But from reading that Wikipedia article I can see that it can be confusing. However, Don's original note said his intent was to have the ballot run for a full 7 days. And he sent the note on Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:47 PM EST. So ending at noon on Wed would not be a full 7 days. So maybe let it run until midnight? FWIW, many projects successfully use The World Clock's Fixed Time[1] capability on votes to avoid just this confusion... Thanks, --tim [1] - http://www.timeanddate.com/time/
