Hi Jean,
Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
No, I was not saying or suggesting that. I've got a bit lost in this
thread... were you or someone asking earlier if the specific situation
of the OOoAuthors choice of license had been discussed at CC?
It was a mail by Jonathon Blake who said, that Daniel
Excuse me for top posting but I am about to try to get some sleep.
I think you are absolutely right. Scott told me a week or so ago that he
would be working on this. Since he appears unavailable or incognito or
whatever. Can we put this on the back burner for a week, please?
http://www.openoffic
OK, some suggestions from me about improving the process at Docs.
First, we need a clear indication on the first page of the Docs
site about how people can get involved if they want to. We don't
want that notice to interfere with people finding the info they
want if they have come there to get
G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
I won't go into a lot of boring detail on this, but the short
version is that my contributions went into the IssueZilla system
and never emerged, despite several reviews and repeated requests
for them to be published.
You have said this before but I cannot find th
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 20:14 -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo wrote:
> G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 13:14 -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo wrote:
> >
> >>G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
> >>>SO if you want to complain about progress or lack thereof at the doc
> >>>project or any of the NL proj
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 20:15 -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo wrote:
> G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
> > As an outside group, OOoAuthors is free to use whatever license it
> > likes. I have no problem with that. Just that items from OOoAuthors must
> > be non-editable to be included on http://documentation.op
G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
As an outside group, OOoAuthors is free to use whatever license it
likes. I have no problem with that. Just that items from OOoAuthors must
be non-editable to be included on http://documentation.openoffice.org/
This is certainly in keeping with the links you provided
G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 13:14 -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo wrote:
G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
SO if you want to complain about progress or lack thereof at the doc
project or any of the NL projects, get involved with OpenOffice.org and
not a third party project that seems
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 09:45 +1000, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
> G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
> > Daniel did find it hard. I do not know or understand why. I do know he
> > did not like working within the existing system
>
> I'd like to comment on my own experience.
>
> I started at Docs in Decembe
G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
Daniel did find it hard. I do not know or understand why. I do know he
did not like working within the existing system
I'd like to comment on my own experience.
I started at Docs in December 2002, about six months before
Daniel did. I found working there one of th
G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 16:02 +, Jonathon Blake wrote:
Charles wrote:
documentation project will soon release an HOW TO that will explain everything
there is to know about the OOo documentation work.
Only about five years to late.
xan
jonathon
Perhaps.
G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
I am not stopping you. I would like it though if the OOoAuthors group
would stop claiming to be an official OOo projects when in fact it is
not.
Trying to avoid getting too caught up in this, but OOC, where does
OOOAuthors make this claim?
--
Peter Kupfer -- U
GRS wrote:
> The other thing about the license is that this change has not been passed
> through the CC.
Please explain what "this change has not been passed through" means,?
Bearing in mind that:
i) It was discussed in the Community Council Meetings;
ii) It was approved by the Community Counc
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 07:43 +1000, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
> Andre Schnabel wrote:
> > Hi Jean,
> > As you may read, the discussion is about CC license for documents with
> > fixed content. I hope, you don't want to say, Daniel brought this idea
> > to the Community Council (to use document, dev
G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
I tried it and the document was promised a proof and review. Nada. I
waited considerable time then had it posted directly to documentation.
Mind this was back in January but that should not have stopped a review
but it did. I came away feeling NIH so ignore and it wil
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 06:15 +1000, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
> G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
> > I tried it and the document was promised a proof and review. Nada. I
> > waited considerable time then had it posted directly to documentation.
> > Mind this was back in January but that should not have s
Hi,
Please explain what "this change has not been passed through" means,?
Bearing in mind that:
i) It was discussed in the Community Council Meetings;
ii) It was approved by the Community Council meetings;
iii) Daniel said in a Community Council meeting that OOoAuthors was
going to use a dual
Andre Schnabel wrote:
Hi Jean,
As you may read, the discussion is about CC license for documents with
fixed content. I hope, you don't want to say, Daniel brought this idea
to the Community Council (to use document, developed at OOoAuthors as
fixed content within the OOo-project)?
No, I was
Andre Schnabel wrote:
Please explain what "this change has not been passed through" means,?
Bearing in mind that:
i) It was discussed in the Community Council Meetings;
ii) It was approved by the Community Council meetings;
iii) Daniel said in a Community Council meeting that OOoAuthors was
goin
Hi Jean,
Could we please stay with the facts? .. that means: please point to
the archives, where this can be verified, od stop the discussion as
it is pointless.
Here is a note from Louis, related to the minutes of a CC meeting held
2005-01-20 which included agreement to update the Guidelin
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 13:14 -0500, Peter Kupfer OOo wrote:
> G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 16:02 +, Jonathon Blake wrote:
> >
> >>Charles wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>documentation project will soon release an HOW TO that will explain
> >>>everything there is to know about t
GRS wrote:
> Really the archives do not support your statement.
I've got messages from that list that do support my claims.
xan
jonathon
--
Does your Office Suite conform to ISO Standards?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PRO
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 06:25 +1000, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
> Andre Schnabel wrote:
> >> Please explain what "this change has not been passed through" means,?
> >>
> >> Bearing in mind that:
> >> i) It was discussed in the Community Council Meetings;
> >> ii) It was approved by the Community Counci
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 06:54 +1000, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
> G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
> > Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
> >>
> >>When you say "I tried it and the document was promised a proof
> >>and review", which document are you referring to and where did
> >>you submit it for review? Docs or
G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
When you say "I tried it and the document was promised a proof
and review", which document are you referring to and where did
you submit it for review? Docs or OOoAuthors?
Way before you got involve. All was done on OOoAuthors though.
..
25 matches
Mail list logo
