I don't see any of this discussion about numbers being helpful, only
divisive. My numbers are right. No, they're not. See? But those numbers
are too small.
Get over it already, people. Find something substative to discuss.
-g
On Jun 3, 2011 1:22 AM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 02.06.2011 22:40, schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
code and it didn't work well for a project this size.
Tangential to the responses you've already received, I'm curious as to the
problems you experienced with Subversion. Our
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 20:14 +, general-h...@incubator.apache.org
wrote:
Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
general@incubator.apache.org mailing list.
I'm working for my owner, who can be reached
at general-ow...@incubator.apache.org.
To confirm that you would like
I think this is not the right address to confirm your subscription.
On 1 June 2011 22:21, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 20:14 +, general-h...@incubator.apache.org
wrote:
Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
general@incubator.apache.org mailing list.
On 2:59 PM, Luke Kowalski wrote:
The following project is being sent in as an incubator candidate.
regards
luke
Okay,
First, I've been reading the talking points going back and forth on this
for about 1-2 days now. And there are some valid concerns.
(1) The project as a whole is LARGE.
Hi guys,
we would like to publish the OGNL [1] website, but I realized that
there is no ognl directory inside the incubator root's website:
mcucchiara@minotaur:/www/incubator.apache.org$ ls -la | grep -i ognl
I'm wondering if is a infra task or someone from the incubator team
with the proper
I have created that directory. You can now publish the static html files to
/www/incubator.apache.org/ognl
Let me know if any problems
Cheers
Christian
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Maurizio Cucchiara
maurizio.cucchi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys,
we would like to publish the OGNL [1]
cool, thanks a lot!!! :)
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Christian Grobmeier
grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
I have created that directory. You can now publish the static html files to
/www/incubator.apache.org/ognl
Let me
Thank you Christian, faster than the speed of light :)
I don't know if is the usual delay of the people.a.o, but I have no
write access.
I'm wondering if I'm a part of the incubator group
On 3 June 2011 11:08, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
I can take care of it. Will do now.
I'm wondering if I'm a part of the incubator group
No, I am not
mcucchiara@minotaur:/www/incubator.apache.org/ognl$ groups
mcucchiara committers struts
Do I need additional carma?
--
Maurizio Cucchiara
-
To unsubscribe,
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Craig L Russell
craig.russ...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Sebb,
These days we record exactly what is in the first line of the ICLA: Sidney
Phillip Rhodes. Both in the iclas.txt and the name of the document.
I'll note that we maintain two fields. One as Craig
Me too
lukaszlenart@minotaur:~$ groups
lukaszlenart committers struts
Thanks in advance
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
2011/6/3 Maurizio Cucchiara maurizio.cucchi...@gmail.com:
I'm wondering if I'm a part of the
mcucchiara@minotaur:/www/incubator.apache.org/ognl$ groups
mcucchiara committers struts
Do I need additional carma?
hmm i think yes:
drwxrwxr-x2 grobmeierincubator 2 Jun 3 09:10 ognl
ognl folder has the same permissions as every other folder in there.
Guess you all need to be
I have asked infra to add the ognl committers to the incubator group,
if this is the way to go.
Lets see what they respond :-)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Lukasz Lenart
lukasz.len...@googlemail.com wrote:
Me too
lukaszlenart@minotaur:~$ groups
lukaszlenart committers struts
Thanks in
Hi Christian,
to publish the site it is enough updating the
distributionManagement/site section in the POM, the running `mvn
site-deploy`
HTH, have a nice day,
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Christian Grobmeier
On 03/06/2011 04:07, James Kosin wrote:
(2) The licensing is also an issue, and a serious one at that. When a
project goes into Apache the entire project needs to be signed over by
all supporters and all code either signed over by all the copyright
holders or the copy-protected code removed.
OK will give it a try. Will commit the updated pom.
Anyway, we should return to the commons list again :-)
Cheers
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Simone Tripodi
simonetrip...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Christian,
to publish the site it is enough updating the
distributionManagement/site section in
Hi James,
Le 3 juin 11 à 05:07, James Kosin a écrit :
On 2:59 PM, Luke Kowalski wrote:
The following project is being sent in as an incubator candidate.
regards
luke
Okay,
First, I've been reading the talking points going back and forth on
this for about 1-2 days now. And there are some
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
The butler did it.
:-)
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Guys, if we are going to argue over the mistakes of the pasts
and the slights of the past, quite frankly, we aren't going to
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:59 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
(IMHO BUILDING and CHANGES are corner cases. I incline towards adding
license headers unless they are clearly trivial.)
I
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.org wrote:
snip
On the spirit of better 'ask for fogiveness than ask for permission'
I added my name to the proposal.
:-)
:-)
Robert
-
To unsubscribe,
On Jun 2, 2011, at 8:12 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
TL;DR version: I think I see people talking past each other for a bunch of
reasons, and I have a compromise proposal that might make things easier. It's
at the bottom, and explained in some detail in the middle.
Welcome to the discussion.
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:13 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
I don't see any of this discussion about numbers being helpful, only
divisive. My numbers are right. No, they're not. See? But those numbers
are too small.
Get over it already, people. Find something substative to discuss.
Agreed... if we
Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 08:02:25 AM:
There is a meta-question here: what are the criteria by which the IPMC
should evaluate a proposal?
1. Are there enough people on the proposal to plausibly start out?
I think everyone agrees on this as a legitimate
Here's the dilemma of 'question 2' as I see it.
Many podlings launch here with a very small group. If they do a good
job of marketing, if the podling is an itch that a lot of people want
to scratch, then more and more people show up, and all is well.
However, and it's a pretty big however, most
Here is a thread for some infrastructure implications of an OO podling.
Things to note:
1. OO is very large.
2. OO is a good-old C++ giant. It's not 'build once, run anywhere'. It
has to be built many times in many configurations to maintain
regression testing.
There is, in short, a detectable
Am 03.06.2011 14:52, schrieb Benson Margulies:
Here is a thread for some infrastructure implications of an OO podling.
Things to note:
1. OO is very large.
2. OO is a good-old C++ giant. It's not 'build once, run anywhere'. It
has to be built many times in many configurations to maintain
On 3 June 2011 10:20, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Craig L Russell
craig.russ...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Sebb,
These days we record exactly what is in the first line of the ICLA: Sidney
Phillip Rhodes. Both in the iclas.txt and the name of the
On 03/06/2011 13:35, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Benson Marguliesbimargul...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 08:02:25 AM:
There is a meta-question here: what are the criteria by which the IPMC
should evaluate a proposal?
1. Are there enough people on the proposal to plausibly start out?
I
(3) There is even talk as to why? I'm also curious as to why they would
need or want to transfer the project to Apache.
Only the person who made that decision knows the answer, and if you ask
them, you might get an answer, and it might even be the real answer. But
you never know.
I will
Welcome Drew!
I'm a new subscriber too. And I am reading with attention the
conversation about the input of OpenOffice.org in the ASF ecosystem.
--
---
Prof. Román H. Gelbort
No busquemos aplicaciones que
When this question comes up I've been asking the commenter to give a
reasoned estimate for how
many volunteers will be needed. I'm generally seeing that 20 core
developers are needed for project
maintenance. Some suggest more is needed for incubation, but I think this
might be a shifting
On 3 June 2011 14:31, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote:
(3) There is even talk as to why? I'm also curious as to why they
would
need or want to transfer the project to Apache.
Only the person who made that decision knows the answer, and if you ask
them, you might get an
Hi Rob,
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 21:26 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Finally, I think we're exaggerating the difficulty of getting out a
release of OpenOfice. LibreOffice did it very quickly. And so did IBM
with Symphony. This is not rocket science.
I am impressed by your
El 03/06/11 05:15, Ian Lynch escribió:
We are getting demand for
OpenOffice certification not any other name.
+1
This is a global and urgent demand by the companies that migrate to
OpenOffice.org... and we can't satisfier.
--
On 03/06/2011 14:53, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
It has been suggested
that volunteers, working on their own time, are sufficient for other
projects, so the ASF likes to see that. IMO, that is not going to cut it
with the OpenOffice code base. With the OpenOffice code base, you need a
minimum core
On Jun 3, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
Hi Rob,
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 21:26 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Finally, I think we're exaggerating the difficulty of getting out a
release of OpenOfice. LibreOffice did it very quickly. And so did IBM
with Symphony. This is
On 03/06/2011 15:01, Ian Lynch wrote:
So the safest community strategy is to develop community driven business
models that can sustain the project. I said this back in 2004 and went off
to do it because of no understanding in the community leaders or Sun at the
time. If 10% of the effort put
Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com wrote on 06/03/2011 10:05:31 AM:
As for continuity of OpenOffice releases, there was a full stable
release of OpenOffice in January and a preview 3.4.0 release in April.
It is very reasonable for the new ApacheOffice project to start up,
and even
That is what I was suggesting and which Rob claims he won't need because its
so easy.
{Terse? Mobile!}
On Jun 3, 2011 3:23 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
Hi Rob,
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 21:26 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Stupid question time: If TDF already has the *build* infrastructure,
then isn't *that* a clear choice of where at least some level of
cooperation can occur.
After all, the ASF provides source... the TDF could provide
the builds?? (but that's not all, of course)...
what a fantastic idea!
Um, it seems to me that this discussion of builds and distribution
belongs on the dev list of the podling when/if there is a podling.
Unless someone feels that there's a problem so gigantic that it should
motivate -1 votes for the podling itself.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Christian
On 03/06/2011 16:04, Benson Margulies wrote:
Um, it seems to me that this discussion of builds and distribution
belongs on the dev list of the podling when/if there is a podling.
Unless someone feels that there's a problem so gigantic that it should
motivate -1 votes for the podling itself.
I
On 03/06/2011 16:00, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
Stupid question time: If TDF already has the *build* infrastructure,
then isn't *that* a clear choice of where at least some level of
cooperation can occur.
After all, the ASF provides source... the TDF could provide
the builds?? (but that's not
Of course it does... but we are discussing ways where
we can use all aspects of the existing communities to
give the IPMC a warm-and-fuzzy regarding voting +1
On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Um, it seems to me that this discussion of builds and distribution
belongs on the
On 03/06/2011 16:09, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Ross Gardlerrgard...@apache.org wrote:
This is why, inside the ASF, we expect individuals to represent the
communities interests not their commercial or their employers interests.
It is difficult to get a man to
I'll go away on this. My concern has been to avoid setting an
impossible bar of organized cooperation as a prerequisite to voting
for the podling. It would be a wonderful thing if cooperation breaks
out, but I think that it is unrealistic to achieve very much of it
before the podling launches.
Can we launch the Apache Sausage Project?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote:
On 03/06/2011 16:09, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Ross Gardlerrgard...@apache.org wrote:
This is why, inside the ASF, we expect individuals to
Hello everyone,
and thanks for the feedback to my initial mail. I've read many other
messages and blog postings, and would like to focus on just a hand full
of points that I think are crucial. Everything I leave out I do not
leave out because I consider it unimportant in general, but because
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here
[snip]
I hope I replied to all questions asked. If I missed something, this was not
on purpose, so feel free to ask again, and I will
On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 03/06/2011 16:00, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
Stupid question time: If TDF already has the *build* infrastructure,
then isn't *that* a clear choice of where at least some level of
cooperation can occur.
After all, the ASF provides
On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very similar
suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these two threads
together.
Simon's email, from what I can tell, boils down to:
1. The podling goes
- What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of
a free office suite?
It is not clear to what extent the choice of the ASF was driven by Oracle,
and you probably won't get either Oracle or IBM to talk about that.
However, to the extent that it was driven by Oracle, that
This vote has now passed with 3 binding +1s (2 from the dev list
vote), no +0's, and no -1's.
The binding votes were:
Stefan Seelmann, +1
Doug Cutting, +1 (on dev vote thread)
Tom White, +1 (on dev vote thread)
The non-binding votes (including those from the dev list vote) were as follows:
Eh? I thought we were already a sausagefest?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:16, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Can we launch the Apache Sausage Project?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote:
On 03/06/2011 16:09, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Fri,
Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote on 06/03/2011 11:45:03
AM:
It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that
is
licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL. If The Document
Foundation
is willing to change its release from the LGPL to the Apache
Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 11:09:23 AM:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org
wrote:
This is why, inside the ASF, we expect individuals to represent the
communities interests not their commercial or their employers
interests.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote:
- What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of
a free office suite?
It is not clear to what extent the choice of the ASF was driven by Oracle,
and you probably won't get either Oracle or
On 03/06/2011 16:43, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very similar
suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these two threads
together.
Simon's email, from what I can
On 6/3/2011 10:20 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here, as others
can comment
much better about the impact of the various licenses, and how they play
together, and what
ASF could to with the software grant they received, may it be
On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 03/06/2011 16:43, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very similar
suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these two
Sam Ruby wrote:
From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
to change their license to the Apache License.
As I understand it, TDF should certainly be able to replace their original
LGPL license
Hi Florian,
I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up
at Apache or any other entity.
Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
other foundation. So we are where we are.
Let me speak for my self: I do this as a pure
On 3 June 2011 17:16, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
to change their license to the Apache License.
As I understand it, TDF
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote:
On 02/06/2011 14:43, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Simon Brouwersimon.o...@xs4all.nl wrote on 06/02/2011 09:21:53 AM:
snip
What isn't clear to me are things like the following:
1) A strong QA member, who does manual
Ian Lynch wrote:
Noel J. Bergman:
Sam Ruby wrote:
From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
to change their license to the Apache License.
As I understand it, TDF should certainly be
On 3 June 2011 18:21, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Ian Lynch wrote:
Noel J. Bergman:
Sam Ruby wrote:
From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
to change their license to
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
and especially to use the trademark (which is the only actual asset being
transferred) for everyone's good.
And as a tangible, valuable asset, the ASF cannot, as a 501(c)3
non-profit just give it away to just anyone... in general,
the
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
Hi Florian,
I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up
at Apache or any other entity.
Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 13:50, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
all
of the contributions it
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
Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled
out his position. As I read it, we could license
the OpenOffice trademark to the Document Foundation
for, as Simon put it, business as usual distributions.
If we wanted to we could specify a time/date/event
upon which that license terminates,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote:
Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
related communities.
If the differences truly are insurmountable, I'd like to see that
explained in the
On 6/3/2011 12:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
other foundation. So we are where we are.
We may be where we are, but we collectively have the opportunity to
collaborate once
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled
out his position. As I read it, we could license
the OpenOffice trademark to the Document Foundation
for, as Simon put it, business as usual distributions.
If we
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very
similar suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these
two threads together.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
As a long time member of the OpenOffice.org community, I would like to
offer
my thoughts on the Oracle/IBM proposal.
Thanks for the very well-written and well-reasoned post.
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled
out his position. As I read it, we could license
the OpenOffice trademark to the Document Foundation
for, as Simon put
Oh completely agreed there. A lot of this hot-air
is quite premature. Geronimo was nothing other than
a JBoss fork and we had no problems entertaining that
resolution, I see no major concerns for OOo other than
volunteer resources signed up for the task.
- Original Message
From: Sam
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote:
Ahhh... Yes I see something missing from Simons mail here. I assumed that
the LibreOffice distribution would gradually migrate to using the core
components proposed here (Apache ODFSuite as Simin called it) and thus
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
all
of the contributions it has received.
As I understand it Noel, TDF
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:22 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote on 06/02/2011 06:58:45 PM:
snip
Second, if Apache takes on OpenOffice, it will instantly become the
Apache
project with the largest number of end-users (if you include the number
of
I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim. Yes, I
am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am here on the
list is to be constructive and not to be bitch-slapped and misrepresented
just for showing up.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Jim Jagielski
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
If I were voting on this incubator proposal (and of course I know I am not),
I would want to know that the people proposing it had a grasp of the
enormity of the task and a plan for dealing with it /from day one/ and not
from an undefined
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com
wrote:
Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an
upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community
spanning these projects (as widely as ideologically possible). I would
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
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
the podling.
These are decisions the podling should be making.
They can only make those decisions if they know they have to make them. I
think it's
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim. Yes, I
am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am here on the
list is to be constructive and not to be bitch-slapped and misrepresented
On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor. It would
be good to see the rest of that list hashed out and know that those already
on board are good with the individuals signed up (including IBM
Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to
relicense all of the contributions it has received.
As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under open source
licenses alone and unlike ASF does not require a contributor license
agreement, so is unable to relicense
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:27, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an
upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community
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.
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
I think you need to allow a little time for people to read what has been
written, absorb and reflect on it, and react appropriately. And I'm not
(just) talking about ASF members--I'm talking about the potentially larger
community. Rushing things will not
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de
wrote:
Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
related
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de
wrote:
Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
I
Whoops. Forgot to copy the list.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
No; there are some good
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
If I were voting on this incubator proposal (and of course I know I am
not),
I would want to know that the people proposing it had a grasp of the
enormity of the task
I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim.
Yes, I am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am
here on the list is to be constructive and not to be bitch-slapped and
misrepresented just for showing up.
This email has no place on this list. Take
Cmon, being bitch-slapped is why we're *all* here. :)
The fact is that I feel that having OOo here and, especially,
under the AL2.0, is a Very Good Thing. No, that does not
mean in any way, shape or form that I think that TDF needs
to go away, is superfluous or any other sort of nonsensical
1 - 100 of 221 matches
Mail list logo
