On 4 Jun 2011, at 18:18, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:50PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
>>> LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
>>> agree with the license terms under which LibreOffic
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:50PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> >>
> > LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
> > agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
> > available. Until or unless we resolve
On 4 June 2011 13:37, wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM:
>
> >
> > On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > > LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
> > > agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
> > > availabl
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM:
>
> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> >>
> > LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
> > agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
> > available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>>
>> LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
>> agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
>> available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I fee
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>>
> LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
> agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
> available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the
> statement above would need to be both qualifie
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 22:25, wrote:
>>...
>> 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
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 22:25, wrote:
>...
> 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-over
Simon Phipps 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
> wi
documentation is leading
to documents that are GPL3/CC-by dual-licensed.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 15:16
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration
Allen,
+1...fwiw, i did not say i needed to hear from them in this mailing
list :) The usual person tagged with this kind of responsibility is
the champion of the proposal and/or the mentors. i am quite fine
waiting to hear back through whatever channels are being used.
thanks,
dims
On Fri, Jun
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 wrote:
> Excellent. Thanks, Simon!
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:16, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > I suggest:
> >
> > "The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the Open
[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
essage-
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
Excellent. Thanks, Simon!
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:16, Simon Phipps 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 co
> 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
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
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 t
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 3 Jun 2011, at 22:42, Greg Stein wrote:
> When
> you argue to *not* put them [TDF/LO] into the proposal, then I call that
> "exclusive" rather than "inclusive".
+1
Ross
-
+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 wrote:
> I suggest:
>
> "The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
> community, with an established potentially highly comp
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 relationsh
Greg Stein 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
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I don't know how common it is in gen
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>
> 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.
>
I don't know how common it is in general, but the Apache community I'm most
familiar wit
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:01, wrote:
>> Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, wrote:
>>> >...
>>> > This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
>>>
>>> This is the sectio
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Besides
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:01, wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, 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
>
> 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 wi
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
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
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
> >
dsh 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 an
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
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh 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 th
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh 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 i
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh 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
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, whe
Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, 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.
>
> Lo
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, 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
Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 02:57:48 PM:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50, wrote:
> > Greg Stein 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
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50, wrote:
> > Greg Stein 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 yo
On 06/03/2011 12:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50, wrote:
Greg Stein 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
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50, wrote:
> Greg Stein 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 wit
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:50 PM, wrote:
> Simon Phipps 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.
> >
>
Greg Stein 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?
I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take source
code from our
Simon Phipps 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 acti
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.
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, 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 sta
48 matches
Mail list logo
