On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 22:25, robert_w...@us.ibm.com 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
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net 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
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net 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
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM:
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net 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
On 4 June 2011 13:37, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM:
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
agree with the license terms
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:50PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net 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
On 4 Jun 2011, at 18:18, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:50PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
agree with the license terms
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
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.
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
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:
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
+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
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
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
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
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
...@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
/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
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
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
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 22:25, robert_w...@us.ibm.com 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
41 matches
Mail list logo
