Re: [DISCUSS] ML Moderators

If you do, I suggest also including the timezone we're covering so we can spot gaps. For example, while I am located in UTC I generally cover UTC-5. S. On 10 Sep 2012, at 02:47, Shenfeng Liu wrote: > Thanks very much for the list, Dave! > I wonder if it is proper to publish the ML moderator lis

Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > > --- Mar 3/7/12, Simon Phipps ha scritto: > ... > > > > On 3 Jul 2012, at 15:29, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > > > > > > > --- Mar 3/7/12, Simon Phipps > > ha scritto: > > > .

Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing

On 3 Jul 2012, at 15:29, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > --- Mar 3/7/12, Simon Phipps ha scritto: > ... >> >> Please can we have an update on that effort to get all the >> CWS made available then? It seems a perfectly reasonable >> request, one I and other

Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing

On 3 Jul 2012, at 14:19, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen > wrote: >> Hi Rob, >> >> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 07:53:25AM -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen >>> wrote: Hi all, back in my Oracle days I did

Re: Next steps for Symphony and AOO

On 13 Jun 2012, at 23:56, Ma Yong Lin wrote: > 在 2012-6-14，上午4:14，Simon Phipps 写道： >> >> OK, understood. But what was the base version of the fork you've been >> porting to? 3.1? > > Yes. Please see FAQ in http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Symphony f

Re: Next steps for Symphony and AOO

On 13 Jun 2012, at 21:02, Rob Weir wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: >>>> 2012/6/12 Rob Weir >>>>> >>>>> II. Use Symphony as the the new base, and merge (over time) AOO (and >>>>> OOo) enhancements an

Re: Next steps for Symphony and AOO

>> 2012/6/12 Rob Weir >>> >>> II. Use Symphony as the the new base, and merge (over time) AOO (and >>> OOo) enhancements and bug fixes into the new trunk. This approach >>> quickly gives a new UI, something we could fairly call Apache >>> OpenOffice 4.0. Apologies if I missed this, but what ve

Re: Moderation best practices & FAQ

On 7 Jun 2012, at 13:42, Rob Weir wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Peter Junge wrote: >> Hi moderators, *, >> >> I have a couple of questions WRT the best practices of moderating AOO >> mailing list. >> My questions are: >> >> 1) Shall moderators contact senders who are not subscribed

Re: [ML] Please state that the mail was approved and that the author is not subscribed to the ML

On 8 May 2012, at 23:32, Marcus (OOo) wrote: > Am 05/09/2012 12:07 AM, schrieb Simon Phipps: >> >> On 8 May 2012, at 22:55, Marcus (OOo) wrote: >> >>> When you as ML moderator approve a post to a mailing list, please can you >>> also state that the auth

Re: [ML] Please state that the mail was approved and that the author is not subscribed to the ML

On 8 May 2012, at 22:55, Marcus (OOo) wrote: > When you as ML moderator approve a post to a mailing list, please can you > also state that the author is not subscribed to the ML and that everybody who > wants to replay has to CC'ing the author? > > This would be very helpful from the start of

Re: Troll warning

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Jim Jagielski 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

Re: Troll warning

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

Re: Clarifying facts

On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote: > > Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose. Remember, FAQ's > are not intended to be read as an article, one after another. > Typically they are things we we link to and point users to for > specific questions. Since you have essentially el

Re: Clarifying facts

On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:08, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:54, Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: >>>> >>>> On 14 Mar 2012, at 0

Re: Clarifying facts

On 14 Mar 2012, at 01:35, Rob Weir wrote: > > Allowing a few more brushes in there is a great idea. You've made quite a few edits I see - thanks. With respect, I think you are making it rather verbose and losing the easy-to-read bulleted approach. You are also introducing a style that exte

Re: Clarifying facts

On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:54, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:25, Rob Weir wrote: >>> >>> It may be better to emphasize the questions that will have a useful >>> lifetime of much

Re: Clarifying facts

On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:25, Rob Weir wrote: > > It may be better to emphasize the questions that will have a useful > lifetime of much more than the time it will take to achieve consensus > on the responses. Actually, it's looking pretty good already. My experience of FAQs is that a good FAQ sta

Re: Clarifying facts

On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:07, drew wrote: > On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 17:53 -0600, Larry Gusaas wrote: >> On 2012-03-13 3:38 PM Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: >>> all the 6th point "Where can I get updates to the copy of OpenOffice.org >>> that I am running?" sounds like FUD. >> >> That is a very common

Re: Clarifying facts

On 13 Mar 2012, at 21:46, drew jensen wrote: > > Thanks Simon, > > I took up your offer and removed the line completely. I'll not put it back, but I still believe it is appropriate to include the reference to LibreOffice if not the link. I'd welcome another contributor editing an appropriate

Re: Clarifying facts

On 13 Mar 2012, at 21:38, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: > Hi *, > > all the 6th point "Where can I get updates to the copy of OpenOffice.org > that I am running?" sounds like FUD. > "... there will be no patches to those earlier binary programs released" > ... well, there were *never* patches for

Re: Clarifying facts

On 13 Mar 2012, at 21:28, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > > --- Mar 13/3/12, eric b ha scritto: > >> Hi, >> >> Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ? >> (e.g. just put the name of the derivated software) ? >> > +1 > > Simon added the mention to libreoffice, I felt it was appro

Re: OpenOffice Credits?

On 13 Mar 2012, at 21:26, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> On 13 Mar 2012, at 21:18, Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> The "about" box in the dev snapshots says: >>> >>> "Apache OpenOffice acknow

Re: OpenOffice Credits?

On 13 Mar 2012, at 21:18, Rob Weir wrote: > The "about" box in the dev snapshots says: > > "Apache OpenOffice acknowledges all community members, especially > those mentioned at http://www.openoffice.org/welcome/credits.html"; > > But that page has not been updated. > > Was this page just manu

Re: Clarifying facts

On 13 Mar 2012, at 19:02, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > I propose that you write them into a FAQ and that after fixing > it according to the consensus in this list we publish it in the > openoffice.org website. OK, I've pulled a first alpha draft together just from this thread at: https://cwiki.apa

Re: Clarifying facts

On 13 Mar 2012, at 19:02, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > I really think this posting is very valuable though. > > I propose that you write them into a FAQ and that after fixing > it according to the consensus in this list we publish it in the > openoffice.org website. The public Wiki is probably a bett

Re: Clarifying facts

On 13 Mar 2012, at 17:45, Rory O'Farrell wrote: > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:42:01 + > Simon Phipps wrote: > > > >>> The AOO project team includes a large number of the original >>> developers, Symphony developers, community developers and new >>

Re: Clarifying facts

spun; I felt they were concise answers to the questions I was being asked. > > On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I >> have been getting an increasing

Re: Clarifying facts

Thanks for the comments so far. On 13 Mar 2012, at 16:36, drew wrote: > On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 16:25 +0000, Simon Phipps wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I >> have been getting an increasing number of en

Clarifying facts

Hi all, Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I have been getting an increasing number of enquiries about the status of Apache OpenOffice from a variety of sources. I'm attempting, in good faith, to maintain an objective status summary the Apache OpenOffice in

Re: Is any one here familiar with OpenOffice?

On 13 Mar 2012, at 15:37, Armin wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote: >> On 12 Mar 2012, at 12:50, Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> I jest,of course. >>> >>> But seriously, there are some claiming that "all" of the >>> OpenOffice.org project went ov

Re: Is any one here familiar with OpenOffice?

On 12 Mar 2012, at 16:08, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 3/12/12 4:34 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> Out of interest, where have you seen that statement from an authoritative >> source? The former community seems spread between the AOO project and >> LibreOffice to me,

Re: Is any one here familiar with OpenOffice?

On 12 Mar 2012, at 15:38, Rob Weir wrote: > I'll decline your attempt to divert the conversation. It's far from it Rob. It's a polite and serious question. No-one I know doubts the experience of the former OpenOffice.org developers who joined this project, so I am rather surprised to see you

Re: Is any one here familiar with OpenOffice?

On 12 Mar 2012, at 12:50, Rob Weir wrote: > I jest,of course. > > But seriously, there are some claiming that "all" of the > OpenOffice.org project went over to LibreOffice and that the Apache > has zero experience with this code base. I know this sounds crazy, > but how can we best refute that

RE: [RELEASE] Bug 118037 - oo should warn opening/saving libreoffice files

On Mar 2, 2012 7:12 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: > > I agree with Oliver that it is INVALID. > > This means using metadata in valid ODF files as a way of > discriminating against the producer. That sucks. The > generator marker is explicitly not for this purpose. This is a very important poi

Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed code

On 17 Jan 2012, at 01:46, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Perhaps one source of misunderstanding at AOO is the notion that a > contribution to Apache OpenOffice is transitively available to LibreOffice by > virtue of ALv2. Thanks, Dennis. This is actually true in both directions. There is more to

Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed code

On 17 Jan 2012, at 01:07, Joe Schaefer wrote: > Did you have trouble with the part where > he wrote "this mailing list"? In any case > we have 1-way compatibility from AL to LGPL > so there's little technical need for it. No, Joe, I spotted that, but thanks for your concern. This meme only a

Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed code

On 16 Jan 2012, at 20:51, Rob Weir wrote: > As far as I can tell, there is nothing that would prevent an > individual developer from submitting a patch to this mailing list or > to the LO mailing list and saying it was available AL2 or MPL/LGPL at > the receiver's election. Will you be proposing

Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed code

On 4 Jan 2012, at 20:28, Joe Schaefer wrote: > It depends on how that is actually done: There is indeed plenty of detail to take into consideration, and we could ping-pong the discussion around many nuances if we wanted to (for example: there's often no need to edit the file to change the way i

Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed code

On 4 Jan 2012, at 19:33, Andrew Rist wrote: > In a similar way, (as I understand it) LO will be able to use ALv2 licensed > code - but not relicense it. Code can be made available under multiple licenses simultaneously, as long as none of the licenses in force have terms that are mutually inco

Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed code

On 4 Jan 2012, at 12:59, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 1/4/12 1:08 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> My personal opinions on this, naturally: >> >> On 4 Jan 2012, at 11:35, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >> >>> In detail if a derivative project merge our now Apache license

Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed code

My personal opinions on this, naturally: On 4 Jan 2012, at 11:35, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > In detail if a derivative project merge our now Apache licensed code with > their code that was based on the former Oracle licensed LGPL code. This code > becomes automatically Apache licensed, correct? P

Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)

On 4 Jan 2012, at 08:03, eric b wrote: > > To justify this point of view, I got one famous example in mind : one > NeoOffice link was added (Simon Phipps around already ...) on the main > OpenOffice.org porting project web page. It was a disaster for OpenOffice.org > beca

Re: Announce list is live

On 28 Dec 2011, at 19:26, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > >> >> Hi Andrew -- >> >> I just forward the message I received from Rob in total to " >> annou...@openoffice.org". Got a return from SYMPA that the editors would >> look at it. If you or any

Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?

On 19 Dec 2011, at 16:56, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 12/17/11 4:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> Surely that's just a matter of fact, though? When AOO makes a new release, >> it will be a different codebase under a different brand, so on both charts >> would show as a

Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?

On Dec 17, 2011 5:25 PM, "Ross Gardler" wrote: > > I'm looking for something that shows diversity in the open document format > ecosystem. Ah, OK. Rob's chart is unsuitable for that, as he only shows projects that have rebranded or reused OpenOffice.org at some time in history. There are a number

Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?

On Dec 17, 2011 4:13 PM, "Ross Gardler" wrote: > > It's not the relative adoption I want to show. If I did want that then > Michaels would indeed be a better document). What do you want to show? Maybe one of us can help by coming up with a suitable graphical representation that shows it without m

Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?

e > message I'm after. > > Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. > On Dec 17, 2011 2:40 PM, "Simon Phipps" wrote: > > > > > On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote: > > > > > On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir

Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?

On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir wrote: > >> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png > > Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I > don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-d

Re: Neutral / shared security list ...

On 30 Nov 2011, at 12:13, Rob Weir wrote: > > and Simon, people who were not > part of this process. To their outside and highly political view, Hey Rob, While it's good for the way you characterise me privately to finally be made crystal clear in public, please note that I have been a parti

Re: Neutral / shared security list ...

On 29 Nov 2011, at 12:17, Michael Meeks wrote: > I've finally got around to setting up: > > officesecur...@lists.freedesktop.org > > It is intended as a vendor neutral, neutrally hosted list for reporting > security vulnerabilities. Thanks, Michael, it's good to see positive action on t

Re: What about BrOffice?

On 28 Nov 2011, at 18:24, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > I am not meaning to alienate the Brazilian community or > anything like that. Just wondering if there are thoughts > on BrOffice brand and releases. I believe the BrOffice community joined the Document Foundation some time ago and is now fully me

Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org

On 27 Nov 2011, at 20:47, Rob Weir wrote: > > Some of the external links are to the kind of content we are already > throwing out. > > For example: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html points to > http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html > > It is entirely irrelevant to o

Re: Proposal for retirement of openoffice.org email forwarder

On 22 Nov 2011, at 00:02, Dave Fisher wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> Is Andrew also able to arrange for all the @openoffice.org addresses Oracle >> has on record to receive a one-time termination-of-service e-mail sent to >>

Re: OO.o 3.3.1 Maintenance Release Consideration

It's not at all obvious to me why one couldn't just take a LibreOffice release such as 3.4, created from the same source outside the Apache community, and apply the same logic to it as is being applied to this 3.3.1 proposal. With the added bonus that no-one much has to do any work apart from ch

Re: GPL'd dictionaries (was Re: ftp.services.openoffice.org?)

On 24 Nov 2011, at 22:09, Rob Weir wrote: > We are working on a release. We are not facing an immediate graduation vote. I had gained the impression over the past half-year that the threshold for Apache to permit a podling to make a release was the same as for graduation. Is that perception

Re: Proposal for retirement of openoffice.org email forwarder

On 21 Nov 2011, at 17:27, Rob Weir wrote: > 1) Check with Andrew on the latest date where we can be assured the > email forwarder will be still in operation. I don't want users > surprised, but neither do I want this to appear open-ended. Is Andrew also able to arrange for all the @openoffice.o

Re: Getting permission to use OpenOffice Trademarks (draft)

On 20 Nov 2011, at 22:06, Rob Weir wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Rob Weir wrote: >> We went through this all a couple of months ago. We processed >> permission requests for a book and a training certificate program. >> But the community has grown and there are list members who were

Re: oooforum.org

On 20 Nov 2011, at 16:20, Shane Curcuru wrote: > > > If you have an actual concern about improper use of any Apache marks, then I > suggest you take action to ensure that the appropriate ASF (P)PMC or officer > knows about the *specific* situation. That's great advice in the general case. Gi

Re: oooforum.org

On 20 Nov 2011, at 09:33, Peter Junge wrote: > Hi, > > is there any admin of oooforum.org around here? > > It's getting spamed with really disgusting content on the front page. I don't see that, but I do see unlicensed use of Apache trademarks. S.

Re: Getting permission to use OpenOffice Trademarks (draft)

On 19 Nov 2011, at 17:38, Ross Gardler wrote: > Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. > On Nov 19, 2011 4:52 PM, "Dave Fisher" wrote: >> >> Hi Rob, >> >> I think the Team OOo situation involving Fundraising that confuses brand > ownership requires some additional rules

Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?

On 15 Nov 2011, at 09:46, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I have been mulling this over for a long time... > > Up to now, we have been reactionary. We have allowed others to > control and distort the message, paint things as a "us vs. them" > battle (simply to position themselves for personal gain in the

Re: Font related questions

On 14 Nov 2011, at 06:33, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > Hi Andre; > > --- On Mon, 11/14/11, Andre Fischer wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> In the process of removing the liberation fonts (they are >> under GPL license, issue 118600) I stumbled upon some font >> related questions. Maybe someone on this list can

Re: [ISSUE] openoffice.org must have an MTA / MX

On 2 Nov 2011, at 18:54, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> >> From: Simon Phipps >> >> On 2 Nov 2011, at 18:31, Dave Fisher wrote: >> >>> (Choice one) If only a few addresses continue (like securityteam@oo.o) with >>> the r

Re: [ISSUE] openoffice.org must have an MTA / MX

Request to be educated: On 2 Nov 2011, at 18:31, Dave Fisher wrote: > (Choice one) If only a few addresses continue (like securityteam@oo.o) with > the rest bouncing with whatever message and link then Apache Infra can > support it on the normal qmail/ezmlm system. With or without preserving ML

Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release

On 1 Nov 2011, at 00:44, Nóirín Plunkett wrote: > > My understanding is that this "oddity" came about because the > "OpenOffice" trademark is owned by another group (or groups?) in > various countries. That was indeed the case, but the number of places where there is an overlapping registration

Re: [proposal] Neutral / shared security list ...

On 27 Oct 2011, at 02:07, Dave Fisher wrote: > Simon, > > Several of the servers in *.services.oo.o will be gone this coming weekend. > The AOOo project is focusing energy on these critical matters. > > For example, the wiki and forums are being moved. > > On Oct 26,

Re: [proposal] Neutral / shared security list ...

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Shane Curcuru > wrote: > > > > > In any case, these subjects are getting off topic for ooo-dev@, so we > should > > let the AOOo PPMC here figure out how it's going to publicize ways to > report > > security co

Re: Neutral / shared security list ...

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Dave Fisher > wrote: > > > >> > >> Agreed. We need to pick a neutral domain name. office-security.org is

Re: Neutral / shared security list ...

made a simple, plain, and easy proposal. Don't make things overly > > complicated, folks. > > > > Thanks for considering, > > Florian > > > > -- > > Florian Effenberger > > Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation > > Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 > > Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff > > > > -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com

Re: [Proposal] Security coordination without a shared list

On Oct 25, 2011 7:37 PM, "Rob Weir" wrote: > You don't see other projects set up additional off-site > "neutral" mailing lits for this purpose. Are you aware of other projects that are part of a community of forks, had a shared private security co-ordination mailing list among that meta-communit

Re: Areas for cooperation between AOOO and LO [was: Cooperation withRe: Neutral / shared security list ...]

On Oct 25, 2011 5:28 PM, "Dave Fisher" wrote: > > > On Oct 25, 2011, at 2:38 AM, Ian Lynch wrote: > > > Seems to me that while the focus is political point scoring, aggression, > > sarcasm and such the chances of getting cooperation are zero. > > +1. We will need to crawl to co-operation before we

Re: working on a OpenOffice roadmap

ear it any more :-) -- Simon Phipps {Terse? Mobile!} On Oct 25, 2011 3:01 PM, "Shane Curcuru" wrote: > Thank you Pedro for the very well thought out and politely presented > explanation of your point. It's very helpful to have this kind of honest > and detailed discussion, especial

Re: Neutral / shared security list ...

On 25 Oct 2011, at 02:55, Dave Fisher wrote: > I tried to be ambiguous with fork/"downstream". There is a relationship, and > whether it originates as a fork, upstream, downstream, or upside-down > relationship the relationship *IS* a *PEER* relationship. (auf Deutsch, ist > klar?) :-) I jus

Re: working on a OpenOffice roadmap

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > If libreoffice encourages, but not requires, AL2 > for stuff in the core package, that would be a huge > advance to get a bit nearer both camps. > Given licenses are the expression of the ethos of a community, it's disingenuous and divisi

Re: Neutral / shared security list ...

On 25 Oct 2011, at 01:25, Dave Fisher wrote: > Simon, > > Please don't despair! :-) Thanks, Dave. Encouragement accepted and appreciated. > > I think that Rob is getting ahead of the situation. We need to reach a simple > agreement about this single issue before bringing up other obvious p

Re: Areas for cooperation between AOOO and LO [was: Cooperation withRe: Neutral / shared security list ...]

On 25 Oct 2011, at 00:56, Rob Weir wrote: > > Hi Simon, do you have any other ideas for cooperation, preferably ones > that are not redundant? While I am amused that your first words after "hopefully will attract fewer trolls" themselves include a mean-spirited troll, I'm sorry you think a c

Re: Shutdown of the "download.services.openoffice.org" host and its Mirrorbrain instance

On 25 Oct 2011, at 00:23, Donald Whytock wrote: > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: >> @List: >> Has anybody an idea about where to host this service? It doesn't need to be >> necessarily inside the ASF. > > The Pirate Bay? Lend them some legitimacy? :) > > More seriously,

Re: Neutral / shared security list ...

On 23 Oct 2011, at 04:37, Rob Weir wrote: > Simon, > > I hope TDF members (and members of other related source projects) will > accept our hospitality and join us on the securityteam list. Your words show you missed the entire point of my proposal, Rob, and leave me too frustrated to want to d

Re: working on a OpenOffice roadmap

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Donald Harbison wrote: > > You could open the discussion > here on ooo-dev, since there are TDF folks here already. > I don't think this is a good assumption, any more than it would be to note that there are Apache members on the tdf-discuss mailing list so that w

Re: Neutral / shared security list ...

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: If securityteam@ OO.o is preserved, I believe the oversight of security@ > apache.org and the care of Apache infrastructure is a bonus. I disagree. Having an arbitrary steward - regardless of their excellence - is not the way to sustain

Re: Neutral / shared security list ...

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > -1 > The Apache Foundation *IS* neutral. > Beyond the evident open wounds the previous relationship with SUN/Oracle > may have left in the community, the OpenOffice.org domain is the natural > reference for longtime users and the developers

Re: Need moderators for ooo-marketing list

On 16 Oct 2011, at 23:08, Graham Lauder wrote: > Looks like we have globe covered, I'm in Dave's timezone so excess ,to > requirements ATM but will happily jump in if needed. I think two per TZ (actually "timezone block") is a good goal, it means we don't all have to be available all the time.

Re: Need moderators for ooo-marketing list

On 16 Oct 2011, at 21:07, Rob Weir wrote: > Ideally, 3 or 4 moderators, geographically dispersed. More is fine as well. So far moderating ooo-users hasn't been burdensome, so I'd be happy to volunteer to moderate this one too. As for timezone, I am mostly in the UK or elsewhere in europe. S.

Re: Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo

On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Guy Waterval wrote: > Hi Simon, > > 2011/10/15 Simon Phipps > > > I just passed on your words here to the conference attendees in the > closing > > address and the audience responded with spontaneous applause. > > > > >

Re: Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo

I just passed on your words here to the conference attendees in the closing address and the audience responded with spontaneous applause. Regards, S. -- Simon Phipps {Terse? Mobile!} On Oct 14, 2011 7:28 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > My only wish is that we had someone at the c

Re: We're on slashdot!

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote: > And I'm on El Reg! > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/**2011/10/14/apache_openoffice_**alive_well/ > > Hope I did OK in the interview. At least I got a good closing quote,

Re: We're on slashdot!

On Oct 14, 2011 7:26 PM, "Danese Cooper" wrote: > It probably isn't a coincidence that LibreOffice Con is this weekend and "we're the > real deal" messaging is coming from LO and TOOo is concerned about dilution > of the OOo brand... We've not seen any messaging like that here in Paris; in fact,

Re: Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo

On Oct 14, 2011 7:28 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > > My only wish is that we had someone at the conference who > was supportive of the ASF and the AOOo podling in this > matter who was able to explain this in a positive light… Well, Doug Heintzman and I are sitting together here and both willing t

Re: Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo

On Oct 14, 2011 7:12 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > The intent is address anyone and everyone who is creating the FUD. > > Was the Team OpenOffice PR the straw the broke the camel's back? > Pretty much, yeah. Are they the only "guilty" party? Hardly. > Are we pointing fingers at who are? Nope, they

Re: We're on slashdot!

On Oct 14, 2011 7:04 PM, "Donald Whytock" wrote: > Is it even four guys? They list five title-related email addresses > and give the same phone number five times. If I didn't know Team OO > existed before now I'd wonder if someone had just built a site from > random images. Many of us know the

RE: Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo

On Oct 14, 2011 7:07 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: > My unsolicited advice: > > There are several topics in the single announcement from ASF. My > recommendation is to read the paragraph that mentions TDF as independent of > the other material. From here, it looked like an olive branch. It's

Re: Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo

On Oct 14, 2011 6:22 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > > If LibreOffice, as an entity, or people "behind" or "involved" > with LO are guilty of the above, then of course the PR applies > to them. If innocent, then of course it does not. I'm not sure that response is going to create much goodwill if I

Re:Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo

Folk here at the LibreOffice conference are asking me why Apache has put out a release they read as implying criticism of LibreOffice. Can you give me a response I can give them please? I'll be speaking at the closing session on Saturday. Cheers S. On Oct 14, 2011 2:07 PM, "Shane Curcuru" wrote:

Re: Vulnerability fixed in LibreOffice

On 10 Oct 2011, at 16:03, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > > Now, how is détente to be achieved? I suggest by mutually agreeing a list-user-managed venue for future non-partisan collaboration in the spirit that previously existed on securityt...@openoffice.org - please see the other message I jus

Re: Vulnerability fixed in LibreOffice

On 10 Oct 2011, at 15:55, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> Back to the actual issue: >> >> * for (A), AOOo clearly needs a private security list. We all agree. >> * for (B), the legacy StarOffice ecosyst

Re: Vulnerability fixed in LibreOffice

On 10 Oct 2011, at 14:31, Rob Weir wrote: > This are not mutually exclusive options, Simon. And I have very clearly never argued for an exclusive arrangement, Rob. It's you that has, even if now you are attempting to back away from that position and blame others. Back to the actual issue:

Re: Vulnerability fixed in LibreOffice

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > > I've restated, in more explicit form, what I think the consensus is. > It's hard to read your words that way, as they leave no room for anyone but Apache committers. The clear consensus was for collaboration with the StarOffice legacy ecosyste

Re: Vulnerability fixed in LibreOffice

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > > > Yes. I've read all the emails from last week. > Please can you answer my question, then, I am not interested in your argument with Meeks. S.

Re: Vulnerability fixed in LibreOffice

On 10 Oct 2011, at 12:45, Rob Weir wrote: > No objections if you want to start a separate invitation-only security > discussion list. It would probably get some use. But we'll continue > to ask for security reports to come to ooo-security.i.a.o. We appeared to reach consensus[1] on this issue

Re: Vulnerability fixed in LibreOffice

On 6 Oct 2011, at 16:07, Shane Curcuru wrote: > I think we've completely lost sight of "B", a place where Apache OpenOffice > PPMC members and trusted others of related projects can work together. Given > the interrelationships of code between OpenOffice and LibreOffice and others, > I would

  1   2   3   >