On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Martin Hollmichel
wrote:
> Am 17.10.2011 20:52, schrieb Shane Curcuru:
>>
>> "If it didn't happen on the mailing list, it didn't happen."
>
> I understand your point, but: Do you think you have all relevant
> stakeholders here on the list ? Do we have a common und
Am 17.10.2011 20:52, schrieb Shane Curcuru:
"If it didn't happen on the mailing list, it didn't happen."
I understand your point, but: Do you think you have all relevant
stakeholders here on the list ? Do we have a common understanding who
these stakeholders are ?
Martin
On 10/17/2011 1:58 PM, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
Am 14.10.2011 18:22, schrieb Jim Jagielski:
Whereas it is in the self-interest of those entities
Hmm, I think it's not that easy. We see Team OpenOffice.org (as the
legal entity behind the old Community Council) still in the
repsonsibilty of an un
Am 14.10.2011 18:22, schrieb Jim Jagielski:
Whereas it is in the self-interest of those entities
Hmm, I think it's not that easy. We see Team OpenOffice.org (as the
legal entity behind the old Community Council) still in the
repsonsibilty of an uncredible amount of users which gave their suppor
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.
> >
>
>
> Great news!
>
> I've read this release on th
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.
>
Great news!
I've read this release on the Web :
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/10/libreoffice-is
Fantastic news! Thanks for seeing this through, Simon.
Go Apache!
-Sally
>
>From: Simon Phipps
>To: Jim Jagielski
>Cc: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; "pr...@apache.org Publicity"
>
>Sent: Saturday, 15 October 2011, 11:36
>Subje
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 conference who
> wa
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> The question that Simon is asking is simple. Some have read the "best
> wishes to TDF and LibreOffice" as being sarcastic and mean spirited. I
> certainly didn't read it that way. The issue seems to be that the paragraph
> expressing thi
Sorry to interject as Jim's on this, but I wanted to address one thing:
>The question that Simon is asking is simple. Some have read the "best wishes
>to TDF and LibreOffice" as being sarcastic and mean spirited. I certainly
>didn't read it that way. The issue seems to be that the paragraph e
I can't speak for Jim, but I can say that the spirit of "best wishes to
the TDF and LibreOffice" is honest and sincere from my point of view.
I also believe it's sincere from the point of view of the Apache
OpenOffice podling - there have been multiple offers to try to work
together and explic
On Oct 14, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> 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,
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
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…
I've encouraged Charles Schulz of the TDF to reach out to
me, directly, should that not be clear and to emphasize
both the ASF's
On Oct 14, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> 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" par
On Oct 14, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> 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
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
On Oct 14, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Donald Harbison wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>> There are already comments that require response.
>>
>> Don H? Shane?
>>
>>
> Links please. There's alot, so I'm interested to see which ones you feel are
> priority.
I was referr
On Oct 14, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> 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.
>
>
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
ar to some at the other end.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 09:58
To: Jim Jagielski
Cc: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; pr...@apache.org Publicity
Subject: Re: Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo
On Oct 14, 2011 6:
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
As the PR states, there is a lot of FUD floating around from
*many* people and orgs that OpenOffice is dead, that the Open
Office podling has failed, that to keep Open Office "alive"
people must cough up money to help make that happen, etc…
Whereas it is in the self-interest of those entities to
c
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> There are already comments that require response.
>
> Don H? Shane?
>
>
Links please. There's alot, so I'm interested to see which ones you feel are
priority.
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Oct 14, 2011, at 5:07 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
> > The
There are already comments that require response.
Don H? Shane?
Regards,
Dave
On Oct 14, 2011, at 5:07 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> The press@ team has a new blog entry/announce@ about general issues around
> the transition from the previous OpenOffice.org project to the new Apache
> OpenOffice
25 matches
Mail list logo
