Hi Dennis and all,
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> My interpretation is that we could have Apache ooo as the identifier of the
> core Apache project
> built on what we factor out of the Oracle grant, leaving OpenOffice.org as a
> web site and
> a family of distribut
On Aug 3, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Here's an item cribbed from another list that is relevant to concerns about
> downloads and perhaps user-created content on OpenOffice.org:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:field...@gbiv.com]
> Sent: Wednesda
Here's an item cribbed from another list that is relevant to concerns about
downloads and perhaps user-created content on OpenOffice.org:
-Original Message-
From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:field...@gbiv.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 12:31
To: legal-disc...@apache.org
Subject: Re: C
Am 03.08.2011 17:04, schrieb Rob Weir:
Some good points. Maybe we want to start (or steal) an FAQ on similar
"netiquette" points? It might fit in the "Community FAQ's" section.
There is a good one already at Apache:
http://www.apache.org/dev/contrib-email-tips.html
Maybe we can link it prom
etail into the recognition
of case (1) versus (2).
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:04
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org bra
On Aug 3, 2011, at 7:25 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
> To be fair, an overly aggressive tone can do just as much poisoning as a
> defensive one. I think it is also worth bearing in mind that a lot of people
> here are not native English speakers and so it is easy to read things into
> posts that were eit
iginal Message-
> From: Andy Brown [mailto:a...@the-martin-byrd.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:35
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
> re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
> Dennis,
>
> We
ginal Message-
From: Andy Brown [mailto:a...@the-martin-byrd.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:35
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Dennis,
We are working on some ideas only. There are questio
t it is we think
> we are asking for (or attempting to do). This is going way over the edge
> past JFDI and/or lazy consensus.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Andy Brown [mailto:a...@the-martin-byrd.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:00
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.
ing to do). This is going way over the edge past
JFDI and/or lazy consensus.
-Original Message-
From: Andy Brown [mailto:a...@the-martin-byrd.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:00
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (wa
Oracle Email Signature Logo
Andrew Rist | Interoperability Architect
Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
Redwood Shores, CA | 650.506.9847
On 8/3/2011 8:15 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Terry Ellison wrote:
On 03/08/11 15:14, Rob Weir wrote:
A specific question then
What message is that?
Can we get more concrete here, please.
-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 08:59
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org
August 03, 2011 09:00
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
Terry,
Where would be the best place on the wiki to place a notice directing
users to connect here or at least see if they would be willing/
Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 08:15
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
[ ... ]
Good enough. Thanks. I was hoping that there would be some
TerryE wrote:
(Some) developers for some arcane reason seem to like DLs. AFAIK, others
and the majority of users hate them and regard them as spam, preferring
less invasive pull technologies such as forums and subscription services
such as gmane. For example, I routinely work 6 forums and 4 wiki
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:44 AM, TerryE wrote:
> On 03/08/11 16:15, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Terry Ellison
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/08/11 15:14, Rob Weir wrote:
A specific question then that should not require diverting your
current efforts. Is there a
On 03/08/11 16:15, Rob Weir wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Terry Ellison wrote:
On 03/08/11 15:14, Rob Weir wrote:
A specific question then that should not require diverting your
current efforts. Is there a announcement list or some other mechanism
to send an email to every registere
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Terry Ellison wrote:
> On 03/08/11 15:14, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> A specific question then that should not require diverting your
>> current efforts. Is there a announcement list or some other mechanism
>> to send an email to every registered wiki user?
>
> At a tec
On 03/08/11 15:14, Rob Weir wrote:
A specific question then that should not require diverting your
current efforts. Is there a announcement list or some other mechanism
to send an email to every registered wiki user?
At a technical level, it's simple to run a query dumping all of the mail
addre
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
> On 3 August 2011 15:10, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Andre Schnabel
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Rob,
>> >
>> >> Von: Rob Weir
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and
>> >> speculation
>>
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Andre Schnabel wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Von: Rob Weir
>
>> >
>> > There is no need to try to find something in my mails what I didn't
>> actually write.
>> >
>>
>> Andre, perhaps you forgot, but you did speculate on this earlier in
>> the thread, when you wrote:
>
> Oh,
On 3 August 2011 15:10, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Andre Schnabel
> wrote:
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> >> Von: Rob Weir
> >
> >> >
> >> > I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and
> >> speculation
> >> > :-)
> >>
> >> And neither is the same as facts. I'm conce
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Terry Ellison wrote:
>
> Rob, a nice polemic but why is it relevant to a point about /usage patterns/
> on the wiki. I am already working 12+ hours a day on migration this /pro
> bono/, not salaried by some company to do my job. If you want hard data to
> info
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Andre Schnabel wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
>> Von: Rob Weir
>
>> >
>> > I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and
>> speculation
>> > :-)
>>
>> And neither is the same as facts. I'm concerned when I hear
>> paternalistic statements of "our contributors
Hi,
> Von: Rob Weir
> >
> > There is no need to try to find something in my mails what I didn't
> actually write.
> >
>
> Andre, perhaps you forgot, but you did speculate on this earlier in
> the thread, when you wrote:
Oh, sorry, but I did not see this as speculation ...
>
> On Tue, Aug 2,
On 3 August 2011 14:45, Andre Schnabel wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> > Von: Rob Weir
>
> >
> > Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the
> > same as introducing facts.
>
> I did not do any speculation in my mail, the only thing I did was
> to quote (again) Manfred's questions
On 03/08/11 14:38, Rob Weir wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
On 3 August 2011 14:14, Rob Weir wrote:
Ah. OK. He was asking for speculation on why the traffic is less now
than a year ago. Impossible to say, since I can't find any data on
what the traffic actually wa
Hi Rob,
> Von: Rob Weir
> >
> > I think there is a difference between informed hypothesis and
> speculation
> > :-)
>
> And neither is the same as facts. I'm concerned when I hear
> paternalistic statements of "our contributors will never post patches"
> or "They would never ever sign the iCLA
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Andre Schnabel wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
>> Von: Rob Weir
>
>>
>> Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the
>> same as introducing facts.
>
> I did not do any speculation in my mail, the only thing I did was
> to quote (again) Manfred's questio
Hi Rob,
> Von: Rob Weir
>
> Sorry, replacing Andre's speculation with your speculation is not the
> same as introducing facts.
I did not do any speculation in my mail, the only thing I did was
to quote (again) Manfred's questions (that you did not see before).
A simple:
- no I did not poke th
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
> On 3 August 2011 14:14, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:02 AM, TerryE wrote:
>> > On 03/08/11 13:57, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Andre Schnabel
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Rob,
>> >>>
>> >>> -
On 3 August 2011 14:14, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:02 AM, TerryE wrote:
> > On 03/08/11 13:57, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Andre Schnabel
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Rob,
> >>>
> >>> Original-Nachricht
>
> Von: Rob Weir
>
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:02 AM, TerryE wrote:
> On 03/08/11 13:57, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Andre Schnabel
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> Original-Nachricht
Von: Rob Weir
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter
wrote:
On 03/08/11 13:57, Rob Weir wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Andre Schnabel wrote:
Hi Rob,
Original-Nachricht
Von: Rob Weir
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter
wrote:
2011/8/3 Rob Weir
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter
wrote:
2011/8/2
Am 03.08.11 13:58, schrieb Andre Schnabel:
Hi Rob,
Original-Nachricht
Von: Rob Weir
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter
wrote:
2011/8/3 Rob Weir
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter
wrote:
2011/8/2 Rob Weir
Curiously, it reports only 5 of
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Andre Schnabel wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Original-Nachricht
>> Von: Rob Weir
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter
>> wrote:
>> > 2011/8/3 Rob Weir
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter
>> wrote:
>> >> > 2011/8
Hi Rob,
Original-Nachricht
> Von: Rob Weir
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter
> wrote:
> > 2011/8/3 Rob Weir
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter
> wrote:
> >> > 2011/8/2 Rob Weir
> >> >>
> >> >> Curiously, it reports only 5 of th
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
> 2011/8/3 Rob Weir
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter
>> wrote:
>> > 2011/8/2 Rob Weir
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andy Brown
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> I poked around and found this
On 03/08/11 03:05, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, TerryE wrote:
On 02/08/11 23:28, Rob Weir wrote:
... But right now I see almost no activity on the wiki ...
... We've discussed the update access reasons and issues previously. As you
can see from the Apache logs, the read v
On 8/2/2011 16:38, Rob Weir wrote:
[snip]
I poked around and found this page:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
This lists some additional roles (with counts)
Administrators (26)
Bureaucrats (4)
Editors (20)
Reviewers (5)
Those are in addition to 35,020 User account
2011/8/3 Rob Weir
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
> > 2011/8/2 Rob Weir
> >
> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andy Brown
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> I poked around and found this page:
> >>
> >> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistic
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, TerryE wrote:
> On 02/08/11 23:28, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> With the wiki, if we really want to allow anyone to have write access
>> to it, then we really need to be committed to fight the weeds, which
>> in the case of wikis would be spam, low quality content, edit wa
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 15:39 +0100, Terry Ellison wrote:
> Rob,
>
> I think that you've missed my point. The guy didn't THREATEN to leave.
> He HAS left. I doubt we will get him back. My strong reaction was
> because of that entirely avoidable loss of 5+ man-years of project
> expertise that
Rob,
Is there any easy way to get a list of active users for the wiki,
year-to-date for 2011, maybe sorted by number of edits? That would be
great to know, a list of people we can reach out to and invite to
participate again in the new project and new wiki, if they are not
already here.
Poss
On 02/08/11 23:28, Rob Weir wrote:
With the wiki, if we really want to allow anyone to have write access
to it, then we really need to be committed to fight the weeds, which
in the case of wikis would be spam, low quality content, edit wars,
etc. If we can re-establish the community participati
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 19:12 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> The essential question to ask is, what rights do users of the doc
>> have? If we want downstream consumers to be able to copy, modify and
>> redistribute the documentation then we ne
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 19:12 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> The essential question to ask is, what rights do users of the doc
> have? If we want downstream consumers to be able to copy, modify and
> redistribute the documentation then we need it under Apache 2.0, which
> is what would happen if the auth
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 18:36 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> Also, Jean, I'm glad you are following this thread. I'd love to hear
> what you think the relationship between the kind of doc on the wiki
> versus what you are doing on ODFAuthors. How do they relate in terms
> of topics, content types, etc.?
mple.
-Rob
> --Jean
>
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04
>> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo
, and I asked a question that was not answered; the answer was
about the material directly edited on the wiki, not about the material I
asked about.
--Jean
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, Augu
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 08:03 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
> >> users to be successful with our product, from end u
Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Andy Brown wrote:
Rob Weir wrote:
I poked around and found this page:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
Good find.
This lists some additional roles (with counts)
Administrators (26)
Bureaucrats (4)
Editors (20)
Re
This certainly states the Apache position clearly, Eike.
Since I already have a CLA in file (it only hurt for a moment) it would be
silly for me to argue the case for undocumented contribution any more. The
most sensible route, IMO, is to offer a wiki with 3 contributor levels.
1. Registered users
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 13:18:37 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> > And we should look around at some of the TLP project wikis that allow
>> > public contributions.
>>
>> Pass along some links if you find some good examples.
>
> I think t
Hi Rob,
On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 10:52:33 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things not in a
> > release have to be treated as if it requires the same treatment as the
> > content of a release. I thought we had worked a high-level sketch of the
>
If you go back to the founding of the support forums, you will find there is
what amounts to a charter for the support organization. The bureaucrats and
a few other roles stemmed from that. We were attempting to create an
organization that was more than simply a support website. Being one of the
pe
Hi Rob,
On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 13:18:37 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > And we should look around at some of the TLP project wikis that allow
> > public contributions.
>
> Pass along some links if you find some good examples.
I think these explain well what needs to be considered for project
docume
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Jean Weber wrote:
>
>
> On 03/08/2011, at 7:16, Andy Brown wrote:
>
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active
>>> in the past 7 days.
>>
>> Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the announc
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
> 2011/8/2 Rob Weir
>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andy Brown
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>
>>
>> I poked around and found this page:
>>
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
>>
>> This lists some additional roles
On 03/08/2011, at 7:16, Andy Brown wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> Curiously, it reports only 5 of the 35,020 users as having been active
>> in the past 7 days.
>
> Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the announcement of
> transferring to Apache, let a lone in the last w
Eike Rathke wrote:
Hi Andy,
On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 14:16:23 -0700, Andy Brown wrote:
Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the
announcement of transferring to Apache, let a lone in the last week.
Shows that someone is still interested. I would like to find out
what as edit
Hi Rob,
I poked around and found this page:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
This lists some additional roles (with counts)
Administrators (26)
Bureaucrats (4)
Editors (20)
Reviewers (5)
Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts.
Curiously, it reports only 5
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Andy Brown wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> I poked around and found this page:
>>
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
>
> Good find.
>
>> This lists some additional roles (with counts)
>>
>> Administrators (26)
>> Bureaucrats (4)
>> Editors
2011/8/2 Rob Weir
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andy Brown
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> I poked around and found this page:
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
>
> This lists some additional roles (with counts)
>
> Administrators (26)
> Bureaucrats (4)
> Editors (20)
>
Hi Andy,
On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 14:16:23 -0700, Andy Brown wrote:
> Personally I am surprised there have been any edits since the
> announcement of transferring to Apache, let a lone in the last week.
> Shows that someone is still interested. I would like to find out
> what as edited.
http://wi
Hi Rob,
On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 16:38:02 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> I poked around and found this page:
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
>
> This lists some additional roles (with counts)
>
> Administrators (26)
> Bureaucrats (4)
> Editors (20)
> Reviewers (5)
>
> Tho
Rob Weir wrote:
I poked around and found this page:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
Good find.
This lists some additional roles (with counts)
Administrators (26)
Bureaucrats (4)
Editors (20)
Reviewers (5)
Those are in addition to 35,020 User accounts.
Curiousl
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Andy Brown wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> Another aspect I'd love to see addressed in the proposal:
>>
>> What other roles exist in the wiki?
>>
>> I know about:
>>
>> - Users (which we say may be anyone, provided they identify themselves
>> and agree to the license
Rob Weir wrote:
Another aspect I'd love to see addressed in the proposal:
What other roles exist in the wiki?
I know about:
- Users (which we say may be anyone, provided they identify themselves
and agree to the license)
- Admins, which as we know need to be committers
But any other roles?
Another aspect I'd love to see addressed in the proposal:
What other roles exist in the wiki?
I know about:
- Users (which we say may be anyone, provided they identify themselves
and agree to the license)
- Admins, which as we know need to be committers
But any other roles? Moderators? Any f
2) We need a credible security mechanism for the wiki. Today, for
example, it is not required for a user to give their real name (the
field is optional). And the password can be as little as 1 character.
(Yup, I just created an account with password="x"). With 15,000
zombie accounts, lack o
Dave Fisher wrote:
On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Andy Brown wrote:
I work on this and see what I can come up with. I am no expert on this so it will be a
very rough draft, but something that I fell we will need to do. We are much different
that the "normal" Apache project so hopefully be gr
On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Andy Brown wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Andy Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> If you talking the wiki, instead of requiring an ICLA as a person has to
>>> create an account, why not make it part of that process that "All submitted
>>> contributio
Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Andy Brown wrote:
If you talking the wiki, instead of requiring an ICLA as a person has to
create an account, why not make it part of that process that "All submitted
contributions are under AL2 license". Would that not be sufficient?
The IP
some links if you find some good examples.
-Rob
> - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 09:28
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org
o-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Andy Brown wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> At Apache, every committer has the ability to veto a change. Not just
>> me. Far from it
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Andy Brown wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> At Apache, every committer has the ability to veto a change. Not just
>> me. Far from it.
>
> True.
>
>> In any case, in order to move the argument forward, I'd like to
>> reiterate thecific concerns that I have, to which
"Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)".
Terry
Rob Weir wrote:
At Apache, every committer has the ability to veto a change. Not just
me. Far from it.
True.
In any case, in order to move the argument forward, I'd like to
reiterate thecific concerns that I have, to which I've seen no
response other than "we don't want to change". But no
Hi Rob,
(comments inline)
Rob Weir schrieb:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
ts-all autocratic
> solution.
>
We need two sizes, right: 1) core documentation and 2) supplemental.
That was the idea if having two wikis in the first place.
-Rob
> - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Reizinger Zoltán [mailto:zreizin...@hdsnet.hu]
> Sent: Tues
A few comments and suggestions from a mentor.
On 8/1/2011 9:48 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
There are so many points and counterpoints about new/old and
easy/hard.
I think we need guidance about the migration. We need to state what
we want to do given the strong and understandable push to preserv
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Terry Ellison wrote:
> Rob,
>
> I think that you've missed my point. The guy didn't THREATEN to leave. He
> HAS left. I doubt we will get him back. My strong reaction was because of
> that entirely avoidable loss of 5+ man-years of project expertise that we
> w
oltán [mailto:zreizin...@hdsnet.hu]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 07:45
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
2011.08.02. 15:47 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Reizinger Zoltá
August 02, 2011 07:53
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> -1
>
> I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things
Hi,
Original-Nachricht
> Von: Rob Weir
> > We already have two separate wikis, one that the community uses and one
> that requires committers to make the changes. I notice the second one is
> not getting much activity.
> >
>
> And I'm not seeing a lot of activity at the OpenO
essage-
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
> re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hol
2011.08.02. 15:47 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Reizinger Zoltán wrote:
2011.08.02. 14:03 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber
wrote:
On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
I'd look at it like this: The do
too.
+1 - Let's listen carefully. We don't have to have all the answers immediately
and we don't need to drown in slew of emails.
Regards,
Dave
>
> - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:apa...@robweir.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Rob,
I think that you've missed my point. The guy didn't THREATEN to leave.
He HAS left. I doubt we will get him back. My strong reaction was
because of that entirely avoidable loss of 5+ man-years of project
expertise that we will be pressed to recover for the sake on an
ill-considered s
ubject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was
re:OpenOffice.org branding)
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
>> u
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:35 AM, C wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 14:56, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> Against my better judgement, one last reply...
>
>> iCLA is not the same as the JCA. You should read it:
>
> You miss the point entirely Rob. The issue is not the fine print of
> the iCLA or the JCA (I
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Reizinger Zoltán wrote:
> 2011.08.02. 14:03 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is need
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:00 AM, TerryE wrote:
>
>>
>> Regardless... it doesn't matter to me anymore. I'm stepping out of
>> this discussion now, and stepping away from anything to do with OOo
>> documentation, including the OOo Wiki.
>>
>> Clayton
>
> This was the outcome of an ill considered di
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 14:56, Rob Weir wrote:
Against my better judgement, one last reply...
> iCLA is not the same as the JCA. You should read it:
You miss the point entirely Rob. The issue is not the fine print of
the iCLA or the JCA (I know what the iCLA says.. I read it)... it is
the ver
2011.08.02. 14:03 keltezéssel, Rob Weir írta:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
Regardless... it doesn't matter to me anymore. I'm stepping out of
this discussion now, and stepping away from anything to do with OOo
documentation, including the OOo Wiki.
Clayton
This was the outcome of an ill considered discussion. Clayton, is the
one guy who really understands how the d
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:20 AM, C wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 14:03, Rob Weir wrote:
>> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
>> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
>> quality, namely:
>>
>> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contribut
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 14:03, Rob Weir wrote:
> I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not necessarily
> the same tools, but the same care for provenance, accountability and
> quality, namely:
>
> 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but these
> must be first revi
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed for our
>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to admins, to
>> application developers, that documentat
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
