from:"Dennis E. Hamilton"

Building AOO does not put its results where an operating version of AOO has 
been installed on Windows.  

It sounds like you have not built the entire package.  Or you built it but did 
not run the installer that you built.  Running the installer will replace an 
existing version.  It would be good to not do that on a PC that you are using 
for production purposes [;<).

 - Dennis

PS: If you have a new soffice.bin, you could rename the one in "Program Files 
(x86)\OpenOffice 4\program\" and then copy your new one there.  Previous 
warnings apply.  Good luck. 

-Original Message-
From: Jason Marshall [mailto:j_k_marshall_2...@live.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2015 09:03
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Simple code practice to get started

Hi everyone
 
I have successfully built OpenOffice 4.1.1 on a 32 bit Windows 7 platform.  I 
have installed this with windows integration and it runs with no problem.  I 
have then tried to make a couple of changes to the code as defined by the 
following hacks on the OpenOffice wiki (addition of extra 'OK' button in about 
dialog box and reversal of menus):
 
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Hacking
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Tutorial_About
 
Within the directory of the relevant module changed (e. g. 
/cygdrive/c/aoo44/main/vcl), I then call build and the build appears to 
complete with no issue.  However, when I start OpenOffice from the icon on the 
Windows taskbar, the changes do not appear to have carried through, such that 
none of the coded changes are visible.
 
I have taken care to ensure that OpenOffice is closed and then re-opened 
following the build, but to no avail.  I am guessing that for some reason I am 
not starting OpenOffice correctly, such that it is still running on code which 
does not contain the changes that I have made.  Alternatively, perhaps the 
build has not actually worked correctly without me being aware of this.  I am 
aware that the hacking guide stipulates that OpenOffice should be started from 
the Cygwin command line.  I have tried this, but the bash states the following:
 
Jason and Emma@JasonandEmma-PC 
/cygdrive/c/aoo411/main/solver/411/wntmsci12.pro/bin
$ . soffice.bin
-bash: .: soffice.bin: cannot execute binary file
 
I suspect that my mistake is really rather elementary and perhaps indicates my 
own lack of knowledge about how things work.  Accordingly, any advice would be 
much appreciated.
 
Thank you.
 
Jason
  


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

FW: REPORTING Windows 10 Upgrade Issues: BASIC SITUATION

Janet Monk sent her response directly to me.  I am forwarding it to the list 
with permission.  I have a response for the *.odt files that I will post at 
once.  The *.odb files may be trickier.

[ … ]
 
From: Janet Monk [mailto:janm...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2015 02:05
To: orc...@apache.org
Subject: Re: REPORTING Windows 10 Upgrade Issues: BASIC SITUATION
 
1. I am having problems with Corel Video Studio - some functions do not work.
 
1 Windows 10 home
  processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4460 CPU@3.20 GHz 3.20  GHz 3.20
  installed memory RAM 6.00 GB
  System type  64bit- Operating system, x64-based processor
  Pen and touch   no pen or touch input is available for this display
2 Open Office 4.1.1
   Apache openoffice 4.1.1
  1617669 rev
  10 items
 Items (odt) saved on OneDrive work and are not read only
 Databases (odb) open but are not editable
 
 
None of the databases identify themselves as non editable. 
They cant be edited or added to.
 
There are no read only files on this list of 10 items
 
 10  C:\Users\Janet\Documents\Books read\Books read 2013.odt
  9  C:\Users\Janet\Documents\Diary2015\August 2015.odt
  8  C:\Users\Janet\OneDrive\2.odt
  7  C:\Users\Janet\Documents\Books read\Books read.odb
  6  C:\Users\Janet\Documents\Film sseen\Films.odb
  5  C:\Users\Janet\Documents\ Film sseen\Films2015.odb
  4  C:\Users\Janet\Documents\Books read\Books2015toMarch.odb
  3  C:\Users\Janet\OneDrive\August 2015.odt
  2  C:\Users\Janet\Documents\cultural events and music\Cultural events2015.odb
  1  C:\Users\Janet\OneDrive\Untitled 1.odt
 
The files : 2,4, 5,6,7,8,9 and10 open but are not editable
 
Regards\Janet
 
[ ... ]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Simple code practice to get started

Jason, use the more-comprehensive advice from Regina.  

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Jason Marshall [mailto:j_k_marshall_2...@live.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2015 11:20
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: RE: Simple code practice to get started

Dear Dennis
 
Thank you for looking at this problem.  [ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

NOT EDITABLE ON WINDOWS 10: The Lingering-Lock Case

After upgrading to Windows 10, some users notice that they have files 
OpenOffice reports as not editable.  There is a report that the named file is 
"locked for editing."  (This is slightly different than saying the files are 
read-only.)

WHEN THIS IS HAPPENING TO YOU ...

If you followed the procedure given in the message, "REPORTING Windows 10 
Upgrade Issues: BASIC SITUATION" and you find that *some* of your existing 
files are "locked for editing" while *others* including new ones you make are 
completely usable, try this procedure.

TRY THIS
 
 1. With any "locked for editing" file open, use File | Save As ... to save the 
file in the same place with a modification of the name.  Then use Windows File 
Explorer to find the location of the locked version and delete it.  This 
protects against opening the wrong one at a future time.

 2. For any document that was described as "locked for editing" when you opened 
it, close the document if it is open and perform the following procedure.
 a. Note the location of the folder for the document.  Open that folder in the 
Windows File Explorer.
 b. That folder probably has a hidden file named ".~lock.#", 
where  is the name of the file (without the folder part) that 
you found locked for editing.  Use the File Explorer to delete that file.
 c. If you don't see such a file, it may be that File Explorer is not showing 
them to you.  Here's how to make certain that they are visible:
(i) In the Windows File Explorer window that is opened to the folder that 
has the file, select the "View" tab.
(ii) In the Layout section of the View options, select Details.  You can 
always change the view of folders to any other case later.  Use Details for 
troubleshooting, as in this case.
(iii) In the Show/hide section of the View options, CHECK "File name 
extensions" and "Hidden items". 
(iv) That should reveal any hidden lock files in the folder you are 
viewing.  Delete the ones that apply to documents you are using in Apache 
OpenOffice.

IF YOU DON'T SUCCEED

If you have different messages when opening a file in OpenOffice, please create 
a new message.  This message and replies are solely about Windows 10 and 
"locked for editing" messages.

If your situation is as described at the top of this message and this procedure 
does not work, please reply to this message on  so 
we can explore further with you.  If you reply directly to me, that will be 
permission for me to forward your message to the list as I see fit.

 - Dennis


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

NOT EDITABLE ON WINDOWS 10: The Lingering-Lock Case - Update

2015-08-10 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Corrections to the wording in "IF YOU DON'T SUCCEED"

-Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2015 13:46
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: NOT EDITABLE ON WINDOWS 10: The Lingering-Lock Case

After upgrading to Windows 10, some users notice that they have files 
OpenOffice reports as not editable.  There is a report that the named file is 
"locked for editing."  (This is slightly different than saying the files are 
read-only.)

WHEN THIS IS HAPPENING TO YOU ...

If you followed the procedure given in the message, "REPORTING Windows 10 
Upgrade Issues: BASIC SITUATION" and you find that *some* of your existing 
files are "locked for editing" while *others* including new ones you make are 
completely usable, try this procedure.

TRY THIS

 1. With any "locked for editing" file open, use File | Save As ... to save the 
file in the same place with a modification of the name.  Then use Windows File 
Explorer to find the location of the locked version and delete it.  This 
protects against opening the wrong one at a future time.

 2. For any document that was described as "locked for editing" when you opened 
it, close the document if it is open and perform the following procedure.
 a. Note the location of the folder for the document.  Open that folder in the 
Windows File Explorer.
 b. That folder probably has a hidden file named ".~lock.#", 
where  is the name of the file (without the folder part) that 
you found locked for editing.  Use the File Explorer to delete that file.
 c. If you don't see such a file, it may be that File Explorer is not showing 
them to you.  Here's how to make certain that they are visible:
(i) In the Windows File Explorer window that is opened to the folder that 
has the file, select the "View" tab.
(ii) In the Layout section of the View options, select Details.  You can 
always change the view of folders to any other case later.  Use Details for 
troubleshooting, as in this case.
(iii) In the Show/hide section of the View options, CHECK "File name 
extensions" and "Hidden items". 
(iv) That should reveal any hidden lock files in the folder you are 
viewing.  Delete the ones that apply to documents you are using in Apache 
OpenOffice.

IF YOU DON'T SUCCEED

If you have different messages when opening a file in OpenOffice, please report 
that in a separate email to this list.  This message and replies to it are 
solely about Windows 10 and "locked for editing" messages.  Please help us keep 
the different symptoms and their causes separate.

If your situation is as described at the top of this message and this procedure 
does not work, please reply to this message on  so 
we can explore further with you.  

If any replies are directly to me and not the list, that will be permission for 
me to forward your message to the list as I see fit.

 - Dennis

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: FW: NOT EDITABLE ON WINDOWS 10: The Lingering-Lock Case

2015-08-12 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Janet,
 
Thank you for your follow-up.
 
Are you saying that with this week’s updates to Windows 10, your problem 
disappeared?
 
It was not necessary for you to take any other action?
 
-   Dennis
 
From: Janet Monk [mailto:janm...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 08:40
To: orc...@apache.org
Subject: Re: FW: NOT EDITABLE ON WINDOWS 10: The Lingering-Lock Case
 
Here I am again. My problems with Open Office  and Corel Video Studio appeared 
to have been solved by Microsoft adjusting the permission settings. Thank you 
for your help.
 regards 
Janet 
 
On 10 August 2015 at 00:35, Dennis E. Hamilton mailto:orc...@apache.org> > wrote:
Here is the procedure for you to try.  I have more questions:

 1. I don't know if this will work as described for a file in a OneDrive 
folder.  Let us know if it works.

 2. I don't know about .odb files either.  Let us know if that works too.

 3. And let us know what does not work.  So far we have not found a defect in 
OpenOffice.  We must keep looking.

 4. What are your questions now?

Regards,

 - Dennis

-Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org <mailto:orc...@apache.org> ]
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2015 13:46
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org <mailto:dev@openoffice.apache.org> 
Subject: NOT EDITABLE ON WINDOWS 10: The Lingering-Lock Case

After upgrading to Windows 10, some users notice that they have files 
OpenOffice reports as not editable.  There is a report that the named file is 
"locked for editing."  (This is slightly different than saying the files are 
read-only.)

WHEN THIS IS HAPPENING TO YOU ...

If you followed the procedure given in the message, "REPORTING Windows 10 
Upgrade Issues: BASIC SITUATION" and you find that *some* of your existing 
files are "locked for editing" while *others* including new ones you make are 
completely usable, try this procedure.

TRY THIS

 1. With any "locked for editing" file open, use File | Save As ... to save the 
file in the same place with a modification of the name.  Then use Windows File 
Explorer to find the location of the locked version and delete it.  This 
protects against opening the wrong one at a future time.

 2. For any document that was described as "locked for editing" when you opened 
it, close the document if it is open and perform the following procedure.
 a. Note the location of the folder for the document.  Open that folder in the 
Windows File Explorer.
 b. That folder probably has a hidden file named ".~lock.#", 
where  is the name of the file (without the folder part) that 
you found locked for editing.  Use the File Explorer to delete that file.
 c. If you don't see such a file, it may be that File Explorer is not showing 
them to you.  Here's how to make certain that they are visible:
(i) In the Windows File Explorer window that is opened to the folder that 
has the file, select the "View" tab.
(ii) In the Layout section of the View options, select Details.  You can 
always change the view of folders to any other case later.  Use Details for 
troubleshooting, as in this case.
(iii) In the Show/hide section of the View options, CHECK "File name 
extensions" and "Hidden items".
(iv) That should reveal any hidden lock files in the folder you are 
viewing.  Delete the ones that apply to documents you are using in Apache 
OpenOffice.

IF YOU DON'T SUCCEED

If you have different messages when opening a file in OpenOffice, please create 
a new message.  This message and replies are solely about Windows 10 and 
"locked for editing" messages.

If your situation is as described at the top of this message and this procedure 
does not work, please reply to this message on mailto:dev@openoffice.apache.org> > so we can explore further with you.  If 
you reply directly to me, that will be permission for me to forward your 
message to the list as I see fit.

 - Dennis


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org 
<mailto:dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> 
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org 
<mailto:dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org>

FW: FW: NOT EDITABLE ON WINDOWS 10: The Lingering-Lock Case

2015-08-13 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

This response, below, suggests that there may be permission settings that also 
interfere with some applications after an Upgrade to Windows 10.
 
Although the OP previously reported that some of the ODF documents on her 
system were editable (i.e., not locked and evidently not read-only), it appears 
that there was something else going on.  There may be some detail in the OP 
response that I misinterpreted, as well.
 
In this case, there is not enough detail on isolated causes and we must remain 
on the alert for other cases where we can work with an user in seeing how to 
isolate the root cause(s) of any observed difficulty.
 
So far, we have not found an OpenOffice-specific problem related to files being 
locked or read-only after Windows 10 upgrading.  The only cases brought to our 
attention are Windows 10 related (and not just about OpenOffice) or they are 
about unreleased locks that were already there but only noticed after the 
upgrade.
 
There is an issue about the quality of the display that some folks see in 
OpenOffice rendering of some fonts that seems specific to OpenOffice.  That is 
being tracked down separately.
 
-   Dennis 
 
From: Janet Monk [mailto:janm...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 01:56
To: orc...@apache.org
Subject: Re: FW: NOT EDITABLE ON WINDOWS 10: The Lingering-Lock Case
 
no what I'm saying is that after spending hours on the phone with Microsoft 
support the technician eventually went into permissions Advanced Settings  and 
clicked off the child permission blockage which gave the administrator full 
control and so far it seems to be working.
regards Janet
 
On 12 August 2015 at 18:22, Dennis E. Hamilton mailto:orc...@apache.org> > wrote:
Janet,
 
Thank you for your follow-up.
 
Are you saying that with this week’s updates to Windows 10, your problem 
disappeared?
 
It was not necessary for you to take any other action?
 
-   Dennis
 
From: Janet Monk [mailto:janm...@gmail.com <mailto:janm...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 08:40
To: orc...@apache.org <mailto:orc...@apache.org> 
Subject: Re: FW: NOT EDITABLE ON WINDOWS 10: The Lingering-Lock Case
 
Here I am again. My problems with Open Office  and Corel Video Studio appeared 
to have been solved by Microsoft adjusting the permission settings. Thank you 
for your help.
 regards 
Janet 
 
On 10 August 2015 at 00:35, Dennis E. Hamilton mailto:orc...@apache.org> > wrote:
Here is the procedure for you to try.  I have more questions:

 1. I don't know if this will work as described for a file in a OneDrive 
folder.  Let us know if it works.

 2. I don't know about .odb files either.  Let us know if that works too.

 3. And let us know what does not work.  So far we have not found a defect in 
OpenOffice.  We must keep looking.

 4. What are your questions now?

Regards,

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org <mailto:orc...@apache.org> ]
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2015 13:46
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org <mailto:dev@openoffice.apache.org> 
Subject: NOT EDITABLE ON WINDOWS 10: The Lingering-Lock Case

[ … ]

RE: [VOTE] Dennis Hamilton as new AOO Chair.

2015-08-16 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

=0 (binding), abstain

-Original Message-
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] 
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 23:57
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Dennis Hamilton as new AOO Chair.

[ ... ]

Voting rules are as follows:
- Only PMC votes are binding, but everybody are welcome to vote
- The nominee with the most +1 (deducted -1) gets elected
- VOTE runs until Sunday August 23th
- As outgoing Chair, I will send resolution to Board August 23th.

Please vote
[ ]  +1, I want Dennis Hamilton as new Chair
[ ] +0, I do not care if Dennis Hamilton becomes new Chair
[ ] -1, I am against Dennis Hamilton becomes new chair
 (out of curtesy, please add another suggestion).

Have fun voting.
rgds
jan i.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

QUESTIONS RE: Maintenance of AOO Wiki and Forum

2015-08-17 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Thanks Tony, this reminds me of some questions that would help us understand 
what is involved.  These questions are anyone knowledgable of the current 
arrangements:

I see four levels of support to wikis and forums:

 1. User Account and Content Administration
I believe this is handed.  Does anyone believe it is not?

 2. Administering the Running Service
That is, a server administrator for the service (not necessarily the host)
Is this done?  Do we need a replacement or an expansion here?  What are 
prerequisite qualifications for being able to do this.

 3. Administrating the Server that hosts the Service
I assume this is where one deals with Ubuntu upgrades and such, whether the 
server is real or virtual.
Is this provided by the project?  Do we need a replacement/expansion here 
from within the project?  Again, what are prerequisite qualifications?

 4. I assume hardware IT support is not the business of the project, and 
changing boxes is a different deal.  Yes?

I suspect this is known.  I don't know if the necessary information is anywhere 
in project materials (haven't looked). 

This is an area of ignorance for me.  I am not raising my hand.  I just want to 
ensure that the necessary requirements are understood and we know what is and 
is not adequately covered. 

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Tony Stevenson [mailto:t...@pc-tony.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 12:54
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Maintenance of AOO Wiki and Forum

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, at 01:31 PM, jan i wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> The AOO Forum vm could do with an upgrade to Ubuntu 14.04 and be defined
> in
> the new puppet structure. Defining it in the new puppet structure has the
> advantage that Infra can roll a new vm in case of problems, and thereby
> reducing downtime.
> 
> The AOO Wiki vm is in strong need of a reconfiguration and update (Ubuntu
> 14.04 see above). Currently there is a ATS running on the same vm in
> front
> of the mediawiki (django) application. The ATS veersion is no longer
> supported by the traffic server project. Running it on a separate vm (or
> even as the HTPPS proxy) has a lot of merit, but it has not been done.
> 
> As I am reducing my engagement in the project, this might be a good time
> for a new maintainer to step up. The actual maintenance is  about 1 hour
> pr
> month.

Can I take this opportunity to remind the community that if this service
fails to be maintained appropriately it will be turned off, or made
unavailable by Infra until such time it is brought up to date and
managed. 

AIUI this was the agreement that we had with the project when it was
handed over to enable you to manage yourselves. 

Many thanks,

--
Tony

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: QUESTIONS RE: Maintenance of AOO Wiki and Forum

2015-08-17 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Oh, sorry Tony.  I was hoping other on AOO could supply what they know of this 
situation.

I was clear that the project has responsibilities for (1) and thank you for 
clarifying (2-3) which appear to be in dangerous shape.  Thanks for clarifying 
that these are AOO responsibilities in particular.

I would like to know who are providing effort in categories (2-3) at the moment 
and also their view of the situation and the required capabilities.

I suppose any retiring incumbents can also specify what the qualifications for 
a successor are and then we can see who is equipped to perform such work.

 - - - - - - -

It seems the next question is to understand the desired state we want for the 
MediaWiki (that's the one?) and the Forums in terms of sustainable operational 
support and what is a roadmap that can get us there.

We also need to look at the most urgent steps and the least that can provide 
relief.

Is that what you see needed at this rather high level?

Finally, assuming it could be done, is there any benefit to Puppet for 
non-Infrastructure usage or are we talking about a regime that is specific to 
operation under ASF Infra?

 - - - - - - -

It should be obvious that I am an Infrastructure dufus.  

Yet I think the AOO community needs to have a clear picture and also awareness 
of the gravity of the support that is required to be provided by the project.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Tony Stevenson [mailto:t...@pc-tony.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 14:42
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org
Subject: Re: QUESTIONS RE: Maintenance of AOO Wiki and Forum

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:23:48PM -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Thanks Tony, this reminds me of some questions that would help us understand 
> what is involved.  These questions are anyone knowledgable of the current 
> arrangements:
> 
> I see four levels of support to wikis and forums:
> 
>  1. User Account and Content Administration
> I believe this is handed.  Does anyone believe it is not?

How do you mean handled? This function is managed within the two
products by those who manage them already. In other words this is fully
devolved to the AOO PMC to determine how this should be managed.

>  2. Administering the Running Service
> That is, a server administrator for the service (not necessarily the host)
> Is this done?  Do we need a replacement or an expansion here?  What are 
> prerequisite qualifications for being able to do this.

Again this is down to the PMC to determine how to best do this.  Right
now Infra provide a number of VMs for AOO to run the service on. This is
mostly due to significant historical inertia when AOO first joined the
ASF, but also because it is what the PMC wanted to make their lives
easier. 

If you want these to be come more managed by Infra then a significant
number of changes would need to be made to make this happen.  Not least
of which is moving the system into Puppet. This is a non-trivial piece
of work which I'd estimate would take a member of paid staff at least
4-6 weeks to complete (minimum). 

> 
>  3. Administrating the Server that hosts the Service
> I assume this is where one deals with Ubuntu upgrades and such, whether 
> the server is real or virtual.
> Is this provided by the project?  Do we need a replacement/expansion here 
> from within the project?  Again, what are prerequisite qualifications?

Again, due to historical inertia and what I suspect is fear of letting
go in the past (perhaps even now in the present) this element was
handled at the PMC's discretion - with the caveat that Infra would force
an update where required (say SSL vulnerability etc), or if the PMC did
not do it itself the service would be shutdown and the instance shutdown
until such time that the problem had been resolved. 

Right now, I do not believe that these instances are being properly
maintained, and are in need of significant TLC to make them tick along
nicely once more. However, owing to the obscenely difficlut (and in my
opinion frankly ridiculous) setup of the services this is near
impossible to do well. 

>  4. I assume hardware IT support is not the business of the project, and 
> changing boxes is a different deal.  Yes?

Correct, the PMC is provided with a number of virtual machines (not
native hardware, just to avoid any confusion).  If you need to move (and
frankly I would push for this very hard) we would need to stand up the
new instances for you, based on an open discussion of your requirements.

Infra are responsible for making sure that the instances are up, and
that the hardware they run is available. 

> I suspect this is known.  I don't know if the necessary information is 
> anywhere in project materials (haven't looked). 
> 
> This is an area of ignorance for me.  

I hope I have helped clarify somewhat. 

--

Many thank

Others Pontificate the future of Apache OpenOffice

2015-08-18 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

This blog post was just brought to my attention, 
.
  From my perspective, the Apache OpenOffice team is found in this dev@ 
community, where the committers and the PMC are successive subsets that are 
able to act in various ways based on exclusively-volunteer efforts.  Please 
keep that in mind.

It is important to read the comments there.  If one has further questions or 
comments of Christian Schaller or the other commenters, please make them there, 
not here.

I have heard the proposal expressed by Christian Schaller from others as well.  
I also notice that the facts of the matter are distorted in the retellings.  
The comments on that blog by Apache Software Foundation Director and AOO PMC 
member Jim [Jagielski] provide important counterbalance.

The history of the splits from OpenOffice.org and the establishment of Apache 
OpenOffice is long past (in Internet terms).  There are no do-overs and today's 
situation is what it is.  

The question for the project is, as always, ways to move forward. It is a 
question that we are continuously asking ourselves on the Project Management 
Committee and it needs to be considered in the broad community as well.

Constructive suggestions and requests for any factual details are welcome here. 
 

 - Dennis

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS

I find the proposal by Schaller and some commenters to be simplistic.  I find 
them unworkable (or silly, such as coming up with an external petition) in 
terms of addressing the needs of stakeholders in what Apache OpenOffice 
supplies.  There must be serious consideration of support to downstream 
developers (not so prevalent) and the extensive dependence of users (very 
significant with 80% of them using Windows).  The dependence on resources and 
volunteer services provided by the Apache OpenOffice project must not be 
treated lightly. 

At the same time it is important for us, here, to look at what the sustaining 
capacity of the project is, and how to employ it the most effectively.

PLEASE: External perceptions can be important and the place to discuss them is 
where they are presented.  For here, it is more valuable to discuss the actual 
state of AOO *as*such*, and only that, since it is all that we have anything to 
say about here.  Constructive proposals with offers to work on them, based on 
our capabilities are what matter.  Questions on what our capacities are and 
where the day-to-day attention is are also welcome.  For facts, this is the 
place.  For pontification and "why can't just ... " not so much.




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Section styles?

2015-08-21 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Rory, concerning difficulties setting styles on sections,

Do you mean you used multiple sections or did you make multiple copies of the 
same section?  

I am not clear how OpenOffice handles the copying of sections as well as 
linking of one section for content/styles of another.

The ODF 1.2 specification definitely allows section-level styling.  The styles 
that are allowed at the section level are the "text" styles and also a 
 element that provides some margin, color, 
background, and column controls as part of a section style.

The question now becomes whether or not any of the OpenOffice.org descendants 
allow section styles to be specified and what do they do with an ODF document 
that uses them?

(You may read in various places that OpenOffice and LibreOffice provide full 
implementations of ODF.  I see those claims too.  I don't make them.)
 
 - Dennis

ANALYSIS

In the ODF 1.2 specification, section 5.4 on  elements stipulates 
that

  "Sections specify formatting properties for a region
   Of text or text that is automatically acquired
   From an external data source or document, or another
   Text section."

The  start tag may have a  attribute for 
introducing a named style at the section level.  That style name specifies a 
"section family style" for a section.

However, the style:family attribute does not have "section" as a specifiable 
family in the text of section 19.476, although the schema does define "section" 
as a specifiable value.  Furthermore, section 16.28.3 specifies how to tell a 
section style, but nothing about what they might have in them.  However, 
section 16.27.28 on the  element specifies that this 
element can specify formatting properties for text and for sections.  It can be 
used with a  definition element of style:family="section" then.


-Original Message-
From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie] 
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 11:36
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Section styles?

I recently had to make a trial document for a forum user.  In it I used 
multiple copies of a section.  Is there any reason why one cannot have Section 
styles (similar to Paragraph, Page, List styles etc), so that it would not e 
necessary to create each such repeated section from scratch?

I am looking into the OpenDocument definitions; I know that Rob and Dennis 
(possibly other list-members also) have experience with the OpenDocument format 
and wonder if they may remember why this was not included in the specification?

-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: help needed on ODF standard for "auto" indent for paragraphs

2015-08-21 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

I suspect the Roman alphabet, conventional-font space-/indent-sizing is 
inapplicable for some Asian languages.  (I hope the Asian setting is 
specifically for CJK (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) or we could be having problems 
with some very complex language scripts as well.

Rory, I don't believe "automatic" is on by default, so someone must be defining 
styles this way, you think?

-Original Message-
From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie] 
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 14:20
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: help needed on ODF standard for "auto" indent for paragraphs

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:57:59 -0700
Kay Schenk  wrote:

> This is in regard to issue
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126476
> 
> I can't easily locate what the ODF 1.2 standard is on calculation for a
> first line auto indent for a paragraph. Well I found this --
> http://officeopenxml.com/WPindentation.php
> 
> but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. :/
> 
> In any case, if the standard is consistent regardless of font, it seems
> our calcs may be incorrect for some Asian fonts (maybe encoding factors
> are not correctly taken into account) and that is the reason the patch
> was submitted for this issue. It would be nice if this calculation did
> happen correctly so users would not have to manually adjust the indent
> for paragraph first line.
>

Kay,

Merely for information, the printing standard I grew up with is that the usual 
indent for a paragraph in body type is one em, that is on 12 pt type, 12 pts, 
18 pt type, 18 pts etc.  I believe this is the convention followed in OO's 
Paragraph style definition on the Indents and Spacing tab, when "Automatic" is 
checked  for first line indentation.

If you need references for the one em indent I can provide them.

Rory

-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: help needed on ODF standard for "auto" indent for paragraphs

2015-08-21 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Apparently, Friday is ODF question day [;<).

I suspect that default indentation amounts are nowhere specified in the ODF 1.2 
Specification and it is an implementation-defined behavior.  

I looked at every occurrence of indent* in the ODF 1.2 specification and 
nowhere are there default values for the format features that specify 
indentations.  There is a true/false attribute that determines if paragraph 
first-line indentation is determined from the font (size), but ODF 1.2 does not 
specify what that determination is.

More in-line ...

-Original Message-
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 13:58
To: AOO Dev Apache 
Subject: help needed on ODF standard for "auto" indent for paragraphs

This is in regard to issue
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126476

I can't easily locate what the ODF 1.2 standard is on calculation for a
first line auto indent for a paragraph. Well I found this --
http://officeopenxml.com/WPindentation.php

but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. :/

  Sorry.  That page is about OOXML, not ODF.  So no need to feel bad.


In any case, if the standard is consistent regardless of font, it seems
our calcs may be incorrect for some Asian fonts (maybe encoding factors
are not correctly taken into account) and that is the reason the patch
was submitted for this issue. It would be nice if this calculation did
happen correctly so users would not have to manually adjust the indent
for paragraph first line.

   The standard does not specify this case.  I would have to see what is being 
produced and we could then see how OpenOffice is controlling it.  We need to 
see a small Chinese language file that demonstrates the problem and check the 
ODF.  
   If we know what actions are taken where indentation is specified, we can see 
if there is some way to control its setting.  
   Can we assume that the patch being offered already takes everything into 
account?

-- 

MzK

“The journey of a thousand miles begins
 with a single step.”
  --Lao Tzu



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: help needed on ODF standard for "auto" indent for paragraphs

2015-08-22 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

In RTL (as well as TTB and BTT) the indentation will typically be in the 
reading direction.  

In future releases of Apache OpenOffice, the Chinese case is going to use 
double-character indentation when automatic indentation is specified in the 
paragraph style.  The change is also being made in LibreOffice, so there will 
be interchange compatibility.

Microsoft Office evidently has no automatic indentation, so there is nothing to 
coordinate there.  OpenOffice documents that are interchanged in .doc or .odt 
format will show up in  Microsoft Office Word with no indentation on those 
paragraphs specified to have automatic indentation in OpenOffice. 

The assumption with regard to legacy breakage of ODF document presentation is 
that there is little use of auto-indentation in existing Chinese ODF documents. 
 That is because that indentation does not satisfy the understood and 
widely-employed indentation style that would be honored in important documents.

This is now covered at <https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126476>.

If anyone has a solid concrete objection to why this would be unacceptably 
breaking, we need to know that quickly before LibreOffice and OpenOffice 
reflect this change in distributed updates.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie] 
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 23:37
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: help needed on ODF standard for "auto" indent for paragraphs

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:23:22 -0700
"Dennis E. Hamilton"  wrote:

[ ... ]

I cannot answer for what happens when using R to L type or what (if any) is the 
typesetting "norm" for such languages.  I'll root around later today to see if 
I can come up with anything, but I'm going offline shortly to do Saturday 
things.

Rory

> 
> -Original Message-
> >From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie] 
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 14:20
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: help needed on ODF standard for "auto" indent for paragraphs
> 
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:57:59 -0700
> Kay Schenk  wrote:
> 
> > This is in regard to issue
> > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126476
> > 
> > I can't easily locate what the ODF 1.2 standard is on calculation for a
> > first line auto indent for a paragraph. Well I found this --
> > http://officeopenxml.com/WPindentation.php
> > 
> > but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. :/
> > 
> > In any case, if the standard is consistent regardless of font, it seems
> > our calcs may be incorrect for some Asian fonts (maybe encoding factors
> > are not correctly taken into account) and that is the reason the patch
> > was submitted for this issue. It would be nice if this calculation did
> > happen correctly so users would not have to manually adjust the indent
> > for paragraph first line.
> >
> 
> Kay,
> 
> Merely for information, the printing standard I grew up with is that the 
> usual indent for a paragraph in body type is one em, that is on 12 pt type, 
> 12 pts, 18 pt type, 18 pts etc.  I believe this is the convention followed in 
> OO's Paragraph style definition on the Indents and Spacing tab, when 
> "Automatic" is checked  for first line indentation.
> 
> If you need references for the one em indent I can provide them.
> 
> Rory
> 
>  
> -- 
> Rory O'Farrell 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
> 

-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: help needed on ODF standard for "auto" indent for paragraphs

2015-08-22 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

You can find the width that OpenOffice uses in the patch that is provided at 
<https://bz.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=84886&action=diff>.

If auto-indent is set, nFirstLineOfs = GetFnt.GetSize(GetFnt.GetActual).Height. 
 

(in highly-simplified Java form for clarity).

Recall that the ODF 1.2 specification specifies that the width of the indent is 
a function of the height of the font.  Whether that is the equivalent of 1 em 
for the font involved is a different question.

An easy way to see if it is or not is to make test documents that use 1 em 
dashes at the beginning of a paragraph and the paragraph's second line and see 
how things work for Roman character-set languages :).

Whatever it is, it is what is used in the implementation and messing with that 
seems like too much of a breaking change :).

 - Dennis


-Original Message-
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2015 09:20
To: OOo Apache 
Subject: Re: help needed on ODF standard for "auto" indent for paragraphs

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Rory O'Farrell  wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:23:22 -0700
> "Dennis E. Hamilton"  wrote:
>
> > I suspect the Roman alphabet, conventional-font space-/indent-sizing is
> inapplicable for some Asian languages.  (I hope the Asian setting is
> specifically for CJK (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) or we could be having
> problems with some very complex language scripts as well.
> >
> > Rory, I don't believe "automatic" is on by default, so someone must be
> defining styles this way, you think?
>
> You are right, "Automatic" first line indent is not on by default.  The
> default condition is that first line indent is selected as zero (i.e. no
> indent), as are the indents before and after every line of the paragraph; I
> think  this is reasonable behavour,  If "Automatic" is checked, then the 1
> em indent is applied i.e., an indent of the type size.  The Help file says
> "Automatically indents a paragraph according to the font size and the line
> spacing. The setting in the First Line box is ignored."
>

I'm not really sure this auto indent is 1 em. This is really the heart of
my question. What ist the calculation for this? OK, I will investigate
further.

Thank you for your response.


>
> The current fashion in much in-house writing is not to indent, instead
> marking paragraphs by a line of white space.  From a conservationist's
> point of view this uses more paper - I leave aside any question of
> aesthetics or ease of reading.
>
> I cannot answer for what happens when using R to L type or what (if any)
> is the typesetting "norm" for such languages.  I'll root around later today
> to see if I can come up with anything, but I'm going offline shortly to do
> Saturday things.
>
> Rory
>
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > >From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie]
> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 14:20
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: help needed on ODF standard for "auto" indent for paragraphs
> >
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:57:59 -0700
> > Kay Schenk  wrote:
> >
> > > This is in regard to issue
> > > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126476
> > >
> > > I can't easily locate what the ODF 1.2 standard is on calculation for a
> > > first line auto indent for a paragraph. Well I found this --
> > > http://officeopenxml.com/WPindentation.php
> > >
> > > but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. :/
> > >
> > > In any case, if the standard is consistent regardless of font, it seems
> > > our calcs may be incorrect for some Asian fonts (maybe encoding factors
> > > are not correctly taken into account) and that is the reason the patch
> > > was submitted for this issue. It would be nice if this calculation did
> > > happen correctly so users would not have to manually adjust the indent
> > > for paragraph first line.
> > >
> >
> > Kay,
> >
> > Merely for information, the printing standard I grew up with is that the
> usual indent for a paragraph in body type is one em, that is on 12 pt type,
> 12 pts, 18 pt type, 18 pts etc.  I believe this is the convention followed
> in OO's Paragraph style definition on the Indents and Spacing tab, when
> "Automatic" is checked  for first line indentation.
> >
> > If you need references for the one em indent I can provide them.
> >
> > Rory
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rory O'Farrell 
> >
> > --

RE: [RESULT][VOTE] Dennis Hamilton as new AOO Chair.

2015-08-23 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

I am not the AOO Chair.  It depends on the Apache Software Foundation board 
passing the resolution that Jan has composed and sent to them.  The Board is 
not required to approve the resolution and can make one of its own choosing.  
The next meeting of the ASF Board is on Wednesday, September 16.  I assume that 
is when the Board acts on the resolution.

Just to tidy things up a little bit, here are the details that normally go in a 
[RESULT][VOTE].  It would be useful if someone verified my tally.  If I missed 
anyone or I misclassified any vote, please report that here.

YES votes
+1 Regina Henschel (binding)
+1 Louis Suárez-Potts (binding)
+1 Kay Schenk (binding)
+1 Roberto Galoppini (binding)
+1 Kazunari Hirano (binding)
+1 Andrea Pescetti (binding)
+1 Marcus Lange (binding)
+1 Herbert Dürr (binding)
+1 Rob Weir (binding)
+1 Peter Junge (binding)
+1 Dave Fisher (binding)
+1 Andrew Rist (binding)
+1 Jürgen Schmidt (binding)
   Binding vote subtotal, 13 
+1 Keith N. MkKenna 
+1 Rory O'Farrell
+1 Jörg Schmidt
+1 Alexandro Colorado (JZA)
+1 Dave Barton
+1 Dick Groskamp
+1 V. Stuart Foote
+1 Guy Waterval
+1 Stuart Swales
+1 Phillip Rhodes
23 TOTAL YES 


ABSTAIN votes
+0 Jan Iverson (binding)
=0 Dennis E. Hamilton (binding)
+0 Olaf Felka
3 TOTAL ABSTENTIONS

NO votes
none 


 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 00:27
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Dennis Hamilton as new AOO Chair.

Congratulations Dennis.

[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

2015-08-24 Future Board Reports

2015-08-24 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

I am changing the practice of development and submission of Reports to the 
Board.

Technically, Reports to the Board are an accountability of the PMC Chair to the 
ASF Board of Directors.  It is one of the matters that is an obligation of the 
Chair and it is to the Board and only the Board.

Clearly, the PMC holds the responsibility for the project and will contribute 
and be consulted.  However, the direct accountability to the Board is the 
Chair's alone.
 
Until further notice, the AOO Report to the Board will be developed by the 
Chair privately with the PMC and will not be made or discussed in public before 
its submission and acceptance by the Board.  Subsequent to that acceptance and 
its publication by the Board, typically a month later, the final version will 
also be made available for the information of the full Apache OpenOffice 
community and as part of the project's historical materials.

This change does not diminish in any manner the participation of the overall 
community as reflected here at dev@ oo.a.o and as represented by the PMC.  All 
deliberations and discussion that do not require confidentiality for some 
reason (mainly personnel matters and private requests) will be carried out 
here.  

I expect working in public to increase greatly, not to diminish, and you will 
all have earlier awareness of substantive developments. 

Because there had been a different practice for previous Board Reports, I 
wanted you to know what would change rather than leaving a question about what 
is happening with the future reports.

 - Dennis 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: 2015-08-24 Future Board Reports

Great question, Louis.

The board-reporting guidelines are quite comprehensive,
<http://apache.org/foundation/board/reporting>.

Please note the final section, "Engaging with the Board about the Report."  It 
is not until the Board meeting that the report is accepted, after any requested 
changes, and there may be action items back through Chair that also arise out 
of the Board meeting.  

The Apache OpenOffice collection of Board Reports is at 
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Board+Reports>.

You'll see that the latest one is a draft, and the template being used is 
evident. The first report from Apache OpenOffice as a Top Level Project is the 
one for 2012 Nov.

Notice that the Board Minutes, after approval at the next Board Meeting, are 
published as a single text file with all of the reports from Projects attached. 
 Here are the approved minutes that include the July 2015 report for Apache 
OpenOffice: 
<http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2015/board_minutes_2015_07_15.txt>.
The report required no discussion at the meeting and it consists of under 50 
lines of text at "Attachment AQ."

You can also see how other projects report there.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:lui...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 20:14
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Dennis E. Hamilton 
Subject: Re: 2015-08-24 Future Board Reports

Dennis,

[ ... ]

Thanks for the explanation on process. But I ask an intentionally naïve 
question. What is contained in the Report to the Board? 

Best,
Louis


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: 2015-08-24 Future Board Reports

I don't know, Simon.

I suspect there are a variety of approaches to how reports to the Board are 
arrived at on Apache Projects.  The most visible activity I have seen is on the 
Incubator PMC, and I suspect that is a level to aspire to.  

I am also fairly confident that the Chair has great flexibility although it 
remains the Chair's specific accountability.

For substantive matters and issues that don't fall into those few categories 
that require private treatment at the PMC, I anticipate that the community will 
be fully apprised, even before any mention in a report to the Board, assuming 
it needs any Board attention at all.  If I, as Chair, fall short in assuring 
that, it will be evident in any disparity between the accepted Board reports 
and what the community would find unsurprising.  I would expect to be 
called-out on that and I will clean it up.

The Board places great reliance on PMCs to manage affairs at the level where 
they are the most informed and able to act.  I suspect they count on the Chair 
and the reports to the board as assurance that such reliance is warranted.

I will provide more that might be useful to you in my response to the question 
from Louis Suárez-Potts.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 02:07
To: dev ; orc...@apache.org
Subject: Re: 2015-08-24 Future Board Reports

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton 
wrote:

>
> Until further notice, the AOO Report to the Board will be developed by the
> Chair privately with the PMC and will not be made or discussed in public
> before its submission and acceptance by the Board.  Subsequent to that
> acceptance and its publication by the Board, typically a month later, the
> final version will also be made available for the information of the full
> Apache OpenOffice community and as part of the project's historical
> materials.
>

Please forgive my lack of Apache-wide insight, but is this approach common
in other Apache projects or unique to AOO?

Thanks,

S.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

2015-08-25 When Speaking as the Chair

[BCC to the AOO PMC]

>From the Chair,

It occurs to me that the role of the Chair of the Apache OpenOffice Project 
Management Committee is often seriously over-estimated.  There is also a level 
of prestige that may be associated with it that tends to give more weight to 
what I might say than otherwise.

It is important for me that others understand that for the most part, the PMC 
Chair is no different than another member of the PMC, other committers, and the 
many other contributors in the Apache OpenOffice community. I don't want to 
have my communications to now be taken with more authority than they would were 
I not the Chair.   

So, when I am speaking as the Chair, I will always introduce my emails with 
"From the Chair."  That means I am operating in the context of my 
responsibilities as an Officer of the Foundation.  

In all other cases, there is no distinction.  If it is about PMC matters, it 
must be regarded as only something any PMC member could do or say.  And in all 
cases, for weighty matters consensus is sought and you will usually know how 
that has or has not been achieved in the usual way that [PROPOSAL], [DISCUSS], 
and [VOTE] mail threads are handled.

Thank you for the support that I have been offered and the trust you have 
placed in me as I undertake this new role.

 - Dennis



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: 2015-08-24 Future Board Reports

Thank you Andrea,

Your suggestions are valuable to me and I will take them to heart.

-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 14:44
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: 2015-08-24 Future Board Reports

[ ... ]

Can I propose some additions to the process to make sure this ends up in 
MORE transparency instead of LESS transparency as it might seem?

1) Before the standard quarterly reports, ask the main lists for useful 
information to include in the report, and ask volunteers to reply on 
list (then you will assemble the information as you see fit).

2) Continue updating 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Board+Reports by 
copying the final report once it is published.

3) At the same time, publish a short blog post at 
https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/ with an introduction that helps the 
understanding and a link to the report published in #2.

[ ... ]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

2015-08-26 Role of the Chair

2015-08-26 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

[BCC to the AOO PMC]

>From the Chair,

It is useful to know some specifics concerning the role of a Project Management 
Committee (PMC) Chair.   This is what I rely on as guidance for carrying out my 
responsibilities.

**PLEASE NOTE** It might appear in the material below that the Chair is in a 
position to be the (benevolent?) dictator of the PMC and the project.  
   That is not the case.  
   The technical decisions and detailed work fall to the PMC, the committers, 
and, for Apache OpenOffice, the community of contributors all the way out to 
end-users who submit bugs, complaints, and requests for assistance in 
difficulties of successful use.  
   You might say that the Chair has oversight on how well that activity is 
managed and fits under the umbrella of the Foundation.  This is not about 
technical direction to the extent there is no collision with over-riding ASF 
policy (e.g., in handling of IP).
 
THE PMC AND HOW IT OPERATES

Since the PMC Chair is a member of the PMC, an useful place for that important 
context is the "Project Management Committee Guide" at 
.

The section on "PMC Required Policy" is very brief and to the point.  An aspect 
of PMC activity that is questioned from time to time is where the PMC conducts 
its business.  The final section of the required policy establishes *strict, 
mandatory* limitation on what PMC deliberations are allowed on private mailing 
lists under "Conduct Project Business on Mailing Lists."  

Everyone on the AOO PMC must understand and respect the "PMC Required Policy," 
including myself.  We're fully capable of it, despite what are seen as 
excessive private discussions in the past.

THE CHAIR OF THE PMC

For the Chair, the "PMC FAQ" section provides two additional explanations about 
what is expected.

First, all the way down at "Changing the PMC Chair" there is an important link 
to "Why are PMC Chairs officers of the corporation, 
.

Some general duties are described in the earlier "PMC FAQ" section on "What Are 
the Duties of the PMC Chair and How To Perform Them?"   Beside required 
administrative activities, there is this particular guidance:
 
  "Remember, that, as in any meeting, the chair is a
   Facilitator and their role within the PMC is to
   Ensure that everyone has a chance to be heard and 
   to enable meetings to flow smoothly.  There is no
   Concept of 'leader' in the Apache way."

This section also links to an additional definition of PMC and Chair at 
.  This is important 
for understanding the relationship of the Chair to the Board:

   "The chair of the PMC is appointed by the Board and
is an officer of the ASF (Vice President).  The 
chair has primary responsibility to the Board, and 
has the power to establish rules and procedures for 
the day to day management of the communities for which
the PMC is responsible, including the composition of 
the PMC itself."

Finally, there is reference to section 6.3 of the Bylaws of 
The Foundation.  The section is essentially the origin of
the description above, in its final statements:

   "Subject to the direction of the Board of Directors, the
chairman of each Project Management Committee shall be
primarily responsible for project(s) managed by such
committee, and he or she shall establish rules and 
procedures for the day to day management of project(s)
for which the committee is responsible.

   "The Board of Directors of the corporation may, by 
resolution, terminate a Project Management Committee
at any time." 

BEYOND THE DRY STUFF

It might seem that this could be very heavy-handed and dry.

In practice, the philosophy on establishment of sustainable communities that 
produce software in the public interest involves very great patience and 
tolerance for how communities come together and ultimately thrive.  The idea is 
for communities to work out a way of working that achieves the purposes of the 
project and the over-arching ASF principles on how the public good is served, 
and being able to sustain the project for as long as that is important.  

At the ASF, I don't expect to ever see a counterpart of the business-world 
"public hanging" and those who call for them need to understand this is not how 
the ASF operates.  Period.  These examples, also from the FAQ, may be 
informative:

   

  

I don't need to write any further on this subject.  If there is any question 
about actions on my part as Chair, please check this and the source documents.  
If I appear to be unfaithful to this, shout out and let's clean it up.

Now to the work at hand.










-
To unsubscribe, e-

[REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

2015-08-28 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

>From an AOO PMC Member,

I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on the 
OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list.  These are *statistics* and noisy ones at 
that.  I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this level of precision. 
 It is in the nature of private@ that message content and even the topics must 
be held in confidence.

This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current state 
and later progress.  The movement of discussions to the community when the 
confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply should be seen in 
movements at this level.  Further reports over the course of the year may 
provide an useful indicator.
 
OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC

This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through July, 
2015, by role of the sender.

2015 | Private List Messages
   thru July | PMC  ASF  Other   All

  Totals  1145  182 31  1358
 Senders22   23 2368 
  Per sender  52.0  7.91.3  20.0 
   (average)
 Per day   5.4  0.90.1   6.4

Of all the messages sent, 

  84% are by members of the PMC, 
  16% are by other ASF participants, and 
  17% are by others.

The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers of the 
ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private list.  The 
"Other" senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache OpenOffice 
contributors that raise questions or provide information to the PMC via 
private@.

For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so far 
this year, 

  49% of the messages are from the three 
  PMC members who were the most vocal 
  in the studied period. 
  75% of the messages are from the seven 
  most vocal.  
  91% were from the most vocal 11 of the
  22 PMC members that posted.

I confess to being one of those top three posters.


NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION

A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied 

 168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts,
 about 0.8 new topics per day.
   The variance of 17 from the first tally 
 is negligible and will not be corrected.
 The raw data is available for auditing
 by the PMC.  

 8.0 is the average number of messages on a 
 single subject

  5% is the portion of the overall messages
 used in the longest thread, one with
 73 messages

 50% of the messages are on the 20 longest
 discussion threads.  The shortest thread
 in that group has 18 messages.

 75% of the messages are on the 50 longest
 discussions.  The shortest threads in
 that group have 8 messages.

 90% of the messages are on the 84 longest
 discussions (i.e., half of the
 threads).  The shortest threads in
 that group have 4 messages each.  

 The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads
 having 3, 2, and 1 messages each.

This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and any 
particular thread.  The PMC has detailed supporting data. 

[end of report]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

2015-08-28 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

With a correction already,

Of all the messages sent, 

  84.3% are by members of the PMC, 
  13.4% are by other ASF participants, and 
   2.3% are by others.

[The extra decimals are simply to achieve a confirmable total of 100%, 
precision not so much.]

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 12:09
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July 

>From an AOO PMC Member,

I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on the 
OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list.  These are *statistics* and noisy ones at 
that.  I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this level of precision. 
 It is in the nature of private@ that message content and even the topics must 
be held in confidence.

This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current state 
and later progress.  The movement of discussions to the community when the 
confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply should be seen in 
movements at this level.  Further reports over the course of the year may 
provide an useful indicator.
 
OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC

This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through July, 
2015, by role of the sender.

2015 | Private List Messages
   thru July | PMC  ASF  Other   All

  Totals  1145  182 31  1358
 Senders22   23 2368 
  Per sender  52.0  7.91.3  20.0 
   (average)
 Per day   5.4  0.90.1   6.4

Of all the messages sent, 

  84% are by members of the PMC, 
  16% are by other ASF participants, and 
  17% are by others.

The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers of the 
ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private list.  The 
"Other" senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache OpenOffice 
contributors that raise questions or provide information to the PMC via 
private@.

For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so far 
this year, 

  49% of the messages are from the three 
  PMC members who were the most vocal 
  in the studied period. 
  75% of the messages are from the seven 
  most vocal.  
  91% were from the most vocal 11 of the
  22 PMC members that posted.

I confess to being one of those top three posters.


NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION

A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied 

 168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts,
 about 0.8 new topics per day.
   The variance of 17 from the first tally 
 is negligible and will not be corrected.
 The raw data is available for auditing
 by the PMC.  

 8.0 is the average number of messages on a 
 single subject

  5% is the portion of the overall messages
 used in the longest thread, one with
 73 messages

 50% of the messages are on the 20 longest
 discussion threads.  The shortest thread
 in that group has 18 messages.

 75% of the messages are on the 50 longest
 discussions.  The shortest threads in
 that group have 8 messages.

 90% of the messages are on the 84 longest
 discussions (i.e., half of the
 threads).  The shortest threads in
 that group have 4 messages each.  

 The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads
 having 3, 2, and 1 messages each.

This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and any 
particular thread.  The PMC has detailed supporting data. 

[end of report]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

2015-08-28 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

I've heard that it is a whole lot and much more that the PMC policies warrant.

I dug into this to find out exactly what "a whole lot" is and whether it is a 
way to demonstrate, without breaching confidentiality, when activity more 
aligned with the policy is reached over time.

Thanks for your question and welcome back, Phil.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:motley.crue@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 14:59
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

So what, if anything, should we take away from this?  My (completely
superficial, naive and uninformed) feeling is that that is a LOT of traffic
on the "private" list.  But maybe not.  Anyway, is the idea here that there
should be less traffic on that list? More? The same?

I have to admit, I've been pretty dormant for a long-time, so I'm a little
out of touch with what's going on (gone on) here, but you have me intrigued
with this.


Phil


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton 
wrote:

> From an AOO PMC Member,
>
> I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on
> the OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list.  These are *statistics* and
> noisy ones at that.  I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this
> level of precision.  It is in the nature of private@ that message content
> and even the topics must be held in confidence.
>
> This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current
> state and later progress.  The movement of discussions to the community
> when the confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply
> should be seen in movements at this level.  Further reports over the course
> of the year may provide an useful indicator.
>
> OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC
>
> This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through
> July, 2015, by role of the sender.
>
> 2015 | Private List Messages
>thru July | PMC  ASF  Other   All
>
>   Totals  1145  182 31  1358
>  Senders22   23 2368
>   Per sender  52.0  7.91.3  20.0
>(average)
>  Per day   5.4  0.90.1   6.4
>
> Of all the messages sent,
>
>   84% are by members of the PMC,
>   16% are by other ASF participants, and
>   17% are by others.
>
> The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers of
> the ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private
> list.  The "Other" senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache
> OpenOffice contributors that raise questions or provide information to the
> PMC via private@.
>
> For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so
> far this year,
>
>   49% of the messages are from the three
>   PMC members who were the most vocal
>   in the studied period.
>   75% of the messages are from the seven
>   most vocal.
>   91% were from the most vocal 11 of the
>   22 PMC members that posted.
>
> I confess to being one of those top three posters.
>
>
> NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION
>
> A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied
>
>  168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts,
>  about 0.8 new topics per day.
>The variance of 17 from the first tally
>  is negligible and will not be corrected.
>  The raw data is available for auditing
>  by the PMC.
>
>  8.0 is the average number of messages on a
>  single subject
>
>   5% is the portion of the overall messages
>  used in the longest thread, one with
>  73 messages
>
>  50% of the messages are on the 20 longest
>  discussion threads.  The shortest thread
>  in that group has 18 messages.
>
>  75% of the messages are on the 50 longest
>  discussions.  The shortest threads in
>  that group have 8 messages.
>
>  90% of the messages are on the 84 longest
>  discussions (i.e., half of the
>  threads).  The shortest threads in
>  that group have 4 messages each.
>
>  The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads
>  having 3, 2, and 1 messages each.
>
> This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and
> any particular thread.  The PMC has detailed supporting data.
>
> [end of report]
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

Good idea, Phil

Separating out [VOTE] and maybe even [DISCUSS] threads related to [VOTE]s 
and/or lazy consensus should be possible.  I will look into that as a 
refinement in future reports.  (It will also be helpful if the practices for 
tagging mail threads are followed consistently.)

It should be pretty easy to distinguish posts that are in scope for a PMC and 
those that are not, without revealing anything posted with an expectation of 
privacy.

Rich,

I have no means to produce comparisons with other projects and it is out of 
scope for me here.  Maybe other projects might undertake it just to satisfy 
themselves that their activity is as confined as it is thought to be.

-Original Message-
From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 09:21
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July



On 8/29/15 8:39 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> I'd love to see a comparison with a half dozen other projects.

[ ... ] But
committer / PMC votes, security issues and occasional random legal
or must-be-private people-related things pop up and cause traffic
spikes when they do.  So I would not draw conclusions or do
comparisons based on message counts.  Better to compare what is
actually being discussed.

[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Limiting Trademark Policy Discussion (was RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List ...)

>From the Chair,

I don't know, off-hand, what the proportion of discussion of Trademark Policy 
is in the PMC private discussion activity so far this year.

However, a discussion of trademark policy, as such, especially with "real and 
fictional examples," is inappropriate on this list if it is about trademark 
enforcement.  Trademark enforcement, when material to an issue before the PMC, 
is a private duty of the PMC.  There are ways to reduce the discussion to 
essentials there, however.

Let me illustrate what I mean by this.  Let's say the Apache OpenOffice PMC has 
offered arrangements, ratified VP Brand Management, by which a third party can 
employ AOO marks as part of a "Powered by Apache OpenOffice" labeling.  The PMC 
establishes the conditions under which that arrangement is available to 
individual parties and may propose custom arrangements based on the 
circumstances.  That might be useful to describe and clarify here.  

On the other hand, proposal of conditions under which third parties might be 
*required* to enter into such an arrangement is entirely different, even 
hypothetically.  As far as I know that is inconsistent with the ASF view of how 
its mission is accomplished and its being a good citizen in the world of 
open-source activities.  The ASF is by nature not litigious and resolves 
concerns about inappropriate use of its marks by other means. I can't imagine 
it attempting to compel use of any of its marks.
 
IMPORTANT. Trademark protection, infringement, and remedies are serious legal 
matters and they are not for inexpert discussion on public mailing lists.  
Suspicions of infringement and any acting on those suspicions in public 
pronouncements are unwelcome.  Even disguised accounts of specific situations 
relevant to this project are inappropriate.  And if not relevant to this 
project, they don't belong here either.

To abbreviate the need for custom PMC discussions on cases of alleged trademark 
infringement, I have posted a policy applicable to how the AOO PMC shall deal 
with any allegations of infringement and prospective curing of such 
infringements at
.
  

Questions, comments, and suggestions about that text are welcome.

 - Dennis

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

At the Apache Software Foundation, the Board delegates the determination and 
resolution of trademark matters to the Vice President, Brand Management.  All 
external engagement with respect to trademarks is handled discretely within the 
PMC and then always reviewed by, and possibly acted upon, by VP Brand 
Management and only VP Brand Management.

Individual projects are expected to be vigilant about how marks are used and 
also allowed in the domain of the project.  The Apache OpenOffice PMC conducts 
such activities.  The web site page at 
 is sufficient information for 
those who have concerns for use of or infringing use of Apache OpenOffice 
marks.  

There are non-specific topical discussions on the use of marks and the naming 
of software distributions based on code from ASF projects, such as recent 
discussions on gene...@incubator.apache.org and legal-disc...@apache.org.  
There are some seemingly-borderline cases that the ASF may take a position on, 
and it might become necessary for the AOO PMC to be watchful for such cases.  
In general, VP Brand Management will establish what such cases are.  The 
determination can easily be that some or all such cases are trifles in the 
context of the mission of the ASF and will not be pursued.  The LEGAL JIRA 
section might also have issues related to branding issues.  


 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 12:45
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

We could reduce private traffic if we discussed the policy for trademarks in 
public. The community can help write a clear policy statement with real and 
fictional examples. This would serve the community by reducing private 
inquiries to unusual cases not previously considered or unclearly explained.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Programming Open Office

All of the source code used in making an Apache OpenOffice distribution is 
available free to the public, in the same manner as the OpenOffice software the 
people directly.

The code can be downloaded, modified (or not) and used to build the programs.  
The use of that code is governed by the Apache License Version 2.0, and some 
parts of the code may be subject to other licenses.  So long as those licenses 
are honored, there is no limitation on what can be done with the code.

The Apache Software Foundation also claims trademark over the name Apache 
OpenOffice, OpenOffice.org, and many of the other marks, including icons and 
other symbols associated with the Apache OpenOffice product.  Distributing a 
modified version of the software must not be done in a manner that does not 
infringes those trademarks.  

Those who want to use the Apache trademarks in conjunction with a version of 
their own product can make application to the Apache OpenOffice Project 
Management Committee.  See .



-Original Message-
From: Adrian Burns [mailto:adrianbu...@bellsouth.net] 
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 11:26
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Programming Open Office

Dear Sir or Madam,

If anyone who knows programming, can modify and change Open Office, how do you 
maintain control & quality? Or are they only aloud to modify or change a copy 
of their Open Office that they downloaded?

Thank You,
Adrian 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Programming Open Office

Hmm, I guess it has been a long day.

Read:
  "... in the same manner as the OpenOffice software that people obtain to use 
directly."

Read:
  "Distributing a modified version of the software must not be done in a manner 
that infringes those trademarks.

[;<),  Dennis

-Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 17:42
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: RE: Programming Open Office

All of the source code used in making an Apache OpenOffice distribution is 
available free to the public, in the same manner as the OpenOffice software the 
people directly.

The code can be downloaded, modified (or not) and used to build the programs.  
The use of that code is governed by the Apache License Version 2.0, and some 
parts of the code may be subject to other licenses.  So long as those licenses 
are honored, there is no limitation on what can be done with the code.

The Apache Software Foundation also claims trademark over the name Apache 
OpenOffice, OpenOffice.org, and many of the other marks, including icons and 
other symbols associated with the Apache OpenOffice product.  Distributing a 
modified version of the software must not be done in a manner that does not 
infringes those trademarks.  

Those who want to use the Apache trademarks in conjunction with a version of 
their own product can make application to the Apache OpenOffice Project 
Management Committee.  See <http://openoffice.apache.org/trademarks.html>.



-Original Message-
From: Adrian Burns [mailto:adrianbu...@bellsouth.net] 
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 11:26
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Programming Open Office

Dear Sir or Madam,

If anyone who knows programming, can modify and change Open Office, how do you 
maintain control & quality? Or are they only aloud to modify or change a copy 
of their Open Office that they downloaded?

Thank You,
Adrian 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Third-Party ALv2 Dependencies (RE: Limiting Trademark Policy Discussion ...)

>From the Chair,

I need to speak up about the "rebasing" business.

 1. Use of the ALv2 has nothing to do with trademarks, so this conversation 
should be on a separate thread.  

 2. However, it probably should not be held here and certainly not privately by 
the PMC.  If someone wants to pursue it, I suggest these observations be 
checked with an authoritative source on a more-appropriate list, perhaps 
legal-discuss.  Absent that, I request that this conversation not go any 
farther.

 - Dennis

 - - - - - - - - - - -

OBSERVATIONS

 3. Whatever the term "rebase" signified, I think we can all agree that it is 
about a fork (or a "refork: if you prefer).   

 4. At the ASF, forking is a feature.  The only requirement is that the ALv2 
(and any other applicable licenses) be honored.  I know, people can be unhappy 
and will object.   But the ASF position, to the extent one is needed, is 
captured by "forking is a feature."

 5. The ASF *does*not* police the use of ALv2 content by third parties.  The 
ASF prides itself on how it manages third-party and contributed content.  The 
ASF is meticulous about IP provenance.  That is part of the way in which the 
ASF operates in the public interest by being an extraordinary open-source 
citizen.  That is what the ASF does.  It is not about what others might or 
might not do.

 6. It is up to third parties to satisfy themselves that they are operating 
with any incorporated ALv2 code and its derivatives appropriately.  It is not 
the business of the ASF to warrant anything about such activity.  Those who 
wish to reuse and repurpose code from the third party must also satisfy 
themselves.  That has nothing directly to do with the ASF.

 7. Here is further evidence that the ASF is not the ALv2 sheriff over 
third-party reliance and handling of ALv2 code in their works.

  It is perfectly clear that closed-source works that have code dependencies 
  on ALv2 works of others are not required to provide an account to anybody,
  as far as ALv2 license terms go, beyond the appropriate provision of 
  LICENSE/NOTICE files.  

 - - - - - -

PERSONAL REMARK

  I have personally confirmed that a kindred OpenOffice.org-descendant does 
indeed satisfy the LICENSE/NOTICE provisions of the ALv2.  Those files were, in 
fact, easier for me to find in the installed binaries than in installs of 
Apache OpenOffice distributions.

  I have also remarked, in a discussion elsewhere, that I feel the way ALv2 is 
characterized in individual derivative files I've examined is, to my taste, a 
bit sketchy.  However, the observed practice is not unusual and even happens in 
the publishing industry where there tends to be serious attention to rights and 
permissions.  

  I don't think there is a legality question, just my own fussiness, and that 
of some others, in how provenance and attribution is accounted for in our own 
work.  It should be well-known by now that my fussiness threshold is rather 
different than that of many other developers [;<).  

  This does not matter.  I am not an ALv2 cop either.  I can only satisfy 
myself on what I rely on and how I am comfortable that I know enough about its 
provenance to feel safe in doing so. 

-Original Message-
From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:lui...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 07:58
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Limiting Trademark Policy Discussion (was RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 
Private-List ...)

Hi,

> On 29 Aug 15, at 21:13, Dave Fisher  wrote:
[ ... ]
> We should (re)acknowledge what (re)based on Apache OpenOffice requires 
> whatever that really is.

Yep.
[ ... ]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Limiting Trademark Policy Discussion (was RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List ...)

I'm wondering about the following.  
 
I think the "based on X" conversation is already happening at a general level 
and I believe participation at that level is better, since this will probably 
be simple and generic and VP Brand Management will likely take a position that 
applies to us also.  

I thought "powered by X" was also being discussed at a cross-project level.  I 
may have been mistaken.  The conversations went across different lists and I 
lost track.  I suspect VP Brand Management may set a policy there too.

I think in practice there will always have to be treatment on an 
individual-case basis.  Any cookie-cutter test would be simply a starting point 
for a negotiated agreement that could be rescinded if an user of the marks 
violates the agreed conditions.

I have no prediction how that would go.

Those were somewhat open discussions that arose out of what happens if someone 
distributes builds of unreleased code, and what about when someone other than 
the project distributes binaries of released code, with none to significant 
alternations.  How can the Apache Project marks be used under those conditions? 
 

It would be good to see what conclusions have been reached, if reached yet, and 
rely on that broader analysis if possible.

I didn't think there was any notion of required labelling so much as indicating 
how one of those distributions could indicate relationship in a way that did 
not violate trademarks.  I am not certain there was anything about required 
based/powered but rather conditions under which those would be allowed to be 
used, although others, including Dave may have raised the prospect.  We should 
look again there.  

What were your take-aways from those discussion, Dave?

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 18:13
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Limiting Trademark Policy Discussion (was RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 
Private-List ...)

As me from my soapbox:

[ ... ]

I think that the project should have an open source code test for Powered By 
that applies to all. The rights to use are clear for all. The obligations 
spelled out. Benefits given equally.

[ ... ]

Once we have a proposal that the community likes we can go through any type of 
confirmation or clearance the Brand committee requires.

I expect that this discussion should proceed carefully and not rush into set 
form but instead collect ideas focusing on different parts. There must be an 
opportunity to heal rifts with respect for all.

Are you open to that discussion?

Are you open to any and all to that discussion?

This process is not against any group, but for all.

Regards,
Dave

[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Third-Party ALv2 Dependencies (RE: Limiting Trademark Policy Discussion ...)

Oh, I'm sorry, Dave.  I thought I was making it clear, on this change of 
subject, that I am not talking about trademarks but only 3rd parties deriving 
from ALv2 code itself, including by "rebasing," forking, or any other means.

With regard to the use of marks and "Powered By" I agree that is separate and 
find your comments about that on the other thread interesting.  I agree that is 
about permitting use of ASF trademarks.  I responded to that separately.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 12:41
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Third-Party ALv2 Dependencies (RE: Limiting Trademark Policy 
Discussion ...)

I appreciate all your diligence about licenses. It is valuable. Whatever you 
want to call this thread ...

One intention was to discuss what if anything is required with respect to 
trademarks when ANY third party product is (re)based on Apache OpenOffice.

For example it cannot be called OpenOffice. If there are exceptions to this 
then these should be openly and explicitly acknowledged. I am not saying that 
there are any.

You are missing the idea of creating a Powered By designation which is about 
trademark and not the license.

If no one is interested then fine. If everyone is happy with the status quo so 
be it, but I don't think it is the case.

Regards,
Dave

[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Third-Party ALv2 Dependencies (RE: Limiting Trademark Policy Discussion ...)

Thank you for your remarks, Pedro.

Just two things:

 1. I was referring to LICENSE and NOTICE files in an installed binary 
distribution.  I should have used NOTICE file, since that is what is named in 
ALv2, and I should have said copy of the license, not a specific LICENSE file.  
I verified just now that those conditions are satisfied on Windows 10 at 
the install point of the binary distribution, with a NOTICE and with a copy of 
ALv2 in the accompanying license file.  
I did not look at the root tree of the corresponding source code.  I also 
don't see anything that specific in ALv2 about where the necessary files are to 
be situated.
   I stand by my observation that the ASF is not the sheriff  here and that we 
should not be either.  That diligence is something for others who might be 
impacted to provide.  We should not be making any allegations here at all.

 2. I am not certain what you are making reference to as licensing concerns in 
Apache OpenOffice.  It would be helpful if you open Bugzilla issues on your 
findings, if you have not already.  Please let me know the issue numbers.  If 
you believe that is inappropriate and that discretion is required, report 
instead to private@ oo.a.o and it will receive immediate attention.

Thanks for raising these concerns,

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 20:58
To: orc...@apache.org; Apache OO 
Subject: Re: Third-Party ALv2 Dependencies (RE: Limiting Trademark Policy 
Discussion ...)

[ ... ]

Considering your personal remark are you referring to clause 4 (a) and 
(d)? IANAL
and that's someone else's job at the ASF, but I didn't find those in the 
root tree
of a certain third party, which is where I would expect them to be. 

[ ... ]

Back to the topic of ALv2 dependencies. I think you are aware that I 
notified
the PMC repeatedly about licensing concerns. I hope the situation is solved
before the next release as it may be an issue. [ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Third-Party ALv2 Dependencies (RE: Limiting Trademark Policy Discussion ...)

2015-08-31 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Pedro, can you provide a public URL to the file that concerns you?

I cannot find directory main/ooo_custom_images on 
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main and there is nothing 
similar on the web site.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] 
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 07:16
To: orc...@apache.org; Apache OO 
Subject: Re: Third-Party ALv2 Dependencies (RE: Limiting Trademark Policy 
Discussion ...)

Hi again Dennis;

I stopped using AOO's bugzilla after an unconfortable incident.

Since the PMC was notified twice about it, I will just make it public.
You should take a look at:

main/ooo_custom_images/industrial/README

Pedro.

[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Third-Party ALv2 Dependencies (RE: Limiting Trademark Policy Discussion ...)

2015-08-31 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Thanks, Andrea.  

I see what is questioned about that page.

This folder also appears on the AOO410 branch and I assume it appears in source 
releases.

The steps for clearing this appear to involve the following:

 1. Confirm that the ooo_custom_images are covered by the Oracle Software Grant 
Agreement to the Apache Software Foundation.  (I just noticed the SGA 
yesterday; I'll take a look.)

 2. Assuming that it is covered, remove the license information but not any of 
the non-removable notices and the acknowledgments.  

 3. Side Project: Figure out how to have RAT, the IP checking software, find 
such files as this in a reliable manner.  (I noticed this problem on another 
project, too.) 

 4. Plan B: If there is some concern that a good-faith reliance on the SGA is 
inappropriate or questionable, remove the industrial folder and any dependency 
on its contents.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] 
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 09:28
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Third-Party ALv2 Dependencies (RE: Limiting Trademark Policy 
Discussion ...)

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I cannot find directory main/ooo_custom_images on
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main and there is
> nothing similar on the web site.

It's there at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/ooo_custom_images/industrial/README
and (nicer)
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/ooo_custom_images/industrial/README?view=markup

As I see it (but haven't checked history) it seems that these files are 
covered by Sun's JCA and thus inherited by Oracle, which should (I can't 
check now if they were explicitly included in the Oracle grant or not) 
have included them in the grant as for the other files.

Were these files forgotten in the grant? Or were headers not updated? 
Note that I don't recall ever examining the grant, so I'm not the best 
person for this. But if the investigation results in changes relevant 
for OpenOffice 4.1.2 we can surely include it.

Regards,
   Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Third-Party ALv2 Dependencies (RE: Limiting Trademark Policy Discussion ...)

2015-08-31 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

 1. 
<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/ooo_custom_images/industrial/README>
Is listed in our file 
<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/pmc/ip-review/oracle-sga-1.txt>
All other README files in that list have been either deleted or modified to 
carry an Apache notice.
This appears to be an oversight.

 1.1 I need to confirm the provenance of this file.
 1.2 We do need to figure out why RAT apparently does not catch it.

Pondering next steps, looking for insights of others,
 
 - Dennis


-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] 
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 10:58
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: RE: Third-Party ALv2 Dependencies (RE: Limiting Trademark Policy 
Discussion ...)

Thanks, Andrea.  

I see what is questioned about that page.

This folder also appears on the AOO410 branch and I assume it appears in source 
releases.

The steps for clearing this appear to involve the following:

 1. Confirm that the ooo_custom_images are covered by the Oracle Software Grant 
Agreement to the Apache Software Foundation.  (I just noticed the SGA 
yesterday; I'll take a look.)

[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: AOO -> LO or MS O

2015-09-03 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

There are users who will find the political drama compelling.  There is nothing 
to be done about that.  It does not make the product better and it distracts 
those who want to find ways to serve the broad community no matter what code 
base is being worked on.

The asymmetrical situation around licenses is a factor, although what matters 
more to users is how that shows up in what they have in their hands to use.

I found the greatest value in the linked article to be about the fairly 
balanced view of the three productivity-suite options, assuming that the reader 
is on a platform where all are available.

It seems to me that the greatest concern to this community is the practical 
experience users are and will have and how this project can serve those 
concerns, especially with regard to assured usability of present documents and 
also the skills that have been developed in working with them.

 - Dennis

PS: On the interoperable-use challenge lurking in the article,

The historical business was too long and not so meaningful to user needs 
compared to the -- important for us -- slow but steady divergence of the two 
OpenOffice.org descendants not so much in features and release cadence but core 
functions around format conversion/interchange.  That divergence is eroding 
common support for the ODF format and OOXML interchange (i.e., functioning in a 
world where Microsoft Office documents cannot be ignored).  Incompatibilities 
at that level impede interoperable multi-product and cross-platform use where 
that is important. 

One of the greatest appeals of the OpenOffice.org family is the presence of 
consistent cross-platform support not available anywhere else (yet) in 
conjunction with the ODF format.  This appeals to civil authorities and 
institutions not just for economy under actual user conditions (which may or 
may not be achievable as promised in a particular situation).  

The free ODF/OOXML-supporting products matter for durable preservation and 
interchange of documents, especially those employed in public services, without 
*requiring* use of commercial software as institutions move to delivery of 
services and coordination with the public by digital means.  Substitutability 
has been promoted to those organizations as a safeguard for adoption of these 
products.  

-Original Message-
From: Rich Bowen [mailto:rbo...@rcbowen.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2015 06:54
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: AOO -> LO or MS O

On 09/03/2015 08:33 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> "After LibreOffice came out, Oracle released one version of Oracle Open
> Office before deciding that the project wasn’t worth the effort
> .
> It laid off the programmers and gave the code and trademarks to the Apache
> Software Foundation, under Apache’s liberal open source license."
>
> That's one version of events. Another version of events is this.
> http://pages.citebite.com/e7v0f3m9sder
>
> "Shuttleworth has a fairly serious disagreement with how the
> OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice split came about. He said that Sun made a $100
> million "gift" to the community when it opened up the OpenOffice code. But
> a "radical faction" made the lives of the OpenOffice developers "hell" by
> refusing to contribute code under the Sun agreement. That eventually led to
> the split, but furthermore led Oracle to finally decide to stop OpenOffice
> development and lay off 100 employees."
>
> That's different from "deciding it was not worth the effort".
>
> Why the FUD on a dev list, anyway?

It's not FUD. It's a link to an article.

What would be awesome is if someone would write a counterpoint, which is 
non-confrontational, non-rageful, non-hateful, and non-reactionary, but 
just calmly presenting the reasons why someone might want to stay on 
OpenOffice.

Refuting the article on this list, where we all already know the story, 
is a good start, but if you could turn it into an article that's less 
political, more practical (features, community, timelines, and so on), 
that would actually help our cause. The person asking the original 
question doesn't care about politics, hurt feelings, and "radical 
factions", I guarantee. They want to know which product is better for 
them, now, and in the long term.

Thanks.

-- 
Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

FW: [DISCUSSION] ODF Plugfest, September 2015

2015-09-03 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

More information about the Plugfest for some who might not have noticed earlier.

I have edited this lightly to reflect the current status in my case.

- Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 15:31
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSSION] ODF Plugfest, September 2015 (was RE: [NOMINATION] Dennis 
Hamilton ... )

Roberto mentions the forthcoming ODF Plugfest to be held September 15-16 at the 
Hague. 

WHAT THE ODF PLUGFEST IS 

Information about the Plugfest is on this Wiki page: 
<http://plugtest.opendocsociety.org/doku.php?id=plugfests:201509_thehague:info>.

To see how these have operated, it is useful to look at the programs of prior 
plugfests starting with the two in 2009 (although some of the historical 
material seems to consist of placeholders). 

I have not been to any of these except vicariously as a member of the OASIS ODF 
Interoperability and Conformance (OIC) Technical Committee and as a participant 
in some of the planning.

I see three matters that are useful to be present for.  Anyone could attend to 
participate as a contributor to Apache OpenOffice in those events: 

 1. The presentations on ODF adoption and also on developments of the ODF 
specifications
 2. The subsequent presentations on implementation efforts, where 8 are listed 
so far, including Apache OpenOffice.
 3. The Interop testing that occupies the remainder of the first day and all of 
the second day.  For this, it is desirable to show up with demonstration and 
test documents to interchanges and then inspect implementations.  This activity 
tends to be conducted in confidence, regrettably.  There is a sample scenario 
template to use in presenting tests.

AOO PARTICIPATION

For AOO, it would be good to have some simple presentation of status for (2) 
and to have some contributions (3) of tests or exemplary documents for which 
interoperability is a concern.

Roberto has been on the calls for organization of the Plugtest and it is 
valuable that he is doing so.  His keeping us apprised of what AOO might do to 
contribute and to participate will be very helpful.

I think if we create a portfolio of tests and a few slides on the status of AOO 
by mid-September, anyone could be present as an AOO participant.

The Plugfests are obviously more amenable to participation by ODF experts and 
implementers that are based in Europe and we have able members of the AOO 
community there.

MY PERSONAL PARTICIPATION

I have always wanted to go to a Plugfest and never managed to arrange it.  I 
think we have many able spokespersons.  

I do not have the means to travel to The Netherlands for this event.  I am 
willing to go, although it would be valuable to at least have someone more 
technically involved around interoperability testing.  I don't think it is 
necessary to have someone be an official of some form, whether PMC member or a 
Chair

[Note: I learned that, in addition to not having the means, I have a conflict. ]

Here at dev@ we can work up a status report that anyone could deliver and also 
development of any contributions to the interoperability testing that would be 
useful for cross-implementation demonstration/confirmation in those sessions.

I am happy to cooperate in any way I can in the development of such materials.  
I trust Roberto will continue to participate on the calls (since they tend to 
be at 6am in my local time).

[Note: That was in July.  This is September already and my ability to assist 
here is severely limited, although I will do what I can.]

 - Dennis

[ ... ]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: AOO -> LO or MS O

2015-09-03 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

A little more on the importance of OpenOffice in the context of use in civil 
administration.

An example of advocacy-organization promotion of ODF-based documents and the 
primary implementations are presented can be found in the report linked at 
<http://www.openforumeurope.org/library/odf-toolkit-2/>.

Download the PDF by using the link "Download the Open Document Format 
principles for Government Technology".

The more interesting material is on the 4th page of the document (3rd 
double-page of the PDF) under "Application choices" and then "Variations 
between applications."  Note the positioning and importance of Apache 
OpenOffice in that presentation as one of the three "full" ODF 1.2 
implementations.

Note the inclusion of Apache OpenOffice among the supporters on the last page.

I am not going to remark on the technical exaggerations an deficiencies in this 
piece.  The point is how Apache OpenOffice is positioned with other software 
and that this is a promotion of governmental use of software supporting ODF 1.2.

 - Dennis



-Original Message-
From: Roberto Galoppini [mailto:roberto.galopp...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2015 12:06
To: dev ; Dennis Hamilton 
Subject: Re: AOO -> LO or MS O

2015-09-03 17:48 GMT+02:00 Dennis E. Hamilton :
> PS: On the interoperable-use challenge lurking in the article,
>
> The historical business was too long and not so meaningful to user needs
> compared to the -- important for us -- slow but steady divergence of the
> two OpenOffice.org descendants not so much in features and release cadence
> but core functions around format conversion/interchange.  That divergence
> is eroding common support for the ODF format and OOXML interchange (i.e.,
> functioning in a world where Microsoft Office documents cannot be
> ignored).  Incompatibilities at that level impede interoperable
> multi-product and cross-platform use where that is important.
>

I believe this is an issue that is underestimated at the moment. Few Public
Administrations - or more likely smart sales people pointing them in that
direction - are already taking advantage of that to justify their decisions
to go back to MSFT.

The whole OOo ecosystem is at risk because of the present situation, and I
believe we should make an effort to figure out if someone from our
community could join the upcoming ODF Plugfest and talk to the people. If
we can't fix the overall asymmetry of ODF-Support we are at big risk.

[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

My apologies, Basil (and hello again!),

This came up very late and we may not be able to sort things out in time for 
you.  

Do you have a hard deadline, and is that imminent?

Also, if there is some sort of draft that we can use for context, that would be 
helpful.

(Attachments don't survive on this list though.)

If you prefer that work-in-progress not be posted to this public list, you are 
welcome to respond to private@ openoffice.apache.org where the Project 
Management Committee can look it over.  We will probably need to have a link to 
some repository location.


 -- Dennis E. Hamilton
orc...@apache.org
dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430
https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail



-Original Message-
From: Basil Cousins [mailto:ba...@openforumeurope.org] 
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 08:12
To: Roberto Galoppini 
Cc: dev ; Stuart Mackintosh ; 
Graham Taylor 
Subject: Re: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

Roberto,

The designers are pressing us hard.  I will put in Apache OO Logo
 provisionally. OK?

Basil

On 4 September 2015 at 15:37, Roberto Galoppini  wrote:

> Basil,
>
> I'm sure you'll get an answer, but unfortunately I can't commit to provide
> you with an answer in a short time frame. Our Chair will sort out a way to
> manage this situation, though.
>
> Roberto
>
> 2015-09-04 16:25 GMT+02:00 Basil Cousins :
>
>> Roberto,
>>
>> We need to close very soon.  When can you let me know about English
>> version?
>>
>> Basil
>>
>> On 4 September 2015 at 15:04, Roberto Galoppini <
>> roberto.galopp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Basil,
>>>
>>>  Nice to catch up again. I want to clarify that here I'm expressing only
>>> my opinion, we do need the PMC to establish if we want - as a community -
>>> to sponsor the English version.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> 2015-09-04 14:31 GMT+02:00 Basil Cousins :
>>>
>>>> Hi Roberto,
>>>>
>>>> Great to be in touch.  I will ask Graham Taylor to raise an invoice for
>>>> £100+VAT to cover the English Version.
>>>> Can you let us have the address to be put on the invoice?
>>>>
>>>> Shal we use the same logo as in the London version for Apache Open
>>>> Office or is there a more recent one?
>>>>
>>>> Basil
[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [DISCUSSION] ODF Plugfest, September 2015

It is not clear to me what is being discussed here.  Can we separate out the 
parts, please?

 1. There is discussion of sending someone to participate in the ODF Plugfest 
to be held on 2015-09/15-16, 11 days from now.  That includes a request for 
travel funding.

 2. It is not clear to me exactly what that participation would be.  Is it only 
to participate in status and not testing?  If it is status, it appears that any 
status presentation is likely part of an agenda item to be led by Gijs 
Hillenius of OSOR.  See 
.
  The topic is "ODF in the market place."  That is an interesting topic if it 
remains the focus.  I'm not certain what we know about in that respect.  I 
definitely think it would be useful to have concrete information about that 
specific topic with respect to Apache OpenOffice.  If we figured it out, we 
could offer a slide or two without having to be there.  Would that suffice?

 3. I don't understand what English flyer from the OpenDocs Society is being 
spoken of.  I don't recall the ASF and certainly not the AOO Project being 
participants/sponsors of the OpenDocs Society.  Am I mistaken?  Is a draft 
available?

 4. Also on this thread, there is some question about payment.  If this is with 
regard to sponsoring this event, or being a sponsor in the production of a 
flyer, the timing is very short here and it seems to me that the window may 
have closed.

Also, please note that today is the early-start beginning of a major 3-day 
Holiday weekend in the United States.  We must move deliberately but 
inclusively.

Please clarify,

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:lui...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 07:27
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] ODF Plugfest, September 2015

Hi

[ ... ]



Status, then, is:

* We need to update the English flyer that OpenDocs Society has created. 
Roberto (or DH) seem to think this is a PMC-level decision. Be that as it may, 
I think it’s in our interest as ODF implementers to do it. 

* We are agreed that it would be good to have an AOO representative at the 
upcoming ODF Plugfest. "Upcoming" is an understatement; it’s nearly imminent, 
15& 16 September of this year. 

* Roberto cannot go. Andrea cannot go. Dennis (whose has invested a lot of time 
into ODF matters) cannot go. I may be able to go but would need to have my 
travel taken care of by our bursary. As I live in Toronto, it’s bound to be 
more expensive than someone coming from Europe. 

- Rob would also be a choice, as he used to lead, and may still, the Oasis TC, 
where ODF matters are decided (or not…). Rob? Rob would also encounter the same 
Atlantic as I, and as he is with a large company, there may be issues with him 
accepting AOO funds. (There were such issues when I was with large 
corporations.)

Why is this event important? The UK government back in 2014 announced its ODF 
desires for a large swath of public documents. Other governmental entities in 
other parts of continental Europe, have been hedging towards ODF or at least 
away from 20th-century style desktop/intranet installations and toward what 
could be a future (or just a lousy investment). This ODF plugfest has several 
of the governmental practitioners presenting or attending. 

Our concern is that they look to AOO and see…. nada. An absence the would 
confirm what the tech journos love writing about us, that we’re dead, dying, 
and worse, stifle the living communities. 


I don’t think those representations are justified at all, and I would hate for 
them to be given the semblance of truth by our absence 

But this is not the only Plugfest that will happen nor is it the first that has 
taken place since the UK gov’t’s announcement. The world will not come to an 
end because we do not show. But it would be better if we did.

Finally, if we do need to take a PMC vote on updating the English flyer, then 
let’s get that going. Personally, I’d just think that if someone wants to 
tackle it, please, go ahead and drag in whomever else you want and is willing 
to help out. Why do we need to add yet more bureaucracy to this?

Because to print out a lot of the flyers and make them look glossy and cool, 
that takes money, which we can spend, but only after the PMC has voted on doing 
so. Hence the PMC vote.

-louis
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

Stuart,
 
Thank you for your rapid response.
 
I assume 2015-09-08T16:00 is UTC+0100 (BST)?
 
I think there are two matters.
 
First, it would be very useful to know what the modifications to the 
“Application Choices” table are, and also anything new with respect to 
differences concerning the International Standards mentioned and also 
application differences.
 
Secondly, I am concerned that there are various advocacy and high-level claims 
that may be inappropriate for the ASF and, consequently, Apache OpenOffice, to 
appear associated with.  That’s a provisional observation.  Further discussion 
will occur here, I’m certain. 
 
Factors I think the Apache OpenOffice community needs to consider are 
 
1.  The mission of the ASF is “to provide software for the public good,” 
expanded on at http://www.apache.org/foundation/.
   
2.  As part of serving a public interest, the ASF also tasks itself and its 
project to operate as good open-source citizens.  In particular, there are no 
claims or observations made about the work of non-ASF projects and 
non-open-source projects of any kind.  The ASF does not speak to the quality of 
International Standards, either.  I am certain individuals who participate on 
ASF Projects have many views of their own about this.  As far as I know, the 
ASF does not make that its business just the same.
   
3.  To the best of my knowledge, the Apache OpenOffice project has never made 
an auditable, verifiable claim that its support for ODF 1.2 is “full,” although 
there are implementation-defined/dependent and even unspecified features in the 
ODF 1.2 specification that could be identified in some sort of Apache 
OpenOffice profile of its ODF 1.2 support.  I do not believe such a profile is 
available at this time.
 
Those are my concerns.  We will probably be discussing them for a few days here.
 
I personally favor the technical activities of the ODF Plugfests and also the 
informational activities of the Plugfest events.  The only issue is how 
sponsoring the “Open Document Principles” booklet reflects on the AOO Project’s 
charge to operate with good will to all software projects and focus on 
producing software, free to the public, as a public good.
 
-   Dennis
 
From: Stuart J Mackintosh [mailto:s...@opusvl.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 10:27
To: orc...@apache.org; dev@openoffice.apache.org; 'Roberto Galoppini' 

Cc: 'Graham Taylor' 
Subject: Re: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets
 
Dennis,
Do you have a hard deadline, and is that imminent?
Sorry that this came so late for you. As I am sure you understand, it takes 
time to muster volunteer commitment so we are somewhat against the clock. There 
is an imminent deadline, print will be finalised and sent Tuesday 08/09/2015 at 
16:00.


Also, if there is some sort of draft that we can use for context, that would be 
helpful.
Yes, the 11th ODF Plugfest booklet titled "Open Document Format principles for 
Government Technology" will follow a similar style and content to the booklet 
produced after the 10th Plugfest and published on Document Freedom Day 2015 
(downloadable from 
http://blogs.opusvl.com/_attachment/283/OFE-COIS-DFD-ODF-Open-Document-Principles-for-Government-Technology-March-2015.pdf
 
<http://blogs.opusvl.com/_attachment/283/OFE-COIS-DFD-ODF-Open-Document-Principles-for-Government-Technology-March-2015.pdf>
 ), but updated to reflect the Dutch government involvement in the 11th 
plugfest and an improved "Application Choices" table. 

An A3 poster copy of the ODF infograpic (downloadable from 
http://blogs.opusvl.com/_attachment/281/OFE-COIS-ODF-infographic-release-02150325-by-sa.png
 
<http://blogs.opusvl.com/_attachment/281/OFE-COIS-ODF-infographic-release-02150325-by-sa.png>
 ) will also be printed and enclosed within the 11th Plugfest booklet, both 
printed in English and Dutch.

The document and many translations make up the OFE ODF toolkit which can be 
found here: http://www.openforumeurope.org/library/odf-toolkit-2/

I hope this helps inform you of our project.

Best regards,

Stuart.

PS Louis, thanks for the note.



 
 
 -- Dennis E. Hamilton
orc...@apache.org <mailto:orc...@apache.org> 
dennis.hamil...@acm.org <mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org> +1-206-779-9430
https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Basil Cousins [mailto:ba...@openforumeurope.org] 
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 08:12
To: Roberto Galoppini  <mailto:roberto.galopp...@gmail.com> 

Cc: dev  <mailto:dev@openoffice.apache.org> ; Stuart 
Mackintosh  <mailto:s...@opusvl.com> ; Graham Taylor  
<mailto:gra...@openforumeurope.org> 
Subject: Re: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets
 
Roberto,
 
The designers are pressing us hard.  I will put in Apache OO Logo
 provisionally. OK?
 
Basil
 
On 4 September 2015 at 15:37, Robe

RE: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

Hi Basil,

It appears this message was caught in whatever routing issue that interfered 
with traffic between the US and UK earlier today.  Here, we have already seen 
Roberto’s response, a second response from you, and discussion on dev@ oo.a.o.  
I think we’ll all catch our breath now and wait for things to quiet down.

-   Dennis

From: Basil Cousins [mailto:ba...@openforumeurope.org] 
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 05:32
To: Roberto Galoppini 
Cc: dev ; Stuart Mackintosh ; 
Graham Taylor 
Subject: Re: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

Hi Roberto,

Great to be in touch.  I will ask Graham Taylor to raise an invoice for 
£100+VAT to cover the English Version.
Can you let us have the address to be put on the invoice?  

Shal we use the same logo as in the London version for Apache Open Office or is 
there a more recent one?

Basil

Basil

On 4 September 2015 at 12:38, Roberto Galoppini mailto:roberto.galopp...@gmail.com> > wrote:

2015-09-04 5:06 GMT+02:00 Louis Suárez-Potts mailto:lui...@gmail.com> >:
Hi all,
Comments inline.

> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:24, Andrea Pescetti   > wrote:
>
> As we discussed some weeks ago, the next ODF Plugfest will be held in The 
> Hague, Netherlands, mid-September:
> http://plugfest.opendocumentformat.org/2015-thehague/programme/
>
> There are three issues that require attention in a very short time. Deadline 
> is 8 September when not otherwise specified.
>
> 1) Is anyone going in the end? We discussed this at length. I've never 
> considered going since it overlaps with another event I'm scheduled to 
> attend. Dennis and Roberto were both mentioned (and Dennis later clarified he 
> is busy in the US). Of course if someone goes we can still discuss to 
> allocate a budget from our events fund.

When I made plans to go I didn't know about much about my calendar of business 
meetings. As of now I can't commit to that trip, unfortunately. 

The event somewhat overlaps with a personal engagement but that may be 
negotiable. It depends on how much subsidy we have to support this very late 
trip—of mine, I mean. I’d be coming from Toronto, Canada. A quick price check 
via Orbitz reveals that for a flight via the dodgy Air Transat the cost (R/T) 
would be about 740 USD. Include an Airbnb room—don’t know how much that would 
be but probably not that much, though still, for three days, at leasts 150 USD, 
and probably more. (I’m guessing the Hague is costly.) Besides Air Transat, the 
average price for airfare to AMS is about 1300 USD; to the Hague (Rotterdam) 
500 USD more or so. I’m guessing a train trip from AMS is cheaper.

I’ve been to several of these events, including, I think, the initiating one. I 
know ODF fairly well, was on the Oasis TCs, etc. (I quit them a couple of years 
ago.) The drawback for me going is I’m not developing ODF or for ODF and though 
I can certainly represent AOO’s continued interest in furthering usage of ODF, 
not to mention other Apache projects’ ODF work, to some extent I’ll be mostly 
competent at relaying speech.

I agree, and I think it would be important to give a speech about our concerns 
around office formats' interoperability.
I believe we can still ask Michiel or Basil to accommodate a similar ask. 

>
> 2) I was contacted (for no special reason; I've never attended a Plugfest) by 
> Basil Cousins of Openforum Europe, who gave me permission to forward his 
> request here, about updating a leaflet for the next ODF Plugfest. The 2014 
> version is here:
> http://openforumeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/OFE-COIS-DFD-ODF-Open-Document-Principles-for-Government-Technology-March-2015.pdf
> and there is also an infographic available at 
> http://www.openforumeurope.org/library/odf-toolkit-2/
> Can you please suggest content updates to this leaflet? Basil in is CC. We 
> can discuss updates on this list and then one of us, ideally someone who 
> attends the event, can send the final comments to Basil. The part needing 
> more attention is the Applications Choices section on page 5.

I can look at it, too. But others, here, can surely weigh in. I think we have 
talent to enhance this, no?

>
> 3) For this leaflet they also ask for a contribution for printing. One can 
> support printing the English version (addressed to UK government), the Dutch 
> version (addressed to Dutch government) or both. The contribution is 100 GBP 
> (so about 135 EUR or 150 USD) for each edition. If you feel it would be 
> useful, I assume that the fund for events and merchandising could be used to 
> support this. Please state if you propose that we allocate budget and, in 
> case it's a yes, if you'd rather contribute to the English version or both 
> versions.

I think it would be money well spent.

Agree for the English version, as far as we can also enrich its content, though.
Roberto

Note. This ODF Plugfest brings together some rather important players form the 
UK, which is supposedly tending tow

RE: [PROPOSAL][EXT] Submit UNO Java jar files to Maven Repository

How are these files distributed now, Carl?

-Original Message-
From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 17:18
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: [PROPOSAL][EXT] Submit UNO Java jar files to Maven Repository

Hi all,

I propose submitting the latest UNO Java jar files to Maven Repository 
for inclusion.

The files are ridl.jar, juh.jar, unoil.jar, and jurt.jar.

This will allow projects using maven, gradle, etc. build systems to use 
the AOO UNO java jars.

Afterward I will update the wiki with the new information.

The last version available in the Maven repository is 3.2.1.

If there are no objections to the above proposal within 72-hours then I 
will invoke Lazy Consensus and proceed to implement the above proposal.

Thanks,
Carl

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

I think the idea is to work toward consensus.  The proposal of a [VOTE] on a 
matter not yet made specific and discussed is not particularly advisable.

How about a [PROPOSE] or a [DISCUSS] thread.  If you look for a lazy consensus, 
please allow for the fact that this is a 3-day Holiday weekend in the United 
States.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:lui...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 18:20
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

Roberto, do you want to initiate the discussion for a vote by the community 
including the binding PMC members? I would prefer to keep it all public and 
just have the PMC members indicate at vote their status.

But go ahead and let’s get the issue a) clarified and b) framed in such a way 
that we can act on it.

louis

> On 04 Sep 15, at 10:04, Roberto Galoppini  wrote:
> 
> Hi Basil,
> 
> Nice to catch up again. I want to clarify that here I'm expressing only my
> opinion, we do need the PMC to establish if we want - as a community - to
> sponsor the English version.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 2015-09-04 14:31 GMT+02:00 Basil Cousins :
> 
>> Hi Roberto,
>> 
>> Great to be in touch.  I will ask Graham Taylor to raise an invoice for
>> £100+VAT to cover the English Version.
>> Can you let us have the address to be put on the invoice?
>> 
>> Shal we use the same logo as in the London version for Apache Open Office
>> or is there a more recent one?
>> 
>> Basil
>> 
>> Basil
>> 
>> On 4 September 2015 at 12:38, Roberto Galoppini <
>> roberto.galopp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2015-09-04 5:06 GMT+02:00 Louis Suárez-Potts :
>>> 
 Hi all,
 Comments inline.

> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:24, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
> As we discussed some weeks ago, the next ODF Plugfest will be held in
 The Hague, Netherlands, mid-September:
> http://plugfest.opendocumentformat.org/2015-thehague/programme/
> 
> There are three issues that require attention in a very short time.
 Deadline is 8 September when not otherwise specified.
> 
> 1) Is anyone going in the end? We discussed this at length. I've never
 considered going since it overlaps with another event I'm scheduled to
 attend. Dennis and Roberto were both mentioned (and Dennis later clarified
 he is busy in the US). Of course if someone goes we can still discuss to
 allocate a budget from our events fund.

>>> 
>>> When I made plans to go I didn't know about much about my calendar of
>>> business meetings. As of now I can't commit to that trip, unfortunately.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 

 The event somewhat overlaps with a personal engagement but that may be
 negotiable. It depends on how much subsidy we have to support this very
 late trip—of mine, I mean. I’d be coming from Toronto, Canada. A quick
 price check via Orbitz reveals that for a flight via the dodgy Air Transat
 the cost (R/T) would be about 740 USD. Include an Airbnb room—don’t know
 how much that would be but probably not that much, though still, for three
 days, at leasts 150 USD, and probably more. (I’m guessing the Hague is
 costly.) Besides Air Transat, the average price for airfare to AMS is about
 1300 USD; to the Hague (Rotterdam) 500 USD more or so. I’m guessing a train
 trip from AMS is cheaper.

 I’ve been to several of these events, including, I think, the initiating
 one. I know ODF fairly well, was on the Oasis TCs, etc. (I quit them a
 couple of years ago.) The drawback for me going is I’m not developing ODF
 or for ODF and though I can certainly represent AOO’s continued interest in
 furthering usage of ODF, not to mention other Apache projects’ ODF work, to
 some extent I’ll be mostly competent at relaying speech.

>>> 
>>> I agree, and I think it would be important to give a speech about our
>>> concerns around office formats' interoperability.
>>> I believe we can still ask Michiel or Basil to accommodate a similar ask.
>>> 
>>> 

> 
> 2) I was contacted (for no special reason; I've never attended a
 Plugfest) by Basil Cousins of Openforum Europe, who gave me permission to
 forward his request here, about updating a leaflet for the next ODF
 Plugfest. The 2014 version is here:
> 
 http://openforumeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/OFE-COIS-DFD-ODF-Open-Document-Principles-for-Government-Technology-March-2015.pdf
> and there is also an infographic available at
 http://www.openforumeurope.org/library/odf-toolkit-2/
> Can you please suggest content updates to this leaflet? Basil in is
 CC. We can discuss updates on this list and then one of us, ideally someone
 who attends the event, can send the final comments to Basil. The part
 needing more attention is the Applications Choices section on page 5.

 I can look at it, too. But others, here, can surely

[DISCUSS] Apache OpenOffice ODF in the Marketplace

I had not encountered the topic of "ODF in the market place" with regard to 
status of Apache OpenOffice.  Perhaps I have not been paying attention.

I am curious how we might characterize how support for ODF matters to Apache 
OpenOffice users and various institutions that value support for ODF in their 
reliance on Apache OpenOffice and related software.

How can we determine what the influence of ODF is with respect to Apache 
OpenOffice?

It strikes me there are two parts to this question.  

 1. Who are the users of Apache OpenOffice?

 2. What are the ways ODF is (comparatively) significant to those users?  

Is this something we can quantify or characterize to some degree, based on 
information available to the project?

If we can find something indicative that can be presented in concrete terms, 
that might be an useful contribution to the ODF Plugfest in mid-September.

What could we nail down?

 - Dennis

SOME THOUGHTS

It is not very easy to ask users questions about ODF, especially since 
understanding the format or much about it, technically, does not command the 
attention of the great majority who adopt Apache OpenOffice, whether 
individuals or organizations.

WHO ARE THE USERS?

Although there are now over 150 million downloads of Apache OpenOffice, that 
does not tell us how many individual users are involved.

Perhaps the download counts just for AOO 4.1.1 would be a representable sample 
of a particularly-active segment of the user base, even though that would be 
underestimated a couple of ways.  But that, and the average weekly rate would 
be useful as "at least" figures.

The mix of platforms for those downloads is also important, reflecting the 
context in which those installed downloads are used by new users and those who 
are keeping their configurations current.


WHAT DO THEY DEPEND ON CONCERNING ODF SUPPORT?

I assume an obvious case may be some assurance that there documents will be 
preserved and can be used with different products if needed.  I think we have 
to assume that.

Another case would be being able to interchange documents with other users of 
ODF-supporting software, or even match the software that might be used in a 
workplace or governmental agency.

They may also be interested in other features of Apache OpenOffice and its 
direct support of ODF may simply be a by-product.

There is probably not much that we have access to will tell us about these 
cases?  Are there others?

HOW DO WE TELL WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO THEM ABOUT APACHE OPENOFFICE?

For that, there are some indicators.

There are bug reports, user requests for assistance, and forum posts, access to 
the wiki, etc.  For that, we have crude indicators of what users look for and 
what users have problems/complaints/requests about.

Some of these are related to support of document formats.  

Others are about general usability and other factors not directly related to 
the underlying format.

Sometimes feature issues can be tied directly to how they are supported in ODF 
by Apache OpenOffice.

We could mine some of the data we have for a profile of these categories.  It 
is not clear how indicative it is until we gather it.

Where would be a good start for a short term trial investigation?




-Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 10:10
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSSION] ODF Plugfest, September 2015

[ ... ]

 2.  ... [It] appears that any status presentation is likely part of an agenda 
item to be led by Gijs Hillenius of OSOR.  See 
<http://plugtest.opendocsociety.org/doku.php?id=plugfests:201509_thehague:info>.
  The topic is "ODF in the market place."  That is an interesting topic if it 
remains the focus.  I'm not certain what we know about in that respect.  I 
definitely think it would be useful to have concrete information about that 
specific topic with respect to Apache OpenOffice.  If we figured it out, we 
could offer a slide or two without having to be there.  Would that suffice?

[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

Great!! My mistake.  Go for it: [PROPOSE], [DISCUSS], whatever.  I think the 
idea is to avoid a [VOTE] wherever possible.  Perfect.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:lui...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 19:22
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Dennis E. Hamilton 
Subject: Re: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

Hi all,

> On 04 Sep 15, at 22:13, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> 
> I think the idea is to work toward consensus.  The proposal of a [VOTE] on a 
> matter not yet made specific and discussed is not particularly advisable.

Oh dear. I guess I was not clear and inadvertently caused more confusion than 
usual. I wrote, "Roberto, do you want to imitate the discussion for a vote…." 
That is to say, not have a vote, but yet to have discussion that would be 
productive and result in a vote. I actually did not mean to suggest we should 
leap to a vote. As my language I thought had conveyed, I want to hit the "Let’s 
Think About This" button and then press the "Let's Act As A Community."


> 
> How about a [PROPOSE] or a [DISCUSS] thread.  If you look for a lazy 
> consensus, please allow for the fact that this is a 3-day Holiday weekend in 
> the United States.

Sure. A discussion that could lead to vote, in the end. I think the most 
important point I was actually trying to convey to Roberto is that there is no 
project lead or chair and if he deems the issue here important, then he is 
entitled to initiate the process the would lead in the end to action. 

Louis
> 
> - Dennis
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:lui...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 18:20
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets
> 
> Roberto, do you want to initiate the discussion for a vote by the community 
> including the binding PMC members? I would prefer to keep it all public and 
> just have the PMC members indicate at vote their status.
> 
> But go ahead and let’s get the issue a) clarified and b) framed in such a way 
> that we can act on it.
> 
> louis
> 
> 
>> On 04 Sep 15, at 10:04, Roberto Galoppini  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Basil,
>> 
>> Nice to catch up again. I want to clarify that here I'm expressing only my
>> opinion, we do need the PMC to establish if we want - as a community - to
>> sponsor the English version.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> 2015-09-04 14:31 GMT+02:00 Basil Cousins :
>> 
>>> Hi Roberto,
>>> 
>>> Great to be in touch.  I will ask Graham Taylor to raise an invoice for
>>> £100+VAT to cover the English Version.
>>> Can you let us have the address to be put on the invoice?
>>> 
>>> Shal we use the same logo as in the London version for Apache Open Office
>>> or is there a more recent one?
>>> 
>>> Basil
>>> 
>>> Basil
>>> 
>>> On 4 September 2015 at 12:38, Roberto Galoppini <
>>> roberto.galopp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2015-09-04 5:06 GMT+02:00 Louis Suárez-Potts :
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> Comments inline.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:24, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As we discussed some weeks ago, the next ODF Plugfest will be held in
>>>>> The Hague, Netherlands, mid-September:
>>>>>> http://plugfest.opendocumentformat.org/2015-thehague/programme/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There are three issues that require attention in a very short time.
>>>>> Deadline is 8 September when not otherwise specified.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1) Is anyone going in the end? We discussed this at length. I've never
>>>>> considered going since it overlaps with another event I'm scheduled to
>>>>> attend. Dennis and Roberto were both mentioned (and Dennis later clarified
>>>>> he is busy in the US). Of course if someone goes we can still discuss to
>>>>> allocate a budget from our events fund.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> When I made plans to go I didn't know about much about my calendar of
>>>> business meetings. As of now I can't commit to that trip, unfortunately.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The event somewhat overlaps with a personal engagement but that may be
>>>>> negotiable. It depends on how much subsidy we have to support this very
>>>&

RE: [PROPOSAL][EXT] Submit UNO Java jar files to Maven Repository

Thanks for the information, Carl.

The labeling and naming of the jar files may need to be considered, as well as 
inclusion of other information in the jars themselves.  It may be appropriate 
to include meta-inf/LICENSE and meta-inf/NOTICE files if the jars are 
distributed separately from AOO binaries.  There should be some information on 
how to find the corresponding source releases as well.

For signing and hashes, how would a recipient of these files via Maven know 
where to find those bits (i.e., KEYS and any hashes or their equivalents with 
Maven)?

This looks like an opportunity to be Release Manager for these simple detached 
distributions.

 - Dennis

SOME RELATED BACKGROUND

There has been considerable discussion about binary distributions on some of 
the general lists lately.  Ways of using Maven came up. I don't think that the 
proposed UNO Jars case is a problem so long as the material is synchronized to 
an official distribution from AOO.

There is a draft policy on the subject.  It now appears to be at the desk of VP 
Legal for further disposition.  Depending on how these jars already accompany 
Apache OpenOffice releases and distributions, there may be no problem other 
than attention to the details I mentioned.  Here is the latest draft of the 
proposed update/clarification of the current release policy:
<https://github.com/rectang/asfrelease/blob/draft3/release.md>.  

The current policy is here:
< http://apache.org/dev/release>.

You can follow the discussion on legal-discuss @ apache.org.

-Original Message-
From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 19:51
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][EXT] Submit UNO Java jar files to Maven Repository

On 09/04/2015 08:54 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> How are these files distributed now, Carl?
They are included in the distribution under openoffice4/program/classes

If approved, I still need to look into whether we provide the files or 
point to the SVN repo or something else.

We may need to PGP sign the files.  I did this with the Netbeans plugin 
for neatbeans.org.

>
> -Original Message-
> From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 17:18
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: [PROPOSAL][EXT] Submit UNO Java jar files to Maven Repository
>
> Hi all,
>
> I propose submitting the latest UNO Java jar files to Maven Repository
> for inclusion.
>
> The files are ridl.jar, juh.jar, unoil.jar, and jurt.jar.
>
> This will allow projects using maven, gradle, etc. build systems to use
> the AOO UNO java jars.
>
> Afterward I will update the wiki with the new information.
>
> The last version available in the Maven repository is 3.2.1.
>
> If there are no objections to the above proposal within 72-hours then I
> will invoke Lazy Consensus and proceed to implement the above proposal.
>
> Thanks,
> Carl
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

Thanks Andrea,

I am missing context.  Where are you seeing this information and where do you 
propose to submit the updates?

I have no problem with the proposed changes.  Just want to know where they go.

Is it meaningful to report that the default and recommended outputs are 
Extended ODF 1.2 documents (i.e., not "strict" as some want, and not 
automatically interoperable)?

 - Dennis



-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] 
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2015 03:49
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

[ ... ]

So, coming to item 2: I'm still hopeful we can provide up-to-date data 
about OpenOffice. You can find below what is needed, what is currently 
there and what I propose we send them (which I will have to do on 
Tuesday morning European time; if someone else takes care of it I'll be 
happier).

NEEDED   CURRENT  PROPOSED
Software (name)  Apache Open Office   Apache OpenOffice
License  Open Source  Open Source (ALv2)
Formats  All  (no changes) [1]
Platforms(empty)  Windows, OS X, Linux, 
third-party ports to Android, FreeBSD, OS/2
Support  Community(no changes) [2]
Link http://www.openoffice.org/   (no changes)
Notes(empty)  (empty)

[1]: Formats are the ODF file extensions, not the non-ODF file types.
[2]: Here the choice is between Community and Commercial.

Can we at least agree on this basic information for the "Applications" 
sections, which is what they need most?

Regards,
   Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: FreeBSD build success!

Awesome, Pedro.

Thank you for your effort in this accomplishment too.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] 
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2015 10:26
To: Apache OO ; Don Lewis 
Subject: Re: FreeBSD build success!

Hello;

As Kay has noticed, and basically thanks to the last mile patches from
Don Lewis, we now have green lights on the FreeBSD buildbot.
I consider the FreeBSD port finished and stable.

I couldn't go on without thanking also Gavin McDonald and Andrew Rist
for having set up the buildbot in the first place and all the people
that have been involved in the port since before we moved to Apache.

This is an important step forward because:

1) Even when this has been working for a while in FreeBSD's ports tree, 
it is a new platform that can be officially supported by the Apache
project now,

2) The port uses clang and a different toolchain from other systems
and having it on the buildbot will help us do changes more aggressively
detecting code that may not be portable.

So huge thanks again to Don Lewis and let us all enjoy!

Pedro.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

Thanks Andrea, that answers all of my questions about the update and what is 
being updated.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] 
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2015 12:02
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I am missing context.  Where are you seeing this information and where do you 
> propose to submit the updates?

It is page 5 of 
http://openforumeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/OFE-COIS-DFD-ODF-Open-Document-Principles-for-Government-Technology-March-2015.pdf

(the document to be updated) but in a newer version that I got by mail. 
All I have is what I forwarded in the "NEEDED" and "CURRENT" column (so, 
what they need and what they provisionally put there) in the message 
where I added the "PROPOSED" column.

As for the "where" updates should be submitted: there were some people 
in CC in my mail. I don't know them. I only know that these are the 
people who are taking care of producing and updating the leaflet. So 
those are the addresses we must send the updates to.

> Is it meaningful to report that the default and recommended outputs are 
> Extended ODF 1.2 documents (...)?

Yes, good suggestion. So instead of leaving the "Notes" field empty, 
I'll change it into "The default and recommended outputs are Extended 
ODF 1.2 documents".

Updated proposal:

NEEDED   CURRENT  PROPOSED
Software (name)  Apache Open Office   Apache OpenOffice
License  Open Source  Open Source (ALv2)
Formats  All  (no changes) [1]
Platforms(empty)  Windows, OS X, Linux, 
third-party ports to Android, FreeBSD, OS/2
Support  Community(no changes) [2]
Link http://www.openoffice.org/   (no changes)
Notes(empty)  The default and 
recommended outputs are Extended ODF 1.2 documents

[1]: Formats are the ODF file extensions, not the non-ODF file types.
[2]: Here the choice is between Community and Commercial.

Regards,
   Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Status page for OpenOffice 4.1.2

2015-09-06 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

FYI, .

There will be AOO 4.1.2 release notes.

Exactly what point is intended to be made?

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:lui...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 17:35
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Steve 
Subject: Re: Status page for OpenOffice 4.1.2


> On 06 Sep 15, at 14:39, Steve  wrote:
> 
>> I’m curious—perhaps someone would want to undergo the pain of comparing our 
>> 4.1.2 with
>> LibreOffice’s 5.0.1? A task somewhat beside the point. But possibly of 
>> marketing use. And also a means
>> by which we and others can evaluate what is meant by our respective releases.
> 
> Keep in mind that by the time OpenOffice 4.1.2 is released, LibreOffice may 
> have released versions 5.0.2 or 5.0.3 
> (https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan#5.0_release).
> This may flaw your comparison.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Steve

No, or only if we were foolishly dogmatic. You seem to miss my point. The idea 
is to help users understand the alternatives. To aid them in making our point. 
This has nothing to do with satisfying any personal interest of mine.

Louis


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [PROPOSAL][EXT] Submit UNO Java jar files to Maven Repository

2015-09-07 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

+1

Thanks for taking this on Carl.  It strikes me as a valuable way to make some 
AOO technology easily available.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 06:05
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][EXT] Submit UNO Java jar files to Maven Repository

Dennis,

Thanks for the information
If there are no -1's I'll report back after I look into all the 
requirements.

Thanks,
Carl

On 09/05/2015 10:59 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Thanks for the information, Carl.
>
> The labeling and naming of the jar files may need to be considered, as well 
> as inclusion of other information in the jars themselves.  It may be 
> appropriate to include meta-inf/LICENSE and meta-inf/NOTICE files if the jars 
> are distributed separately from AOO binaries.  There should be some 
> information on how to find the corresponding source releases as well.
>
> For signing and hashes, how would a recipient of these files via Maven know 
> where to find those bits (i.e., KEYS and any hashes or their equivalents with 
> Maven)?
>
> This looks like an opportunity to be Release Manager for these simple 
> detached distributions.
>
>   - Dennis
>
> SOME RELATED BACKGROUND
>
> There has been considerable discussion about binary distributions on some of 
> the general lists lately.  Ways of using Maven came up. I don't think that 
> the proposed UNO Jars case is a problem so long as the material is 
> synchronized to an official distribution from AOO.
>
> There is a draft policy on the subject.  It now appears to be at the desk of 
> VP Legal for further disposition.  Depending on how these jars already 
> accompany Apache OpenOffice releases and distributions, there may be no 
> problem other than attention to the details I mentioned.  Here is the latest 
> draft of the proposed update/clarification of the current release policy:
> <https://github.com/rectang/asfrelease/blob/draft3/release.md>.
>
> The current policy is here:
> < http://apache.org/dev/release>.
>
> You can follow the discussion on legal-discuss @ apache.org.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 19:51
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][EXT] Submit UNO Java jar files to Maven Repository
>
> On 09/04/2015 08:54 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> How are these files distributed now, Carl?
> They are included in the distribution under openoffice4/program/classes
>
> If approved, I still need to look into whether we provide the files or
> point to the SVN repo or something else.
>
> We may need to PGP sign the files.  I did this with the Netbeans plugin
> for neatbeans.org.
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org]
>> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 17:18
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: [PROPOSAL][EXT] Submit UNO Java jar files to Maven Repository
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I propose submitting the latest UNO Java jar files to Maven Repository
>> for inclusion.
>>
>> The files are ridl.jar, juh.jar, unoil.jar, and jurt.jar.
>>
>> This will allow projects using maven, gradle, etc. build systems to use
>> the AOO UNO java jars.
>>
>> Afterward I will update the wiki with the new information.
>>
>> The last version available in the Maven repository is 3.2.1.
>>
>> If there are no objections to the above proposal within 72-hours then I
>> will invoke Lazy Consensus and proceed to implement the above proposal.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Carl
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

2015-09-07 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

>From the Chair,
 
Stuart, thank you for your patience and keeping the AOO community tied into the 
planning for the ODF Plugfest and preparation of the booklet.
 
It appears that the “Application Choices” convergence achieved with the 
suggestions from Andrea Pescetti is quite satisfactory.  There have been no 
objections whatsoever.
 
I appreciate that it is already evening where you are.  The deadline for 
committing to booklet design will be early tomorrow for some of us, so I want 
to summarize where we stand.
 
PLUGFEST BOOKLET SPONSORSHIP
 
There is a simple consensus process for deliberation on travel funds, agreement 
to provide a sponsorship, and so on.  
 
Although it was suggested that a proposal be deliberated on, it seems to have 
been a non-starter.  I think it’s safe to say that we will not be requesting 
presentation as a sponsor for the booklet.  If that changes in the few hours 
remaining, I will let you know as soon as anything to the contrary comes to my 
attention (at UTC-0700).
 
REPORTING TO THE PLUGFEST
 
Finally, the Plugfest is only 7 days ahead of us.  It might be possible to have 
a few slides on “ODF in the Apache OpenOffice Marketplace” for the Tuesday, 
2015-09-15 session on “ODF in the market place.”  This has prompted 
barely-tentative discussion here.  Again, there has not been much headway.  It 
is definitely something for the project to look into. I am not certain what 
kind of findings can be provided at this point; having anything for the 
Plugfest seems doubtful.  The topic is still open though.
 
Regards,
 
-   Dennis
 
From: Stuart J Mackintosh [mailto:s...@opusvl.com] 
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 08:52
To: Andrea Pescetti ; dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: 'Graham Taylor' 
Subject: Re: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets
 
Andrea,



On reflection, we were not comfortable with the previously published 
"Application Choices"  table, we feel it was not fully considered, so it 
will be replaced in this version. I have included the proposed 
replacement table at the end of this email 

We don't CC you on all replies, but you can find a draft of the current updates 
we would make to the Application Choices table (limited to the OpenOffice entry 
of course) at 
http://s.apache.org/Hoh (scroll down until the end) 

I have reviewed the thread, thank you for your efforts and community engagement 
with this.



If that changes further, we'll send you an updated version by Tuesday morning 
European time, but you can use that version for the time being. 

I have made a couple of minor alterations and propose that we include the 
following entry:

Software
License
Formats (file types)
Platforms
Support
Link
Notes

Apache OpenOffice
Open Source (ALv2)
All
Windows, OS X, Linux
Community
https://www.openoffice.org/
The default and recommended outputs are Extended ODF 1.2 documents. Third-party 
ports to Android, FreeBSD, OS/2 available

Please advise if this is acceptable.

Best regards,

Stuart.
-- 
Stuart J Mackintosh
Director / Owner

Business management software - Joined-up, flexible & open
• Open Source Specialists 
Drury House
Drury Lane
Rugby
CV21 3DE
T: 01788 298 450
DDI: 01788 298 457
E: s...@opusvl.com  
W: http://opusvl.com

RE: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

2015-09-07 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Thanks, Stuart.
 
To be clear, I was not thinking of direct participation but something simple to 
be used in providing the “ODF in the marketplace” session with some useful 
self-explanatory data from the Apache OpenOffice Project.
 
In any case, I doubt there is something that could be done in this short time 
window.  I am thinking it would be something useful for the project to track 
and report on a quarterly basis, if feasible.
 
-   Dennis
 
From: Stuart J Mackintosh [mailto:s...@opusvl.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2015 10:35
To: orc...@apache.org
Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Graham Taylor ; 
'Andrea Pescetti' ; Basil Cousins 

Subject: Re: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets
 
Dennis,

Thank you for supporting this initiative and providing the response from the 
AOO community. I will include the AOO entry in the Application Choices table as 
proposed.

Should AOO choose to feature as a sponsor for 100GBP per language (English & 
Dutch), you will need to let Basil know by 14:00 GMT in order that the design 
can be updated.

Your participation would be welcome if it can be arranged, but fully understand 
if it cannot due to the short notice on this occasion. For future ODF 
Plugfests, we will try to provide sufficient notice for you to debate and 
prepare in good time. 

Best regards,

Stuart.
 
 
>From the Chair,
 
Stuart, thank you for your patience and keeping the AOO community tied into the 
planning for the ODF Plugfest and preparation of the booklet.
 
It appears that the “Application Choices” convergence achieved with the 
suggestions from Andrea Pescetti is quite satisfactory.  There have been no 
objections whatsoever.
 
I appreciate that it is already evening where you are.  The deadline for 
committing to booklet design will be early tomorrow for some of us, so I want 
to summarize where we stand.
 
PLUGFEST BOOKLET SPONSORSHIP
 
There is a simple consensus process for deliberation on travel funds, agreement 
to provide a sponsorship, and so on.  
 
Although it was suggested that a proposal be deliberated on, it seems to have 
been a non-starter.  I think it’s safe to say that we will not be requesting 
presentation as a sponsor for the booklet.  If that changes in the few hours 
remaining, I will let you know as soon as anything to the contrary comes to my 
attention (at UTC-0700).
 
REPORTING TO THE PLUGFEST
 
Finally, the Plugfest is only 7 days ahead of us.  It might be possible to have 
a few slides on “ODF in the Apache OpenOffice Marketplace” for the Tuesday, 
2015-09-15 session on “ODF in the market place.”  This has prompted 
barely-tentative discussion here.  Again, there has not been much headway.  It 
is definitely something for the project to look into. I am not certain what 
kind of findings can be provided at this point; having anything for the 
Plugfest seems doubtful.  The topic is still open though.
 
Regards,
 
-   Dennis
 
[ … ]

[DISCUSS] SUSTAINABILITY: The AOO PMC

2015-09-08 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

>From the Chair,

As part of responsibility to understand and account for the operational
capacity and sustainability of the project, I have initial observations
concerning the sustainability of the AOO Project Management Committee itself.

I am proposing an action plan for which I will be accountable.

Questions? Suggestions? Particulars, ideas about strengthening the PMC in both
breadth and depth, etc.

- Dennis

PMC STATUS (as of August 31, 2015)
--

SUSTAINABILITY DANGER SIGNS

The AOO Project Management Committee was unable or unwilling to find a
replacement in its own ranks for retiring Chair, Andrea Pescetti. The election
of a new Chair was held between two non-PMC nominees after there was no
consensus on the only PMC member who stood as a nominee.

On the subsequent retirement of that new Chair, the only nominee to step
forward had been on the PMC six months and had no PMC involvement since
graduation of the AOO podling in October, 2012.

That Chair-elect will retire in September, 2016.

TODAY'S PMC

The AOO PMC consists of 26 individuals

19 have remained continuously out of the
23 from TLP formation in October, 2012.
7 are new or returned PMC members

6 of the current PMC are Apache Software Foundation
Members, including the one Past Chair

2015-08-23 Jan Iverson retired
2015-02-13 Dennis E. Hamilton joined the PMC
2015-02-11 Jan Iverson returned to PMC as Chair
2015-01-03 Mechtilde and Dr. Michael Stehmann were added
The last preceding addition was on 2014-01-16
The last preceding retirement was on 2014-08-30

The complete PMC membership history is available at
<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/pmc/project-state/2015-09-08-PMC-MembershipStatus.pdf>

ACTION PLAN

Collect and maintain materials on everything that involves a Chair so that
transition to a new Chair can happen smoothly at any time.

With the PMC, work to expand diversity with respect to the many components of
the Apache OpenOffice Project so the reach of the project is understood by the
collective PMC membership.

With the PMC, expand depth of the bench with respect to experience and
availability of participants prepared to step into the Chair position. Involve
PMC members in Chair procedures as much as possible.

FOLLOW-UP

January 2016 on materials for review and understanding of the PMC and for
hand-off to an incoming Chair.

April 2016 and quarterly thereafter assess PMC readiness to oversee the breadth
of Project operations and provide a Chair from within its own body.

September 2016 PMC have at least three able and available candidates for
recommendation as new Chair, with effortless transition of a recommended
successor on ratification by the Board.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [DISCUSS] SUSTAINABILITY: The AOO PMC

Thanks, Andrea

s in-line.

-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 00:25
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SUSTAINABILITY: The AOO PMC

On 09/09/2015 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> the only nominee to step forward had been on the PMC six months

I don't see this as a major issue. I mean, it was the third Chair 
election of the year (and it was still August), it came unexpected and 
we had seen painful nomination/acceptance/declination stories in the 
previous months;  I believe this is the reason why people, knowing that 
you were already available, did not jump in and nominate themselves.

   Until I suddenly had the job did I appreciate how much my shallow
   experience on the PMC was not enough and I am having to be a very
   quick learner.  If I had not been a regular reader/participant on
   general-incubator, dev-community, and legal-discuss I would have
   been even more unprepared (though unlikely to have stood up in that
   case).  It helps that I have the personal time to dig into matters.
  It is fortunate that I have some experience from outside of the
   ASF and non-open-source work.  Although the ASF way is unique, 
   I resonate with it.

> That Chair-elect will retire in September, 2016.

OK, this is very useful for proper planning.

>2015-08-23 Jan Iverson retired

Iversen!

   Yes, thank you.  I trust that I am getting better.  

> The complete PMC membership history is available at
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/pmc/project-state/2015-09-08-PMC-MembershipStatus.pdf

This is an excellent document. I've checked it and indeed this one is 
much better and (as soon as you have the privileges for doing so, which 
should be a matter of days now, Board Meeting is next week) 
http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#openoffice-pmc 
should definitely be aligned to it. Your file has better information.

> ACTION PLAN
> Collect and maintain materials on everything that involves a Chair

There is nothing special for OpenOffice in this respect. So adding 
questions/answers to http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html will suffice 
(but that page is already very comprehensive).

   I am thinking about all the matters that are known tacitly but not
   necessarily to a newcomer.  There is also a small matter of 
   prerequisite knowledge, such as 
 slogin to people.apache.org and running
 $ modify_committee.pl openoffice --rm=whoseit
   to a duffer such as myself.

> September 2016 PMC have at least three able and available candidates for 
> recommendation as new Chair

As for having 3 people who would have the minimal knowledge to act as 
Chair, I think we already have them, and PMC involvement in Chair duties 
will be enough. I don't see the need to have 3 or more candidates (i.e., 
it is important to have people with the right knowledge, it is not 
important that all of them run for election): it might happen that, 
implicitly or explicitly, the viable candidates find consensus on one of 
them.

   I agree completely, although capacity and willingness matter too.  
  My benchmark is how the Incubator PMC last changed 
   Chairs.  As far as I can tell they have a deep bench,
   and with a short discussion among the willing on the general list,
   there was consensus and, so far as I know, a [VOTE] was not needed.
   It that is achieved in 2016, I'll declare victory [;<).

Regards,
   Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

Thanks Basil,

So long as there are downloadable PDFs of the final booklet in the two 
languages, I don't think there is any need to send print copies by post.

May you have a wonderful Plugfest.  One of these days I may finally be able to 
travel to one [;<).

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Basil Cousins [mailto:ba...@openforumeurope.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 05:49
To: Dennis Hamilton 
Cc: Stuart Mackintosh ; dev ; 
Graham Taylor 
Subject: Re: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

Dennis,

So many thanks fro your support.

We are in the last knockings and are due to go to print shortly and must
decide numbers

Can you let Stuart if/how many copies of the Dutch and/or English versions
 you would wish us to post to you.


Basil Cousins
Director
OpenForum Europe
44 (0) 208 224 1830
44 (0) 750 599 7115
 www.openforumeurope.org

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of OFE
Ltd, are confidential, may be subject to legal privilege and are
intended only for the person(s) or organisation(s) named above. Any
unauthorised use, retention, distribution, copying or disclosure is
strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete this e-mail from your system. WARNING:
It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure this
e-mail and any attachments to it are free from viruses.

On 7 September 2015 at 20:21, Dennis E. Hamilton 
wrote:

> Thanks, Stuart.
>
>
>
> To be clear, I was not thinking of direct participation but something
> simple to be used in providing the “ODF in the marketplace” session with
> some useful self-explanatory data from the Apache OpenOffice Project.
>
>
>
> In any case, I doubt there is something that could be done in this short
> time window.  I am thinking it would be something useful for the project
> to track and report on a quarterly basis, if feasible.
>
>
>
> -   Dennis
>
>
>
> *From:* Stuart J Mackintosh [mailto:s...@opusvl.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 7, 2015 10:35
> *To:* orc...@apache.org
> *Cc:* dev@openoffice.apache.org; Graham Taylor ;
> 'Andrea Pescetti' ; Basil Cousins <
> ba...@openforumeurope.org>
> *Subject:* Re: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets
>
>
>
> Dennis,
>
> Thank you for supporting this initiative and providing the response from
> the AOO community. I will include the AOO entry in the Application Choices
> table as proposed.
>
> Should AOO choose to feature as a sponsor for 100GBP per language (English
> & Dutch), you will need to let Basil know by 14:00 GMT in order that the
> design can be updated.
>
> Your participation would be welcome if it can be arranged, but fully
> understand if it cannot due to the short notice on this occasion. For
> future ODF Plugfests, we will try to provide sufficient notice for you to
> debate and prepare in good time.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stuart.
>
>
>
>
>
> From the Chair,
>
>
>
> Stuart, thank you for your patience and keeping the AOO community tied
> into the planning for the ODF Plugfest and preparation of the booklet.
>
>
>
> It appears that the “Application Choices” convergence achieved with the
> suggestions from Andrea Pescetti is quite satisfactory.  There have been
> no objections whatsoever.
>
>
>
> I appreciate that it is already evening where you are.  The deadline for
> committing to booklet design will be early tomorrow for some of us, so I
> want to summarize where we stand.
>
>
>
> PLUGFEST BOOKLET SPONSORSHIP
>
>
>
> There is a simple consensus process for deliberation on travel funds,
> agreement to provide a sponsorship, and so on.
>
>
>
> Although it was suggested that a proposal be deliberated on, it seems to
> have been a non-starter.  I think it’s safe to say that we will not be
> requesting presentation as a sponsor for the booklet.  If that changes in
> the few hours remaining, I will let you know as soon as anything to the
> contrary comes to my attention (at UTC-0700).
>
>
>
> REPORTING TO THE PLUGFEST
>
>
>
> Finally, the Plugfest is only 7 days ahead of us.  It might be possible
> to have a few slides on “ODF in the Apache OpenOffice Marketplace” for the
> Tuesday, 2015-09-15 session on “ODF in the market place.”  This has
> prompted barely-tentative discussion here.  Again, there has not been
> much headway.  It is definitely something for the project to look into. I
> am not certain what kind of findings can be provided at this point; having
> anything for the Plugfest seems doubtful.  The topic is still open though.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> -   Dennis
>
>
>
> [ … ]
>



-- 
Basil Cousins
Director - UK

FW: [DISCUSS] SUSTAINABILITY: Issue Clearance Quality + Technical Debt

  It 
is important that there be cross-talk among the different volunteer supporters 
and that there be no direction of users to other places instead of providing 
some positive assistance.  This involves more engagement and communication 
among those who work with the Bugzilla, the mailing lists, and the forums to 
ensure that all avenues are covered.  It is desirable for users to be supported 
with positive assistance no matter how they bring their situation to the 
attention of the project.  Accomplishing that is open for discussion.  "It 
takes a village."


-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 19:57
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: STATE OF AOO: Overall Bugzilla Activity through July 2015

In looking for visible indicators of project activity, I created an overview of 
Bugzilla activity from November 2012 through July 2015.

This is a high-level view of gross activity and does not provide fine details.  
There is still an interesting picture.

My complete tabulation is available in a PDF document at 
<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/pmc/project-state/2015-07-BZ-OverallActivity-2015-08-05-dh.pdf>.

[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: FW: [DISCUSS] SUSTAINABILITY: Issue Clearance Quality + Technical Debt

Thanks Kay,

s inline.
-Original Message-
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 13:40
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: FW: [DISCUSS] SUSTAINABILITY: Issue Clearance Quality + Technical 
Debt

[top posting]

Given the breadth of this post, and its implications,
I would suggest breaking this up into "sub" discussions. For example,
review what we have on QA practices, and involve the QA volunteers in
discussion of some of these topics. I realize this may be difficult
because some of the issues involve facets of OpenOffice that are not
commonly used, or require more in-depth knowledge of particular aspects
-- basic programming, for example.

  Yes, that's a great suggestion.

I think we've already had some feedback on the VERY old issues as well.
Some of these issues have in fact been resolved, but the issue has never
been closed. It may be difficult to determine when the issues was
resolved and include that for record keeping in the issue. It would help
if many of these old issues could be re-reviewed and determine if they
still exist.

  Yes

Just to re-iterate: I think it would help if the overarching
topic/discussion presented here could be broken down into sub-topics.

And, I find this statement --
> The rate of arrival of new issues is steadily declining from the 2013
> peak.  That is not necessarily good news.  It does not demonstrate
> better proportional clearing of the smaller number.

somewhat off-putting. It seems rather critical of our QA efforts and
development efforts to me.

  Kay, you're right.  There is no information to indicate how it is that with 
fewer reports, the rate of resolution does not appear to change.  It was 
inappropriate for me to extrapolate without any deeper understanding.

On 09/09/2015 11:33 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 
> From the Chair,
> 
[ ... ]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

AOO-Earmarked Funds

Andrea,

I notice, from time-to-time that there seem to be funds that there are 
AOO-earmarked funds that the ASF received..

Is it the case that those funds are dedicated to events, such as attendance 
allowances and collateral materials?

Or may these funds be applied to other purposes?

One case that comes to mind would be funding Infra for contracting 
extraordinary activity to satisfy our custom-infrastructure commitments in some 
small part.  We could request that of the Foundation, of course.  I'm just 
curious what the opportunities are.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 12:28
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: ODF Plugfest: participation and leaflets

[ ... ]

Money won't be a big issue, provided we allocate it in advance, like we 
do for FOSDEM. Then, nobody in the end ever asked for reimbursements for 
any event (even in cases where we had allocated a reimbursement). For 
FOSDEM the idea was, I think, to allow up to 200 EUR (around 200 USD) as 
flat contribution toward expenses.

> * collateral material (eg, leaflets), etc. can be produced using our funds 
> but we all need to know of this need and it must sit within our broader 
> mandate as part of ASF as well as any local need.

Yes, perfect.

Regards,
   Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Slow but steady, please

2015-09-13 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

I think the Wikipedia editing adventure did not have a good ending.  That is to 
be expected. 

I think that there is no point in attempting to edit Wikipedia in situations 
such as this.  These things invariably end badly.

On the other hand, there are level-headed folk out there, and you might find 
this heartening:
.

There's a technical error, and I have provided correction in a comment.

I have no interest in fact-checking any farther than that.  It's an opinion 
peace and there's no reason to address that.

What I did say, also by comment, was what I think matters.  That is about our 
performance, and how we play nice with others, all in the spirit of producing 
software for the public good.  I believe that what matters is how we conduct 
ourselves and deliver.  That's it.  Slow and steady as she goes.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:motley.crue@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 15:55
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page.  You're right,
having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.

I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2
release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
planning to start a revert war over this.   :-(

Phil

This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald  wrote:

> Hi Phil,
>
> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations. The
> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in
> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant" they'll
> start looking for different office software.
>
> Max
>
>
>
> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
>
>> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations.  IOW, I don't see any
>> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
>>
>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled "Should I
>> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
>>
>> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
>> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or how
>> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this
>> kind of stuff spread around so widely.  :-(
>>
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Max,
>>>
>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:

 Hi there,

 the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where they

>>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
>>> it's
>>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about it.
>>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0
>>> and
>>> is getting ahead of us.
>>>
>>> thanks for the alert.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the entry
>>> to reflect the facts.
>>>
>>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
>>> arduous.
>>>
>>> Louis
>>>
 Max

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

 -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

INTEROPERABILITY: Initial PLugfest Test Collection

2015-09-15 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

A set of initial, raw tests was provided for review, clarification, and 
updating at the ODF Plugfest that started today in The Netherlands.

I asked permission to share this information, at the end, below, with the 
Apache OpenOffice developers list, with the following observations:

  "I am more interested in the tests than the results for other projects.
   There is also a desire to foster interoperability in our mutual support
   for ODF and having the calibration your tests provide is informative.  

  "We can capture the essence of the tests and create bug reports as
   appropriate for AOO.  We can also provide any responses or refined tests
   that may arise.  

  "It would be great were this a continuing activity and not confined to this
   week's Plugfest.  You can count on cooperation of the Apache OpenOffice 
   project [easy for orcmid to say].  I am confident other ODF-supporting 
   projects are also eager to support any initiative you take in this useful 
   area."

The response I received provided more information about the tests,

  "The tests are being developed on gitlab. The main respository is at 
   https://gitlab.com/odfplugfest/odfautotests
   There is a branch which is created in preparation of the plugfest by 
   Ben Martin (monkeyiq) at   https://gitlab.com/monkeyiq/odfautotests
   This branch will be cleaned up and merged into the main branch after 
   the plugfest.

  "For a contuous plugfest we'd need more thought. [...]

  "Of course you have permission to pass on the message, but please note
   that the urls are temporary and the results raw. Many applications 
   did not get tested.  All input was only ODF 1.2 (some output was 1.1). 
   And some results are present due to server glitches. So some cleanup and 
   especially *interpretation* of the results is needed.

  "What you can certainly do right now is the build the tester (ant jar)
   and run it.
   


  "Cheers,
   Jos"



-Original Message-
From: Plugtest ... On Behalf Of Jos van den Oever
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 02:29
To: plugtest
Subject: [ODFPlugtest] preliminary test results

[ ...  IMPORTANT - LINKS BELOW ARE TEMPORARY AND RESULTS RAW AND TENTATIVE ... ]

These links are temporary:
http://www.vandenoever.info/tmp/2015/sep/text-properties-results/report.html
http://www.vandenoever.info/tmp/2015/sep/paragraph-properties-results/report.html
http://www.vandenoever.info/tmp/2015/sep/list-level-properties/report.html
http://www.vandenoever.info/tmp/2015/sep/header-footer-properties/report.html
http://www.vandenoever.info/tmp/2015/sep/table-properties/report.html
http://www.vandenoever.info/tmp/2015/sep/graphic-properties/report.html

Please note that the current tests are limited to styling in text documents. 
This is a large topic and the one for which we have tests at the 
moment. Some implementations might do poorly in this particular set of tests, 
but be prefectly fine in other, future, tests.

Short explanation of the reports:

Each test tests just data fidelity: is the style attribute that goes in, saved 
back?
The tests use named styles. Sometimes a style can seem fine visually, while the 
named style has not retained the right information. That is considered a 
failed test.
Each test has the ingoing odt linked, as well as the outgoing odt files. There 
is usually also a pdf available. content.xml and styles.xml are also linked 
from each test.

[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-16 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Time, gentlemen, time.

We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread go 
night-night.

Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and AOO 
business.  We have our own business to attend to.  If folks want to keep 
fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on dev@.

 - Dennis

[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

FW: [PROPOSAL] QA Prioritization on Reports

2015-09-18 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Although of specific importance for QA, this deserves awareness and 
consideration in the boarder dev community.  Sorry, I was focused too narrowly,

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 08:29
To: q...@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: 'Alex Korsakov' 
Subject: [PROPOSAL] QA Prioritization on Reports

Hi Alex,

Thank you for your willingness.

I don't think we are as organized as you seem to be thinking (and happy to be 
mistaken).

I am providing a proposal in response to your great question.

This may be too many words. All assistance in making this clear, with any 
questions, suggestions, objections, whatever: please provide on this thread.

 - Dennis

PROPOSAL

We have a growing backlog (also known as a technical debt) and an useful way to 
deal with that is,

 1. Stop (by progressively reducing the rate of growth of) the growth of the 
backlog.  That means looking at new ones to see how they can be confirmed, and 
resolved or assignable to a developer in the case of confirmed defects.  (Even 
if you are prepared to work on it and own it, follow these stages so others 
know what is going on.)

 2. Work on the older ones (what is called technical debt as they age).  I 
would suggest, in particular, older ones for which (1) duplicates keep showing 
up or (2) there is still ongoing comments against them.  There are ways to 
detect those, but watching the OOo-issues list is a big start.  I assume 
everyone on the QA list is also subscribed to .

 3. GOOD PRACTICE.  Because this is a self-organizing voluntary effort, what I 
recommend is that, when an issue or block of issues is taken on for QA 
scrutiny, post a message *here* announcing the numbers or ranges that are being 
taken on.  Also, add yourself as the QA contact on the issue, so others know 
there as well.  That provides a heartbeat and indication that others should 
look for low-hanging fruit elsewhere.  When you are done with ones you have 
examined (no matter what the outcome), announce that and adjust the QA contact 
on the issue if necessary.

I think that is an ideal practice, all other factors considered.

EXCEPTION

When the project is driving for a release, there will be release blockers.  
Keep an eye on those.  Also, be prepared to do a regression test, if possible, 
to confirm whether the release candidate appears to cure the defect or not.  
This should involve follow-up at the issue.  Not all reporters are in a 
position to install release candidates in a safe way.  When the release 
happens, that is a good time to see if the reporters can then update and 
confirm whether the problem is cured.  

-Original Message-
From: Alex Korsakov [mailto:aleksey.korsako...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 04:11
To: q...@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: [QA]Some batch of reports

Good day to all! I'm a newbie in a QA, but I understand "how it works" 
and already work with unconfirmed defects in Bugzilla, but I wanna ask 
you to assign to me some batch of reports. I think it would be more 
productive for me. Thanks.

PS sorry for bad English

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

FW: [PROPOSAL] On Reproducibility of Defects

2015-09-18 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Here's another.  It is so easy to just keep responding on a thread where 
something first comes up.  I will do better on this.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 19:17
To: q...@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org
Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] On Reproducibility of Defects

Update at the end ...

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 14:22
To: q...@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: [PROPOSAL] On Reproducibility of Defects

I have a suggestion with regard to reproducibility of reported defects.

First, it is important to reproduce using the same release and platform as the 
reporter if at all possible.  

If the user has a configuration that is not available for confirming yet the 
bug can't be reproduced with the current released version on the same platform, 
that should be reported so that others can take a look.  Also, the reporter 
should have the opportunity to see if they can deepen the information about 
their case.

If the incident can't be reproduced with a development build, be certain that 
it can be reproduced with the current release on the same platform.  If not, 
treat that as if it is the previous case.  

If it is a defect that is confirmed for the current release and not 
reproducible for an in-development release, please confirm the defect and set 
the target for fix to the coming version.  If there is a workaround until an 
update is released, provide that.

 - Dennis

PS: I have no thoughts on when such an issue should be marked resolved.  I 
would recommend waiting until the next release has a release candidate, at the 
earliest, and there is a final check.  (These are good regression checkers.)

  Duhh.  The obvious time to mark it resolved is when the reporter(s) confirms 
that the problem does not occur with a new release.  

PPS: It is easy for users to see similarities in their own experience and add 
their report as a comment to a current issue.  The only way I know to determine 
that is to ask for more detail and if there is indication of a clear 
difference, create a new issue and lead the user to it.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

The "right way" to Ship Software

2015-09-19 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

<http://firstround.com/review/the-right-way-to-ship-software/>

This is an appealing article for developers mainly.  I think it is accessible 
to others on this list as well.

The TLDR; 

   "As a rule of thumb, expensive software means 
Predictability is key while shipping.  Customers
*need* your product.  If you have a lower (or no)
Price tag, focus on [User Experience] UX.  Users
Who don't need your product have to *want* it."

The question for us is, where in that range are we?  We're clearly toward the 
no pricetag side, but not entirely.  There is a need basis also, especially 
around the fact that predictability is a big deal with regard to the handling 
of digital documents across platforms.

Look at the whole article.  Where are we?  And then how does management of risk 
fit?

 -- Dennis E. Hamilton
orc...@apache.org
dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430
https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [DISCUSS] Apache OpenOffice ODF in the Marketplace - Downloading

2015-09-23 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Here is a rough, top-level view of Apache OpenOffice by the operating systems 
it is downloaded for.  This should be no surprise.  To have some grounding on 
the immediate situation, here are the downloading statistics of Apache 
OpenOffice 4.1.1 so far.

>From Sourceforge, 
><http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.1.1/stats/os?dates=2014-08-01+to+2015-08-31>.

Of the 41 million downloads that have occurred since release of 4.1.1, until 
the end of August, 

87.7% are for Windows
 9.1% are for Macintosh
 3.2% is everything else, including Linux

We know some sources of noise, but the overall picture is very clear and very 
decisive.  

For example, some users download multiple times as a form of 
(usually-unsuccessful) trouble-shooting.  We know about that because the next 
step for some is to come to the forums or one of our mailing lists after those 
attempts fail.

There are also folks who download for use by multiple people and there may be 
some distribution via package installers that are not visible here.  That can't 
change the high-level pattern by much in the case of AOO.

The overall pattern of downloads, with no separation by version, can be seen in 
the chart from 2012-10-01 (around when Apache OpenOffice became an official 
top-level project) to 2015-08-31.  You can see consistent seasonal variation 
and also detect when new releases were introduced,
<http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/stats/timeline?dates=2012-10-01+to+2015-08-31>.

A more interesting statistic to notice, apart from the perpetual dominance of 
Windows and Macintosh users in the AOO "marketplace" is the fact that only 
about 16-17% of the downloads occur in the United States.

The SourceForge statistics are easy to operate with.  For refined analysis 
there are datasets and analysis scripts that Rob Weir has provided at 
<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/devtools/aoo-stats/>.

What is more difficult to determine is what folks are actually doing with 
Apache OpenOffice.  There may be ways to learn more.  

 - Dennis



-----Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 20:01
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] Apache OpenOffice ODF in the Marketplace

I had not encountered the topic of "ODF in the market place" with regard to 
status of Apache OpenOffice.  Perhaps I have not been paying attention.

I am curious how we might characterize how support for ODF matters to Apache 
OpenOffice users and various institutions that value support for ODF in their 
reliance on Apache OpenOffice and related software.

How can we determine what the influence of ODF is with respect to Apache 
OpenOffice?

It strikes me there are two parts to this question.  

 1. Who are the users of Apache OpenOffice?

 2. What are the ways ODF is (comparatively) significant to those users?  

[ ... ]

WHO ARE THE USERS?

Although there are now over 150 million downloads of Apache OpenOffice, that 
does not tell us how many individual users are involved.

Perhaps the download counts just for AOO 4.1.1 would be a representable sample 
of a particularly-active segment of the user base, even though that would be 
underestimated a couple of ways.  But that, and the average weekly rate would 
be useful as "at least" figures.

The mix of platforms for those downloads is also important, reflecting the 
context in which those installed downloads are used by new users and those who 
are keeping their configurations current.


[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Apache OpenOffice Board-Reporting Schedule

2015-10-08 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

[BCC to PMC]

>From the Chair,

After watching the Board process for almost a month now, I have the
following observations about the reporting calendar for Apache OpenOffice.

Here is the reporting cycle we are on:

QUARTER   REPORTFINAL

   January 1 - March 31   April May

  April 1 - June 30   July  August

  July 1 - September 30   October   November

October 1 - December 31   January   February

This may have been obvious to others.  It is similar to how business
reporting calendars work.  Now it is clear to me.  I am a slow learner :).

I will honor this calendar for regular reports.  Additional reports are
possible.  I made such a report for the September Board meeting.  

The Board meetings are usually on the third Wednesday of the month, making
the reports due on the second Wednesday of each month.  So there are always
at least 7 days to prepare and review one on time.  We are in such a period
for the October report, which will be reviewed within the PMC as a draft
takes shape.

The reports become official when they appear in approved ASF Board minutes
(very long text documents).  That approval usually happens in the month
after the Report is submitted.  It can take longer if minute approvals are
delayed.

As a convenience for the AOO community, the Board-approved -FINAL AOO
reports are replicated at
.

 - Dennis




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[QUESTION] Optional Java Use for Essential Functionality

2015-10-15 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

In looking into some usability issues, I ran into a concern about how Java
is optional yet there are features that absolutely depend on it.  I think
some of those are essential features.

I have been mentioning this in other contexts and I'd like to test community
wisdom for understanding here.

I have opened a question on the ASF Legal-Discuss list:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-228

The essential cases that startled me were: (1) Creating a new Base document,
with default repository, only to find out that I can't edit it or otherwise
make use of the default repository without a JRE, at least on Windows; (2)
The Help | OpenOffice Help (F1) | Find search operation.

If we are not going to install a suitable JRE as part of AOO binary
installers, how should we make it more clear that Java is required for what
might seem to be essential functions?

(There are other matters about how the need for a JRE in a given situation
is made known, but that is separate from a general requirement that a JRE be
present.)

Should advice just be to install a suitable JRE?

Or should we differentiate where Java will be required before an user is
surprised by an announcement that an operation can't be performed because
there is no suitable JRE installed?

 - Dennis





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [QUESTION] Optional Java Use for Essential Functionality

2015-10-15 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

Thanks, Marcus and Kay.

Oh, I know so little about what is on the web site and wikis now.  
Must nose around more.

I would reword the Java and Accessibility statements a bit, but you have
answered my basic question.

There remain some usability questions.  I wonder if others have 
Observations or comments about those they have observed.

 - Dennis


-Original Message-
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 15:36
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [QUESTION] Optional Java Use for Essential Functionality

[ ... ]

The need for Java is detailed in the System Requirements --
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs_aoo41.html

linked from the Download page. What I found "startling" was the
message that Java 6 is needed on Macintosh, which I was not aware
of. We've switched to Java 7 for sure for Windows and Linux builds.
The lack of a Mac buildbot makes tracking these kinds of anomalies
difficult.

Maybe it's time we investigate an alternate way of providing the
same functionality without Java?

-- 

MzK

“The journey of a thousand miles begins
 with a single step.”
  --Lao Tzu



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [QUESTION] Optional Java Use for Essential Functionality

2015-10-15 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

> -Original Message-
> From: Damjan Jovanovic [mailto:dam...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 17:25
> To: Apache OO 
> Subject: Re: [QUESTION] Optional Java Use for Essential Functionality
> 
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Kay Schenk 
> wrote:
[ ... ]
> > Maybe it's time we investigate an alternate way of providing the
> > same functionality without Java?
[ ... ]
> It's that Mac buildbot that is badly needed. Also in terms of the JVM
> bitness issue, can't we detect the JVM bitness at download time from the
> Java plugin, and get users to download AOO of the matching bitness?
> 
> Damjan
[orcmid]
It works the other way around on Windows.  We only have an x86 build for 
Windows, but many installs of Windows x64 versions have the x64 JRE and That 
won't work with AOO.  I think the Mac install is an x86-x64 one so not certain 
bit-ness is the issue there.

The issue, here, is about how Java ends up being required and the way the 
absence of a suitable JRE derails users in the current arrangement where there 
may be no or a wrong-bitness JRE present.

I think this is essentially an usability matter. 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: 4.1.2_release_blocker requested: [Issue 126597] Object Properties dialog contains "JRE Required" trap

I'm sorry.  It was not my intention to request a release blocker.  That must 
have been automatically checked.

Please deny the request.  I agree completely that there should be no blocker on 
this.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 00:43
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 4.1.2_release_blocker requested: [Issue 126597] Object
> Properties dialog contains "JRE Required" trap
> 
> -1
> 
> I don't think that this is new stuff that came in accidently with the
> last commits/merges. So, at this release stage an rather old issue that
> should be fixed with 4.1.x or 4.2.0.
> 
> My 2ct.
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
> Am 10/20/2015 02:01 AM, schrieb bugzi...@apache.org:
> > orcmid  has asked  for 4.1.2_release_blocker:
> > Issue 126597: Object Properties dialog contains "JRE Required" trap
> > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126597
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Description ---
> > Created attachment 85054
> >-->  https://bz.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=85054&action=edit
> > Object properties with JRE required message at the Macro taab
> >
> > In Writer and elsewhere that OLE-embedded Objects are allowed, the
> "Object"
> > property sheet Macro tab contains a JRE-Required trap.  As soon as
> the tab is
> > selected, there is a warning message that
> >
> > JRE Required
> >  OpenOffice requires a Java runtime environment (JRE) to
> >  perform this task.  Please install a JRE and restart
> >  OpenOffice.
> >
> > The OK button on this dialog clears it momentarily and then the same
> dialog
> > reappears.  There is no way to close either the dialog or the open
> application.
> > There is no way to save any work at this point.
> >
> > The only way I found to proceed is to use the Windows Task Manager to
> close
> > OpenOffice, restart/shutdown the Windows desktop, or power-down the
> computer.
> >
> > This is related to but not the same incident as #122108 #79125 #121245
> #122185
> > #74940 #15147 #45709
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [QUESTION] Optional Java Use for Essential Functionality

Summary of what this thread revealed, in-line.

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:58
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: [QUESTION] Optional Java Use for Essential Functionality
> 
> In looking into some usability issues, I ran into a concern about how
> Java
> is optional yet there are features that absolutely depend on it.  I
> think
> some of those are essential features.
> 
> I have been mentioning this in other contexts and I'd like to test
> community
> wisdom for understanding here.
> 
> I have opened a question on the ASF Legal-Discuss list:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-228


[orcmid] 
It is agreed that this case does not apply, and the issue is closed.  

It is established in the system requirements that Java is necessary to
achieve full functionality.  See
<http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs_aoo41.html>.  It could
be more clear and many users, if they consult system requirements at all,
might not scroll down to the statement about Java.  But the (non-optional)
conditional requirement for Java is clear.

> 
> The essential cases that startled me were: (1) Creating a new Base
> document,
> with default repository, only to find out that I can't edit it or
> otherwise
> make use of the default repository without a JRE, at least on Windows;
> (2)
> The Help | OpenOffice Help (F1) | Find search operation.
> 
> If we are not going to install a suitable JRE as part of AOO binary
> installers, how should we make it more clear that Java is required for
> what
> might seem to be essential functions?
> 
[ ... ]
> 
> Should advice just be to install a suitable JRE?
> 
> Or should we differentiate where Java will be required before an user is
> surprised by an announcement that an operation can't be performed
> because
> there is no suitable JRE installed?

[orcmid] There were some unexpected responses to these questions.

 2. One suggestion was to remove the dependencies on Java.

 3. Other suggestions included increasing the dependencies on Java, perhaps
going so far as to make AOO a Java application.

 4. Some remarks suggested that, since the JRE dependency has been that way
since Apache OpenOffice started releasing, it must not be much of a problem.

I am wary of (4).  I tend to have different suspicions about situations such
as any similar to <https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126597>.  

I think the way to determine the extent to which JRE-required and similar
traps are problems may require consultation with those closer to what and
where users report.  I wonder what different reactions might be in those
places.

 -- Dennis


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Please test updates with OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC2

I confirmed that "Check for Updates" works on Windows 10 Pro x64 en-US.

The results are at .

I did not do the extensions test.

 - Dennis



> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 15:12
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Please test updates with OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC2
> 
> I've just enabled a test (fake!) feed for OpenOffice updates.
> 
> Please check with 4.1.2-RC2 that the menu "?" - "Check for updates"
> gives you a message saying that OpenOffice 4.1.3 (remember, this is just
> a test!) is available, and brings you to somewhere on the
> www.openoffice.org site (the exact address depends on your language and
> OS) to download the new version.
> 
> It would be good to have confirmation with all supported platforms (one
> confirmation is OK), so:
> 
> - Windows
> - Mac OS X
> - Linux 32
> - Linux 64 (confirmed OK)
> 
> If you notice anything strange, please note it in
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126480
> 
> It would also be good if, while at it, you can install an old dictionary
> like
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/aoo-extensions/files/1075/12/dict-de_de-
> frami_2012-06-17.oxt/download
> 
> or
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/aoo-extensions/files/1204/10/dict-
> it.oxt/download
> 
> and then, in Tools - Extensions Manager - Check for updates, check that
> OpenOffice correctly tells you that a newer version is available.
> 
> Regards,
>Andrea.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[QUESTION] How Many Pre-Built Binaries are Enough?

I recently started a download of all of the AOO 4.1.2 rc2 candidates, then see 
how long it was going to take and let it run overnight.  In the morning, the 
download had failed to get them all.

What struck me however is how big the downloads are.

There are full pre-built, installable binaries for 41 separate languages, and 
separately-introducible smaller language packs for each of them as well.

The pre-built binaries for each single language take 1s gigabyte, in six sets:

  4 flavors for Linux, taking 67%
  1 flavor for MacOS, for 18%
  1 flavor for Windows (win32 x86), for 15%.

Yet the popularity of pre-built binaries, based on download statistics, is 
inverted, with about 88% for Windows, 9% for MacOS, and 3% for everything else.

Now 3.2% (the actual fraction) of 41 million downloads of AOO 4.1.1 is still 
1.3 million that include those Linux cases.  

QUESTION: Considering only pre-built binaries for downloading, my question is, 
when is it time to reduce those that represent inordinate demands to the needs 
for QA, distribution, and support?

EXCLUDED: 

 1. This question is not about the relative use of pre-built full binaries for 
each of 41 languages.  There are other questions we could ask about that.  (The 
language packs for given languages are much smaller than the full binaries 
though, taking about 20MB per flavor.)

 2. This question is not about the source codes and the SDK.  It is also not 
about the value of building and testing for different platforms.  It is only 
about distributing pre-built binaries.

I suspect there are more details, and better questions, that could be raised.

I'm all ears.  What are your concerns?  What do you see being overlooked in 
this calculus?

 - Dennis


> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 18:38
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Apache OpenOffice ODF in the Marketplace -
> Downloading
> 
> Here is a rough, top-level view of Apache OpenOffice by the operating
> systems it is downloaded for.  This should be no surprise.  To have some
> grounding on the immediate situation, here are the downloading
> statistics of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 so far.
> 
> From Sourceforge,
> <http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.1.1/stats/
> os?dates=2014-08-01+to+2015-08-31>.
> 
> Of the 41 million downloads that have occurred since release of 4.1.1,
> until the end of August,
> 
> 87.7% are for Windows
>  9.1% are for Macintosh
>  3.2% is everything else, including Linux
> 
[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[REPORT] PMC 2015-08 Private-List Activity through August