On 06/02/2011 03:40 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Florian Effenberger wrote on 06/02/2011
06:39:12 AM:
This would not only be about reinventing the wheel, but also about
splitting the community, leading to disadvantages for end-users,
contributors, and enterprises.
I'd like to challeng
Hello Jim,
Le Tue, 7 Jun 2011 07:50:42 -0400,
Jim Jagielski a écrit :
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 22.13:
> >> Good to see the list... Not knowing things for sure, but I
> >> would guess that Oracle had issues w
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 22.13:
>> Good to see the list... Not knowing things for sure, but I
>> would guess that Oracle had issues with #3, which gave away
>> (what I would expect to be) huge chunks of h/w infrastructure,
Hi Jim,
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 22.20:
I replied on the TDF ML about #3 which, from my reading (and
from what I have been told by entities both within and outside
of Oracle) requested the "infrastructure" which was later
clarified to mean servers, various hardware, access to
private Or
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Volker Merschmann wrote:
>
>>> I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but
>>> that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle
>>> as to prevent any sort of agreement... IBM may have strongly
>>> suggested the
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jim, all,
>>>
>>> 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski :
On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
Volker Merschmann wrote:
> > I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but
> > that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle
> > as to prevent any sort of agreement... IBM may have strongly
> > suggested the ASF as a backup, but we were the runner-up in
> > a sense
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
>
> > Hi Jim, all,
> >
> > 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski :
> >>
> >> On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's
On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
> Hi Jim, all,
>
> 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski :
>>
>> On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's
>>> recommendation, than taxes.
>>>
>>
>> I've been told that Oracle
Hi Jim, all,
2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski :
>
> On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>>
>> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's
>> recommendation, than taxes.
>>
>
> I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but
> that the demands by TDF were sufficien
Hi,
Kevin Lau wrote on 2011-06-06 15.35:
-Can you help me to understand this "Simon posted one possible creative
solution"?
It seems the discussion is making progress. I like to think this is
appropriate to be seen in "Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are
we now?)" thread than her
On Jun 6, 2011, at 11:40 AM, toki wrote:
>
> ROTFLMAO
>
> At best, you are incredibly naive. Those policies will stop the
> companies for all of one picosecond, if that long.
>
ladies and gentlemen, we have another troll...
Please don't feed.
---
> From: toki
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 11:40:41 AM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/06/2011 13:58, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> > Because Ap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/06/2011 13:58, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Because Apache will own the brand, we can make access to the brand
contingent on things like non-abuse of our OOo forums, among other
things.
ROTFLMAO
At best, you are incredibly naive. Those policies will
ssage
> From: Simon Phipps
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 10:04:17 AM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
>
> On Jun 6, 2011 2:58 PM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
> >
> > Because Apache will own the brand, we ca
On Jun 6, 2011 2:58 PM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
>
> Because Apache will own the brand, we can make access to the brand
> contingent on things like non-abuse of our OOo forums, among other
> things.
>
> Carrots and sticks.
Is Apache historically flexible in this area? I had the impression the
tradem
- Original Message
> From: toki
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 6:25:30 AM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/06/2011 08:02, Robert Burrell Do
Florian,
>Yes, I see the licensing topic and that there are different views on that.
However, I don't know if that >requires to set-up all community efforts a
second time. Simon posted one possible creative solution. >Setting up a
parallel project IMHO is wrong.
-Can you help me to understand thi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/06/2011 19:22, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Note: I did not read it that way (I think it is quite plausible and
I read it as a bona fide attempt by IBM to shove the project down the
throat of The Apache Foundation.
> I hope we don't need to deliberate fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/06/2011 08:02, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> AIUI the TDF uses the LGPL. Like the Apache License (AL), the LGPL
> also allows proprietary software to be built on top. So, why would you
> break your rule for a TDF project but not an ASF one?
It
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
> On 06/02/2011 09:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Hi Italo
>> Let's look at it this way: Pretend that when things starting going
>> south in OOo, but before TDF was formed, Oracle had done what it
>> just did: donate the code and the trademark to
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 5 Jun 2011, at 23:05, Friedrich Strohmaier
wrote:
> So one question (probably already asked): what is the timeframe between
> proposal and decision for accepting the "podling".
> Will there be enough time digging the mails and maybe comment
Hi Luke, *,
No glue where to put in this so I choose this thread.
A short introduction:
I'm Friedrich Strohmaier, long term OpenOffice.org community member
active (since ~ 2004) mainly in german language DVD project
(infrastructure architect and worker) in OOo times until some days in
december 2
Hi,
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-05 22.26:
That's the impression I had from an early post here as well...
>
Please see:
http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/msg01027.html
if you want to get a good overview on the progress, here are a few
(though lenghty
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
>> I had thought you were further away...
>
> That's the impression I had from an early post here as well...
>
Please see:
http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/msg01027.html
-
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:54, Florian Effenberger
> wrote:
>>...
>> That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
>> saying everyone "Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh have
>> enough."
(FWIW I aimed
Hi Greg,
Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-05 20.39:
so, why don't the ASF, the Mozilla Foundation, the Eclipse Foundation and
the GNOME Foundation unite? :-)
Different goals.
that said, I think the goals of ASF - without knowing your statutes in
detail yet - and TDF differ as well. Not that we
Hi Jim,
Am 03.06.2011 21:35, schrieb Jim Jagielski:
Agreed. And that's why I suggested that that would be an
excellent initial part of cooperation between the ASF and
TDF, where they could provide the build/distribution.
Maybe a stupid question, but what should TDF actually build and distrib
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:19, Florian Effenberger
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-05 20.03:
>
>>> That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
>>> saying everyone "Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh
>>> have
>>> enough."
>>
>> I don't know
Hi,
Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-05 20.03:
That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
saying everyone "Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh have
enough."
I don't know that Robert B-D said that, or anybody else. *I* certainly
said it, and strongly b
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:54, Florian Effenberger
wrote:
>...
> That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
> saying everyone "Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh have
> enough."
I don't know that Robert B-D said that, or anybody else. *I* certainly
s
On 06/02/2011 04:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Let's be 100% clear here: This is about collaboration. This
is about working together. This is about building a developer
and user community, and not some power-play or ego trip.
Jim, please be aware that OOo end user community is just huge, but onl
On 06/02/2011 09:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Let's look at it this way: Pretend that when things starting going
south in OOo, but before TDF was formed, Oracle had done what it
just did: donate the code and the trademark to the ASF.
If that had happened, would those of you behind TDF still
have
On 06/03/2011 07:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
No, they don't. But, to re-quote Sam, they now have the "historic
opportunity to change their license to the Apache License", which makes it
much easier to (quoting you, now), "cooperate with ASF to make the two
projects work as harmoniously as pos
Hi,
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-05 16.41:
Non-profit foundations are constrained to act in certain ways. For
example, it is hard for either the Apache or the Free Software
Foundations to close source donated code.
that's the same for a German-based foundation, and exactly the same
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Florian Effenberger
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-04 16.28:
>> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's
>> recommendation, than taxes.
+1
> I tend to agree.
IMO it's all about governance.
Non-profit foundations are constrai
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> I've lost the thread on this,
it's noisy and open :-)
(but it's good to factor out new threads with good subjects)
> but I thought that one observation was about the dependencies in
> OpenOffice.org (and LibreOffice.org) on material
On Jun 4, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
>
> I would be very wary of this sort of assertion, regardless of the person who
> made it, Jim. TDF does have quite an interesting story on this but we
> naively felt that discussions that were clearly off the record were to be
> kept, well, o
Hello Jim,
2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski
>
> On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> >
> > We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People
> > have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to
> scrap
> > that off in favor of something else an
On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
>
> We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People
> have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to scrap
> that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance they
> don't ev
On Jun 3, 2011, at 9:07 PM, Cor Nouws wrote:
> [Picking a random mail in this thread]
>
> I have a suggestion by the wiki-proposal.
>
> I read
> " Reliance on Salaried Developers
> ...
> Ensuring the long term stability of OpenOffice.org is a major
> reason for establishing the project at Ap
On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's
> recommendation, than taxes.
>
I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but
that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle
as to prevent any sort o
On 3 Jun 2011, at 20:33, Leo Simons wrote:
> Whoah! Please don't call for a vote -- I would much rather we first
> arrive at a situation where I can comfortably vote +1! :)
Strong +1 to that. This is a big decision, and some of us would like
to gauge reaction beyond the confines of this list be
Hi,
Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-04 16.28:
"Oracle America" is the full name of the entity that granted us the code.
They may not have been able to get the same tax deduction donating to a
foreign entity. The tax deduction would be*considerable* given the value of
the OOo brand.
ah, sorry, the
On Jun 4, 2011 10:08 AM, "Florian Effenberger" <
flo...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Julien Vermillard wrote on 2011-06-04 16.05:
>
>> In short : taxes (US taxes) saving donnating stuff to non profit org.
>
>
> where is this different from a German entity where donations are
tax-deduc
Hi,
Julien Vermillard wrote on 2011-06-04 16.05:
In short : taxes (US taxes) saving donnating stuff to non profit org.
where is this different from a German entity where donations are
tax-deductible, like with the current association (which is even
accredited as "especially meritorious" by t
On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Florian Effenberger
wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted to
> join in here:
>
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-04 09.14:
>
> The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either
> copyright or
Hi,
On 04/06/2011 16:03, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Hello Robert,
2011/6/4 Robert Burrell Donkin
[...]
The TDF is at the start of a journey that the ASF started a decade ago
and is yet to reach the end. The TDF may wish to consider whether an
alternative path might achieve their aims faster...
Hello Robert,
2011/6/4 Robert Burrell Donkin
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Florian Effenberger
> wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
>
> Hi Florian
>
> (Copying in Charles since he asked a similar question off list)
>
Did I send you a reply off-list? Damned phone...
>
> > I'm still reading a few mess
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Florian Effenberger
wrote:
> Hi Robert,
Hi Florian
(Copying in Charles since he asked a similar question off list)
> I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted to
> join in here:
Just like the rest of us :-)
Noisy and open - every
Hi Robert,
I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted
to join in here:
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on 2011-06-04 09.14:
The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either
copyright or code today. Apache is.
Why? Can you elaborate?
Florian
--
Flori
Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 06:31)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 21:07, Cor Nouws wrote:
[Picking a random mail in this thread]
I have a suggestion by the wiki-proposal.
I read
" Reliance on Salaried Developers
...
Ensuring the long term stability of OpenOffice.org is a major
reason for establi
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:59 PM, wrote:
> Norbert Thiebaud wrote on 06/03/2011 11:09:23 AM:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> >
>> > This is why, inside the ASF, we expect individuals to represent the
>> > communities interests not their commercial or their employe
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Charles-H. Schulz
wrote:
Hi Charles
> I'm saying that in the real world,
> LibreOffice has happened and that Openoffice being given to Apache is odd
The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either
copyright or code today. Apache is.
> and not the
ward whatever the vision
for LibreOffice 4.0 happens to be.
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:36
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re:
OpenOffice.org Apache
On Jun 3, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> My hope is that projects coming to
> Apache will be designed to last for DECADES. That is a very attractive
> proposition, and I see no fault in a proposal that is looking to do
> exactly that.
+1. Big +1.
Cheers,
Chris
++
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 21:07, Cor Nouws wrote:
> [Picking a random mail in this thread]
>
> I have a suggestion by the wiki-proposal.
>
> I read
> " Reliance on Salaried Developers
> ...
> Ensuring the long term stability of OpenOffice.org is a major
> reason for establishing the project at Apa
[Picking a random mail in this thread]
I have a suggestion by the wiki-proposal.
I read
" Reliance on Salaried Developers
...
Ensuring the long term stability of OpenOffice.org is a major
reason for establishing the project at Apache.
"
Unless really relevant, I would suggest to leave tha
Hi Rob,
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (03-06-11 17:59)
"Allen Pulsifer" wrote on 06/03/2011 11:45:03
AM:
It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that
is licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL. If The Document
Foundation
is willing to change its release from
Sam Ruby wrote (03-06-11 20:22)
Unable is a strong word. I given that we are talking about
historically recent contributions, I would think that it would be
possible to identify and reach out to those who made these
contributions. These people, after all, DO hold the copyrights.
Ah yes, and p
Greg Stein wrote (03-06-11 19:57)
Yeah... that is kind of a disadvantage for when they may choose to
upgrade or modify their licensing.
Read the '+' in the licence ;-)
Cor
(still reading my way through, and understanding in the mean time that
at any moment constructive contribution is expec
Hi All,
On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
>>> the podling.
>>>
>>> These are decisions the podling should be making.
>>
>> Are you ready to call for a vo
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 17:05, Benson Margulies wrote:
> instead of to the whole shebang.
>>
>> Bah. Outdated concept. In Apache Subversion, we simply ask the
>> committer to constrain themselves to certain areas. No need to get
>> technical about it. The trust metric applies very well, *especiall
instead of to the whole shebang.
>
> Bah. Outdated concept. In Apache Subversion, we simply ask the
> committer to constrain themselves to certain areas. No need to get
> technical about it. The trust metric applies very well, *especially*
> when it is version control and changes can be reverted :
y, June 03, 2011 02:31
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal
[ ... ]
Oracle owns all copyright in contributions to date and they have already signed
the grant to allow Apache to sublicence it. The grant is identical to the one
all other project
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
> I've just finished speaking to Greg Stein, and I'm also newly time-available
> to help. I'd be willing to mentor, and Greg thought I could be of help.
An offer too good to pass up on. I've added you before you change your mind!
> Danese
-
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:12, Benson Margulies wrote:
> PMCs at Apache have a wide latitude in managing the meritocracy. The
> simplest answer is the high-trust answer: if you demonstrate that you
> are a responsible contributor, you get commit access, and the PMC
> trusts that you won't abuse it
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 09:29:23PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
> I'm also suggesting it's
> /such/ a big deal for the open source community at large that
> openoffice.orgresolve to a working and current site without
> interruption that it deserves
> a mention (preferably a plan - yes, unusual for an
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I wo
PMCs at Apache have a wide latitude in managing the meritocracy. The
simplest answer is the high-trust answer: if you demonstrate that you
are a responsible contributor, you get commit access, and the PMC
trusts that you won't abuse it outside your competence. More complex
answers involve granting
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>>> I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of
>> telling TDF they have to switch to another license.
Please ignore my mail below, my phone failed to sync completely. I see
apologies were made. That's more like the ASF I know.
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 3 Jun 2011, at 20:34, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
>
>>
>>
> One main, significant difference between TDF and the ASF
> is that the ASF just releases source; TDF fills a *huge*
> and important part of the entire OOo end-user experience.
> I sincerely hope this is an easy to agree to.
This is a concise capture of a critical point.
TDF could decide to igno
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of
> telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's
> a need to focus *in the proposal*
I've just finished speaking to Greg Stein, and I'm also newly time-available to
help. I'd be willing to mentor, and Greg thought I could be of help.
Danese
On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Re "someone from ComDev"... I'm seriously considering whether to sign up or
> not. I a
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of
> telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's
> a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer
> deliverable from
Re "someone from ComDev"... I'm seriously considering whether to sign up or
not. I am ready to vote but not sure I'm ready to mentor (it's a time
commitment thing).
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 3 Jun 2011, at 19:30, "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
> On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
>
> If this is how guests are going to be treated here at ASF, then yes, we'll
> take it elsewhere
Fair comment.
Please everyone, thus us the first experience many people are having of the
ASF. We (guests and ASF people) are better than t
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
>> the podling.
>>
>> These are decisions the podling should be making.
>
> Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
Whoah! Please don't call for a vote -- I would much rather
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:22, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> Anything else reeks of this being shoved down people's throats by
>> people gave this days, weeks or even a month of deliberation already.
>> Your invitation to start the vote NOW come
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
> Anything else reeks of this being shoved down people's throats by
> people gave this days, weeks or even a month of deliberation already.
> Your invitation to start the vote NOW comes across as a snarky drivers
> seat remark.
Note: I
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> And I offer a personal apology to Simon...
>
> Accepted - apologies if my strong reaction to the unexpected news at the
> start of the week on offended you.
All come on now. Unless are referring to a the female portion of the
canine fami
On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> And I offer a personal apology to Simon...
>
> Accepted - apologies if my strong reaction to the unexpected news at the
> start of the week on offended you.
Accepted as well.
On 6/3/2011 1:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
>>
>> I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor.
>
> You need to flush your cache...
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:30, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to
relicense all of the contributions it has received.
>>>
>>> As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under open source
>>> licenses alone and unlike ASF does not r
On 3 Jun 2011, at 19:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>>
>> More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
>> collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating
>> ideological division as a given...
>>
>
>
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> Which is exactly why I say "we are where we are" and we should deal with it
> even if it is to agree to disagree on some things. Can we work together and
> resolve issues so that people can enjoy using FOSS office software? That is
> really the fu
On 3 June 2011 19:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> >
> > More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
> > collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating
> > ideological division as a given...
> Well, the
And I offer a personal apology to Simon...
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>
>>> I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim.
>>> Yes, I am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I a
>> If this is how guests are going to be treated here at ASF, then yes,
>> we'll take it elsewhere and IBM can go it alone.
> OK... I offer my apologies... I agree that this has gotten quite heated
and gone w offbase.
> I admit my culpability in my actions which have allowed it and apolog
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim.
>> Yes, I am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am
>> here on the list is to be constructive and not to be bitch-slapped and
>> misrepresented just fo
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
> collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating
> ideological division as a given...
>
Well, the ASF develops and releases software under the AL... th
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
>
> I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor.
...
> Shane & Sam, and some member of ComDev, if you would serve, please add
> yourselv
t the ASF would be distributing code
>>> under the mark.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message
>>>> From: Jim Jagielski
>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM
>>>> Subjec
> I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim.
> Yes, I am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am
> here on the list is to be constructive and not to be bitch-slapped and
> misrepresented just for showing up.
> This email has no place on this list.
Whoops. Forgot to copy the list.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>> On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
>
> No; there are some good discussions going on (as well as
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <
> robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz
>> wrote:
>> > Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
>> >> I wouldn't be too quick to t
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz
> wrote:
> > Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
> >> I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
> > related communit
> Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
I think you need to allow a little time for people to read what has been
written, absorb and reflect on it, and react appropriately. And I'm not
(just) talking about ASF members--I'm talking about the potentially larger
community. Rushing things will not he
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:27, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> wrote:
>>
>> What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an
>> upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community
>> spanning these projects (as widely as ideolo
1 - 100 of 288 matches
Mail list logo
