On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> When I read Jim's email, I took it to mean your tweets[1]. Not your
>> emails to this list.
>
> Greg: I am being told by Sam Ruby to not talk about these topics so I will
> not respond ap
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> When I read Jim's email, I took it to mean your tweets[1]. Not your
> emails to this list.
Greg: I am being told by Sam Ruby to not talk about these topics so I will
not respond apart from to acknowledge I am not ignoring you.
S.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:14, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>...
>> color me confused: first Simon slams the ASF for not actively
>> engaging TDF and others (although we, of course, did) but now
>> his suggestion is to basically ignore each other...
>
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> >
> > If I were voting on this incubator proposal (and of course I know I am
> not),
> > I would want to know that the people proposing it had a grasp of the
> > enormity of the task and a
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> If I were voting on this incubator proposal (and of course I know I am not),
> I would want to know that the people proposing it had a grasp of the
> enormity of the task and a plan for dealing with it /from day one/ and not
> from an undefined
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> Ahhh... Yes I see something missing from Simons mail here. I assumed that
> the LibreOffice distribution would gradually migrate to using the core
> components proposed here (Apache ODFSuite as Simin called it) and thus
> collaboration on th
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> > Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very
> similar suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these
> two threads together.
> >
>
> Simon's
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:15, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> On 03/06/2011 16:43, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Please see Simon Phipps' em
On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 03/06/2011 16:43, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>
>>> Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very similar
>>> suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring
On 03/06/2011 16:43, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very similar
suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these two threads
together.
Simon's email, from what I can tell
On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very similar
> suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these two threads
> together.
>
Simon's email, from what I can tell, boils down to:
1. The podling g
On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 03/06/2011 16:00, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>> Stupid question time: If TDF already has the *build* infrastructure,
>>> then isn't *that* a clear choice of where at least some level of
>>> cooperation can occur.
>>>
>>> After all, the ASF p
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/03/2011 10:54:42 AM:
>
> That is what I was suggesting and which Rob claims he won't need because
its
> so easy.
>
Simon,
I don't think we should ever turn down an offer of help. I was just
suggesting that although the project is large and complex to build, we
hav
I'll go away on this. My concern has been to avoid setting an
impossible bar of organized cooperation as a prerequisite to voting
for the podling. It would be a wonderful thing if cooperation breaks
out, but I think that it is unrealistic to achieve very much of it
before the podling launches.
O
Of course it does... but we are discussing ways where
we can use all aspects of the existing communities to
give the IPMC a warm-and-fuzzy regarding voting +1
On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Um, it seems to me that this discussion of builds and distribution
> belongs on the
On 03/06/2011 16:00, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
Stupid question time: If TDF already has the *build* infrastructure,
then isn't *that* a clear choice of where at least some level of
cooperation can occur.
After all, the ASF provides source... the TDF could provide
the builds?? (but that's not al
On 03/06/2011 16:04, Benson Margulies wrote:
Um, it seems to me that this discussion of builds and distribution
belongs on the dev list of the podling when/if there is a podling.
Unless someone feels that there's a problem so gigantic that it should
motivate -1 votes for the podling itself.
I a
Um, it seems to me that this discussion of builds and distribution
belongs on the dev list of the podling when/if there is a podling.
Unless someone feels that there's a problem so gigantic that it should
motivate -1 votes for the podling itself.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Christian Grobmeie
> Stupid question time: If TDF already has the *build* infrastructure,
> then isn't *that* a clear choice of where at least some level of
> cooperation can occur.
>
> After all, the ASF provides source... the TDF could provide
> the builds?? (but that's not all, of course)...
what a fantastic idea
That is what I was suggesting and which Rob claims he won't need because its
so easy.
{Terse? Mobile!}
On Jun 3, 2011 3:23 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 21:26 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
>>> Final
On Jun 3, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 21:26 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
>> Finally, I think we're exaggerating the difficulty of getting out a
>> release of OpenOfice. LibreOffice did it very quickly. And so did IBM
>> with Symphony.
El 03/06/11 05:15, Ian Lynch escribió:
> We are getting demand for
> OpenOffice certification not any other name.
+1
This is a global and urgent demand by the companies that migrate to
OpenOffice.org... and we can't satisfier.
--
--
Hi Rob,
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 21:26 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Finally, I think we're exaggerating the difficulty of getting out a
> release of OpenOfice. LibreOffice did it very quickly. And so did IBM
> with Symphony. This is not rocket science.
I am impressed by your
On Jun 2, 2011, at 8:12 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> TL;DR version: I think I see people talking past each other for a bunch of
> reasons, and I have a compromise proposal that might make things easier. It's
> at the bottom, and explained in some detail in the middle.
>
Welcome to the discussion
>
> But initially the proposal, as it has been
> made, is for the continuation of the existing OpenOffice code base under
> the existing OpenOffice trademark.
And for certification, the OOo brand name is important. (Can't speak for
other areas but probably in other sectors too) We are getting dem
On 6/2/2011 7:12 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> This is purely my own thoughts, and there's no doubt room for improvement
> although I have run it past a few wise friends before posting it. But I
> suggest that without this clear demarcation of "new-project" and
> "business-as-usual-project" it wi
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/02/2011 08:12:40 PM:
> 2. This incubator project, which sets out to be the "Firefox of
> OpenOffice", should proceed pretty much as described, but under a
> name other than OpenOffice (just as Firefox got a different name).
> Something like "Apache ODF Suite" that de
On 3 Jun 2011, at 02:32, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> Hello Simon,
>
> This is a noble proposal, but there are is an important prerequisite. The
> LibreOffice is currently only accepting contributions licensed under the
> LGPL. The LibreOffice project cannot take those contributions and insert
> th
Hello Simon,
This is a noble proposal, but there are is an important prerequisite. The
LibreOffice is currently only accepting contributions licensed under the
LGPL. The LibreOffice project cannot take those contributions and insert
them into an Apache Licensed project without the approval of th
TL;DR version: I think I see people talking past each other for a bunch of
reasons, and I have a compromise proposal that might make things easier. It's
at the bottom, and explained in some detail in the middle.
Introduction
Before I start I will introduce myself. I was at Sun for
30 matches
Mail list logo
