Jukka Zitting wrote on 06/01/2011 12:13:09 PM:
>
> > Community
> >
> > OpenOffice.org. seeks to further encourage developer and user
communities
> > during incubation, beyond the existing developers currently working on
the
> > project.
>
> Any thoughts on how (or if) the LibreOffice commun
Nick Burch wrote on 06/01/2011 01:48:49 PM:
>
> Speaking personally, I would be interested in seeing how ODF Toolkit
could
> fit within the POI project. We already have a number of components, and
> interfaces that try to smooth over the differences between the different
> formats underneat
Ross Gardler wrote on 06/01/2011 12:21:23 PM:
>
> There are only two initial committers identified in the proposal. Why
> only two for such a large codebase?
>
We could have put a much longer list of IBM names on this list, developers
familiar with the code base via their work on Lotus Symph
dsh wrote on 06/01/2011 02:16:58 PM:
>
> To me the proof point whether this proposal will be successful or not
> is whether Linux distributions having already dropped support for
> OpenOffice and switched to LibreOffice instead would be willing to
> reverse that decision and move back to OpenOff
Ross Gardler wrote on 06/01/2011 12:52:46 PM:
>
> I think it would be really good to have this goal in the proposal
> itself, it is something concrete to point to from a community
> development point of view.
>
Thanks, Ross. I've updated the "community" section of the proposal on the
wiki
Alexei Fedotov wrote on 06/01/2011 01:38:43 PM:
>
> OpenOffice is used in our product [1] we want to submit to the
> incubator. We promised to show that we can gradually clean up LGPL
> from the code and were working on that [2]. We'd have one less
> head-ache with OO under Apache License (even
sa3r...@gmail.com wrote on 06/01/2011 10:36:39 PM:
> > Hi all -
> >
> > I see that I'm listed as a sponsor. Can you please remove my name
> and replace with someone else? I never agreed to sponsor this.
>
> I've removed your name.
>
What am I missing here?
According to the Incubation Policy
Jochen Wiedmann wrote on 06/01/2011 02:56:10
PM:
>
> > We could have put a much longer list of IBM names on this list,
developers
> > familiar with the code base via their work on Lotus Symphony (which is
our
> > OpenOffice based project). But then we could have been criticized for
the
> >
"William A. Rowe Jr." wrote on 06/01/2011 03:01:50
PM:
>
> What is a more serious question, how many bug fixes would go into
> LibreOffice without being offered to the ASF under the AL? LO has no
> copyright assignment, so the principals of LO don't have the flexibility
> to offer these to the
Ross Gardler wrote on 06/01/2011 06:03:09 PM:
> >>
> >> There are only two initial committers identified in the proposal. Why
> >> only two for such a large codebase?
> >>
> >
> > We could have put a much longer list of IBM names on this list,
developers
> > familiar with the code base via their
Louis Suarez-Potts wrote on 06/01/2011 09:41:08
PM:
>
> * Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
> * We at OOo receive lots of requests to use it for mostly good
> purposes. We grant these, with minimal fuss and have set up systems
> to do that more efficiently. With the change in trade
Dumb question. Are we obligated to converse like this, in a single email
thread, for the duration of the proposal review process? Is this an
organizing principle? Would I break anything if I created threads,
perhaps prefixed in a consistent way, like "OpenOffice Proposal: Topic
Foo"?
-Rob
Jim -- thanks for reaching out to the OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice
communities with your emails. This is important.
Since you've already started with the invites, I wonder if I could
recommend to you one more? Another significant party that works in the
core OpenOffice source code is RedOf
Ian Lynch wrote on 06/02/2011 09:12:10 AM:
> From: Ian Lynch
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: 06/02/2011 09:12 AM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
>
> On 2 June 2011 14:04, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> >
> > > Should we add ourselfs as commiters?
> >
> > If you would like to contribut
Simon Brouwer wrote on 06/02/2011 09:21:53 AM:
> >
> >> Should we add ourselfs as commiters?
> > If you would like to contribute here (possibly instead of, or in
> > addition, to your work at TDF), then yes! Please add yourself into the
> > proposal on the wiki.
> I had already been so bold as to
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 challenge your assertion here, about "splitting the
c
Jochen Wiedmann wrote on 06/02/2011 10:25:20
AM:
> >
> > I trust I do not need to explain at length to an Apache PMC the
relative
> > merits of the Apache 2.0 license or the strengths and stability of the
> > ASF. I'll take it as granted that this is well-known to you all. In
any
> > case I
s/my/the projects/
Peace?
-Rob
Jim Jagielski wrote on 06/02/2011 10:52:16 AM:
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> >
> > No one is forcing LibreOffice members to do anything. You are free to
> > disagree with my goals, my priorities or even my methods and simpl
Jim Jagielski wrote on 06/02/2011 11:06:54 AM:
>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd like to think that no one is working on LibreOffice merely because
> > they have no choice, or that giving everyone a choice is seen as being
> > antagonistic. If
charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 11:16:45 AM:
> I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
> project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer
and
> Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has
never
> contrib
Yegor Kozlov wrote on 06/02/2011 01:36:52 PM:
>
> > I can't speak for the whole project, but personally I'd be interested
in
> > discussing how the POI mission statement could be expanded, and if
that'd
> > work well for everyone.
> >
>
> On the web site we say that the Apache POI Project's m
Florian Effenberger wrote on 06/02/2011
03:01:26 PM:
>
> Hello,
>
> as we have a public holiday in Germany, I will reply to the other
> messages tomorrow. However, I cannot leave this sentence uncommented:
>
> Noel J. Bergman wrote on 2011-06-02 20.50:
> > If there is a community split, that
charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 02:42:11 PM:
> No Rob, I don't question your credentials, have not done that, will
never
> done that. Both of us know better than having that kind of talk, both of
us
> have worked together for years now, at the OASIS and elsewhere. What I'm
> quest
dsh wrote on 06/02/2011 04:05:38 PM:
>
> IMHO you should not discuss or question the LO community size
> respective its vitality in any way at this place. That's certainly not
> the scope of the OpenOffice Apache incubation proposal anyway. The
I disagree. The question was raised on the list w
dsh wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:
>
> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even think
> it's required to provide proof-points based on "questionable"
> analytics at this point in time. There is a say
Greg Stein wrote on 06/02/2011 05:45:57 PM:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:55, wrote:
> > dsh wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:
> >
> >>
> >> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
> >> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even
think
> >> it'
"Allen Pulsifer" wrote on 06/02/2011 06:58:45
PM:
>
> As a long time member of the OpenOffice.org community, I would like to
offer
> my thoughts on the Oracle/IBM proposal.
>
Thanks. This is a great summary of the history.
.
.
.
>
> Despite the fact the IBM's vision for OpenOffice seems
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
Benson Margulies wrote on 06/02/2011 09:19:32 PM:
>
> The proposal, as I read it, doesn't address the license status of
> third party software dependencies.
>
I'll get something into the proposal on the wiki. I think someone has
mistaken the "external dependencies" section as meaning infrastr
"William A. Rowe Jr." wrote on 06/02/2011 03:22:24
PM:
> > On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>
> >> The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
> >> until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
> >> impossible to get a more comprehensive list. Now tha
Michael Meeks wrote on 06/02/2011 08:57:27 PM:
>
> -$scripts_dir/merge-log -p LIBREOFFICE_CREATE.. >$outdir/all-lo.log
> +$scripts_dir/merge-log --all --since='2011-01-03'
>$outdir/all-lo.log
>
>Show 'active' contributors by affiliation - ie. at least one patch
> contributed in the
Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/02/2011 09:07:31
PM:
>
> The "Required Resources" section of the proposal is pretty
> minimalistic listing only two mailing lists, JIRA, Subversion &
> download site. While it is not necessary IMO to detail all
> requirements prior to accepting the proposal, it would
Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 02:13:43 AM:
>
> I don't see any of this discussion about numbers being helpful, only
> divisive. "My numbers are right." "No, they're not. See?" "But those
numbers
> are too small."
>
I agree, especially if the numbers are not relevant to the question at
hand.
Benson Margulies wrote on 06/03/2011 08:02:25 AM:
>
> There is a meta-question here: what are the criteria by which the IPMC
> should evaluate a proposal?
>
> 1. "Are there enough people on the proposal to plausibly start out?"
>
> I think everyone agrees on this as a legitimate criterion.
>
Michael Meeks wrote on 06/03/2011 10:05:31 AM:
> > As for continuity of OpenOffice releases, there was a full stable
> > release of OpenOffice in January and a preview 3.4.0 release in April.
> > It is very reasonable for the new ApacheOffice project to start up,
> > and even while in incubation
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
"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 the LGPL to the Apache License (or
> possibl
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 employers
interests.
>
> "It is difficult to get a man
I'm perceiving that we're circling around on the same points with no new
options coming up. So I'd like to record the state of the issue. If
there is consensus on this formulation, I'll place it in the wiki. Of
course, if the discussion advances the issue or positions move, I can
always go b
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/03/2011 02:33:21 PM:
>
> Your proposed text also does not recognise possibilities for
collaboration
> to protect the OpenOffice consumer end-user community in the interim
while
> your project sorts itself out.
>
Can you state this in the form of a collaborative acti
Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM:
>
> Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
> from ASF into their products.
>
This is true, but would you call that collaboration?
I think that it is the very nature of Apache that anyone can take source
code from our
Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 02:57:48 PM:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50, wrote:
> > Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM:
> >
> >>
> >> Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
> >> from ASF into their products.
> >>
> >
> > This is true, but would you call
Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, wrote:
> >...
> > This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
>
> This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
> consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal.
>
> Lo
I plan on updating the proposal on the wiki over the week-end. I'm going
to start a series of threads on various sections of the proposal that I
think are a bit thin and which I could use some help with.
For "Relationships with Other Apache Products" we currently just call out
only POI as a
This is for the proposal, the "Nominated Mentors" section.
My observation, after seeing the topics that seem to be getting the most
attention from the IPMC members on this list, is that in the the Podling
we will want to pay special attention to:
- IP review and remediation, due to the known pr
dsh wrote on 06/03/2011 04:11:43 PM:
>
> Rob,
>
> I think being more open concerning collaboration can't hurt what do
> you think? So it would be nice if the proposal could be open and
> diplomatic in this regards. Probably the intention should be to not
> shut the door in the very beginning an
sa3r...@gmail.com wrote on 06/03/2011 05:17:46 PM:
>
> Rules? :-)
>
> From http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html :
>
> "The incoming community needs to work together before presenting this
> proposal to the incubator. Think about and discuss future goals and
> the reasons for coming
Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 05:42:14 PM:
>
> So yah. I'm giving up on this for now. My suggestions are hitting a
> teflon wall. But it shouldn't. Including the LO community in this
> proposal should be a no-brainer. I don't think that "including them by
> reference [to the Apache License]" is
If someone on the list from TDF is authorized to answer this (or can get
such authorization), I'd appreciate an official stance on the following
questions. This would help us understand what room there is for
negotiation and what is not worth discussing at all.
For "willing to consider it", I
Cor Nouws wrote on 06/03/2011 08:36:20 PM:
>
> (So seeing Robs questionnaire: it won't be easy to get ground for many
> positive replies. But of course it is good to try. I even might step in
> with some suggestions, that however always tend to fail, since my mind
> does not take large corpora
Yes, Simon, I am aware of that. But I have no standing in the IPMC to
liaise with another organization on their behalf. Jim sent a note to
their leaders, as well as OOo, and invited them to join this conversation.
Several of their Steering Committee and Engineering Steering Committee
members
Cor Nouws wrote on 06/03/2011 06:14:56 PM:
> I would love to see all work in one big project - read all my pleas in
> the OpenOffice.org time. But reality tells me that is not going to
happen.
>
I would like to see this as well, everyone working on a single code base.
The is the ideal. But
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/03/2011 06:16:22 PM:
>
> I suggest:
>
> "The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
> community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on
the
> GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We
> wi
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/04/2011 07:43:50 AM:
>
> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> >>
> > LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
> > agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
> > available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I
"William A. Rowe Jr." wrote on 06/04/2011 12:22:31
AM:
> From: "William A. Rowe Jr."
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: 06/04/2011 12:23 AM
> Subject: Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
>
> On 6/3/2011 7:09 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > If someone on the list from TDF
Ian Lynch wrote on 06/04/2011 09:10:05 AM:
>
>
> So there are going to be two projects because Oracle donated the code
they
> own to ASF for Apache licensing. That's not ideal from many points of
view
> but it is the reality. Anyone who does not want to contribute code to an
> Apache license
I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build
OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware
business, I might be able to get them to help out in this department. But
I wanted to first check on what the possibilities are on the Apache side.
Andrew Rist wrote on 06/04/2011 01:07:36 AM:
>
>
> > Also, besides main apps, is Oracle donating it's Oracle OOo
> > extensions? Such as: PDF Import, Presenter Console, WebLog Publisher,
> > Professional Template Packs, MySQL Connector, etc.
> Our approach is to start with the main open sourc
dsh wrote on 06/04/2011 07:53:54 AM:
> Andreas,
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Andreas Kuckartz
wrote:
> > I also notice that IBM currently does not sell Lotus Symphony but
makes
> > binaries available for free:
> > http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony
> >
>
> Although you can do
"Andreas Kuckartz" wrote on 06/04/2011 06:24:07 AM:
>
> I am involved in both copyleft and non-copyleft projects and write this
> as a member of the Open Source community in the broad sense.
>
> Some people wrote that the only option to make OpenOffice.org /
> LibreOffice code legally usable wi
Joe Schaefer wrote on 06/04/2011 10:37:03 AM:
>
> In short, just tell us what you think you need resource-wise, and we'll
work
> with you to sort out the details. The Infrastructure Team is reachable
at
> infrastructure@a.o, but I'm considering mentoring this podling to help
bridge
> any gap
sa3r...@gmail.com wrote on 06/04/2011 10:19:27 AM:
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:42 AM, wrote:
> > I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to
build
> > OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the
hardware
> > business, I might be able to get them to
Ross Gardler wrote on 06/04/2011 11:59:08 AM:
> Subject: Re: TDF/LO, what is the art of the possible?
>
> I think it is relevant how the ASF would respond. Silence will be
> taken as negative yet if the ASF Board were to response to such
> questions without first understanding the consensus of
Dave Fisher wrote on 06/04/2011 05:35:32 PM:
>
> On Jun 4, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Dave Fisher
wrote:
> >>
> >> Once licensing issues are understood then a way the two
> communities might mutually cooperate becomes clear. And here it is
> LO/
I can say that we're not currently doing OpenSocial in Symphony
desktop, though it considered by us to be a strategic standard. We've
done some conceptional work on how OpenSocial could be used in the context
of editors. There are some very cool things that could be done in this
area.
My ma
Keith Curtis wrote on 06/05/2011 04:30:17 AM:
>
> Here is a section of my book that gives a case study on forks:
> http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=558
>
> Maybe I'll make another case study about you guys in the future,
> depending on how far you get ;-)
>
Please do check back in a year
Italo Vignoli wrote on 06/05/2011 07:30:43 AM:
.
.
.
> So, after having read hundreds of emails discussing the merits of
> different licenses and processes, concentrating on the geography where
> the code should live (basically, US vs EU, or Delaware vs Germany), I am
> asking a very simple q
André Schnabel wrote on 06/05/2011 12:17:40 PM:
> Hi Rob,
>
> I don't want to leave this unanswered, although I very likely cannot
> provide the answers
> you like to get ... (steering-discuss in cc, so that other SC memebers
> might agree or
> disagree)
>
> Am 04.06.2011 02:09, schrieb rober
Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 02:21:01
PM:
>
> This proposal raises lots of questions, but the requirements for
> entering the incubator are not high and so IMO don't need to be
> answered before a vote. The only reason I believe for rejecting this
> proposal would be because it would be
Joe Schaefer wrote on 06/05/2011 03:57:05 PM:
>
> To bridge that gap will require trust bonds to be built on
> both sides. Generosity with the use of the OOo mark on our
> part combined with generosity from TDF regarding build/distribution
> resources is just a first step in the chain.
>
I agr
Joe Schaefer wrote on 06/05/2011 04:22:35 PM:
>
> Sounds great, but so far I count only 2 committers on the
> project associated with IBM. IMO you're off by a factor
> or so, so claims that IBM intends to take this project
> seriously will be discounted by me until that is rectified.
>
Joe, i
> From: Phil Steitz
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: 06/05/2011 04:34 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
>
> On 6/5/11 11:21 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >
> > We should also remember that, with Oracle abandoning OO, we are being
> > used to facilitate their business relatio
Jochen Wiedmann wrote on 06/05/2011 04:49:20
PM:
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:44 PM, wrote:
>
> > I am puzzled by the view one open source project should not compete
> > against another.
>
> And I am puzzled how you don't accept that open source *allows*
> forking and all that stuff, but th
Ralph Goers wrote on 06/05/2011 06:21:06 PM:
>
> I personally don't need anything "sorted out" before the project
> enters incubation. All I care about is whether the community will be
> able to effectively deal with it or be blocked by it. That just
> requires some idea of how big a problem i
Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 06:30:06
PM:
>
> I agree with you - in this case I think it would be better if IBM
> collaborated with LibreOffice, rather than seeking to compete. But I
> could be wrong.
>
And I support 100% your right to have that opinion and to support whatever
open so
Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 06:45:16
PM:
> > I'll lend a voice to the contrary.
> >
> > I can't see why splitting a community should be a factor in entry to
the
> > incubator. Just about every new open source community is trying topull
away
> > developers from another community doing s
Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 07:02:02
PM:
> >
> > Otherwise this is like the Baptists telling the Methodists that they
> > cannot have a church of their own in town, because the Baptists want
to
> > recruit a larger choir.
>
> It is clear from IBM switching its efforts from Harmony to O
Greg Stein wrote on 06/05/2011 07:44:19 PM:
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 18:18, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile <
> > ariel.constenla.ha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >...
> >> I don't see the MySQL Connector module there
> >> http://hg.services.openoffi
Florian Effenberger wrote on 06/05/2011
07:52:53 PM:
> Hi,
>
> robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on 2011-06-06 01.48:
> > Give me a citation please where anyone from IBM said the preference of
> > Apache to TDF/OO was due only to the license?
>
> I've been asking for reasons since my first e-mail t
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 07:49:41 PM:
> From: Simon Phipps
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: 06/05/2011 07:50 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hall
wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't think the proposal here is for OOo to ent
Greg Stein wrote on 06/05/2011 07:55:34 PM:
>
> I just updated the proposal to provide more detail on the requested
> mailing lists. Figured it would be good to discuss here.
>
> This is what I entered into the wiki:
>
> The following mailing lists:
>
> oo-...@incubator.apache.org - for d
Niall Pemberton wrote on 06/05/2011 07:58:17
PM:
>
> No, it was my point that that they only negative to TDF/OO was the
> license here:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/w5vtsa5nbarmnqxo
>
> But please do elaborate on why IBM prefers a new project here rather
> than contributing to TDF/OO - I
acolor...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 08:07:29 PM:
>
> OpenOffice.org official contaction is 'OOo' not 'oo' I think is enough
time
> to correct these mailing lists. I wrote a more lenghty email but I think
the
> discussions should be better understood by Apache admins.
>
+1
Since this is q
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 08:38:08 PM:
>
> >
> > The people who will only contribute to a copyleft license (and I know
a few
> > OO contributors like that) will not come over this world .. so to that
> > extent this is a community fork and we cannot do brand sharing as
that'll
> > confus
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 08:49:19 PM:
=> >
> I read all that Rob. Nothing in there about the plan to continue
creating,
> building and delivering OpenOffice.org on all the platforms and in all
the
> locales it is today, along with an estimate for the IPMT of how big the
task
> is, wh
Raphael Bircher wrote on 06/05/2011 08:47:42 PM:
>
> Because this is my first mail, I give a short introduction to myself.
>
> I'm Raphael Bircher from Switzerland. I contribute for OOo since 5 years
> as QA and in same other tecnical parts. I was involved by the migration
> to the kenai Inf
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 09:13:24 PM:
> >
> > I think it would be great for TDF have an end-user downstream
deliverable.
> > It would be great if anyone open source project wants to do that. It
> > would be great if a private company does this. It would be good of a
> > government wan
sa3r...@gmail.com wrote on 06/05/2011 09:01:08 PM:
> >
> > Since this is question that is pervasive in the project, I'd recommend
> > that after this proposal is accepted, that there be a consultation
with
> > ASF Legal Affairs on the trademark *before* any project infrastructure
is
> > created.
Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 09:42:14 PM:
> From: Simon Phipps
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Date: 06/05/2011 09:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Legal concern: Are we getting to close ot a "division
> of markets" conversation?
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:29 AM, wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > But
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote on 06/06/2011 04:27:04
AM:
>
> On 6 Jun 2011, at 09:13, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> > Am 06.06.2011 09:25, schrieb Greg Stein:
> > One of the main topics of the whole discussion regarding the
> > OpenOffice.org incubation proposal was and is collaboration with TDF /
> >
I'l hoping to be in Berlin for the ODF Plugfest there, July 14-15th. Would
it be worth while seeing if we can arrange a hackfest of some sort in
Berlin, either the day before, or over the weekend? LibreOffice guys
invited as well, of course.
Could also have some startup sessions, to review the
Christoph Jopp wrote on 06/06/2011 07:57:19 AM:
> Dear All,
>
> I put myself on the initial committers list because I want to help the
> Apache OpenOffice Project in some way I can.
>
> As nearly nobody should know my name, I'll introduce myself briefly:
>
> Since 2005 I tried to support OOo b
Volker Merschmann wrote on 06/07/2011 11:08:26 AM:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> 2011/6/7 Robert Burrell Donkin :
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts
wrote:
> >> Tomorrow, the OpenOffice.org Community Council will hold a
> meeting to discuss What Now? It's not going to be our last me
Danese Cooper wrote on 06/07/2011 11:13:45 AM:
>
> 3) LOTS of people download OOo
>
> Like maybe 10% of the human population of the planet. And its a big
file.
>
> Initially we engaged Akamai, but it quickly became too expensive.
> Serving up downloads of OOo was pretty intense. I know Apa
Florian Effenberger wrote on 06/07/2011
12:01:55 PM:
>
> Rob,
>
> robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote on 2011-06-07 17.56:
> > Oh, let's not go down that path again, or else someone could equally
point
> > out that the TDF Steering Committee has not been elected yet either. I
> > see no value from d
By my count we have now have over 60 individuals listed on as proposed
committers for the Apache OpenOffice project. I think this is a
respectable start, though obviously the project will need to have a strong
commitment to recruiting additional developers and growing the project
further,
On
Christian Grobmeier wrote on 06/07/2011 01:35:17 PM:
>
> > 30 downloads per day or per month?
> >
> > 52TB per month is still a lot...
>
> per day.
> Look at this chart:
> http://marketing.openoffice.org/marketing_bouncer.html
>
> And please correct me if i am wrong. :-)
> Cheers
>
We sh
Danese Cooper wrote on 06/07/2011 02:19:38 PM:
>
> Just have to say...I have often been quoted saying the advent of
> OpenOffice.org was a rare case of "corporate greed aligning with
> human need". Safe to assume a high percentage of downloaders don't
> have $.99. I know we're all excited by
Leo Simons wrote on 06/07/2011 02:40:01 PM:
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:58 PM, wrote:
> > Since this is a large download, I wonder whether the quoted numbers
are
> > impacted at all by timeouts, abandoned downloads attempts, etc. In
other
> > words, is it counting the HTTP GET's? Or the s
Danese Cooper wrote on 06/07/2011 03:43:56 PM:
>
> robert_w...@us.ibm.com:
>
> Not surprisingly, you missed my point (or chose to ignore it). We at
Honestly, your insult does surprise me.
> Apache don't think that money is evil, but we also believe that
> seeing our code in wide use is more
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
