On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > Not sure how this will come across... I am certain I will not > be fully understood about this, anyway, this question deserves an > answer. > > What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads in various > places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much > "damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to have done. > I guess the best way to state it is that he was a very "polarizing" > person... > > Now a lot of the ill-will (and even worse, the hate) directed towards > AOO is not due to anything we personally did, but is simply redirected > venom, mostly due to how LO felt abused and used by Oracle and that > somehow we were complicit in it (this fallacy, of course, was maintained > by people who had a not-so-hidden-agenda to create and reinforce the > division between AOO and LO). There was really very, very little rational > cause for TDF/LO hating Apache and AOO so much... or, at least, developers > on that side being so antagonist towards Apache (I am ignoring, for the > present, those extreme copyleft proponents who have issue w/ permissive > licensing for anything). What I'm basically saying is that we did > nothing really to deserve the hate... > > ... except for maybe some of the "over zealous" statements by Rob.
One part is the statements. The other part, the most important one, is the actions. Since the old "OpenOffice.org / OOo" is not there anymore, the http://www.openoffice.org/ website should reflect objectively that there exist: 1. Apache OpenOffice, pointing to apache.openoffice.org 2. LibreOffice, pointing to libreoffice.org I hope that Rob was only involved with the current design of the landing page at openoffice.org. There are a lot of strong feelings on this issue. Simos > > What is kinda clear is that there is still a lot of sting there. > > Now I did somewhat try to "explain" how such over-zealousness shouldn't > be so surprising, considering what he was fighting against (this explanation > was in the LWN thread), but rationalization isn't excuse. > > No, I am not saying we focus on the past... but while we are > here for the present and future, we shouldn't "ignore" the past > but rather acknowledge it, and then bury it. > > After all, aren't we asking TDF/LO to do the same?? > >> On Sep 6, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Marcus <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: >> >> Am 09/06/2016 05:22 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan: >>> +1 >>> >>> I'm here for the present and the future, not the past. >> >> I also don't know what a single person - which has left the project long ago >> - has to do with a "what-if-or-if-not" thinking game. >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >>> On 9/6/2016 8:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt <joe...@j-m-schmidt.de> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example, Rob Weir) >>>>> were insulted by TDF representatives. >>>> >>>> It's important, in all of this conversation, to keep the interests of >>>> the *users* first. This project is about producing software for the >>>> public good, not about winning some contest, or nursing our hurt >>>> feelings. We owe it to the users to forgive and forget actual and >>>> perceived insults, and move on with our lives. Otherwise, what the >>>> heck are we doing here? >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
