Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Shane Curcuru]

To expand and clarify on Mark's excellent points:

Mark Thomas  wrote earlier:
> On 2016-09-06 17:06 (+0100), Simos Xenitellis
>  wrote:
> 
> Just responding to these specific bits with my Apache Brand
> Management Committee member hat on.
> 
>> which claims that the Apache Foundation has the Apache
>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org®. However, my search at the US
>> Trademark database does not show an "Apache OpenOffice" registered
>> trademark.
> 
> Which is as expected. Note the TM. That denotes that "Apache
> OpenOffice" is a trademark, just not a registered one. It is a gross
> simplification but, for the ASF, it makes little/no difference to our
> rights whether it is registered or not. Registration does make it
> easier to enforce compliance should the trademark be infringed.

The ASF's use of "Apache OpenOffice" and similar names to provide our
office suite software to the public over the past few years gives us a
clear common law right to those trademarks, whether registered in
various jurisdictions or not.

Note that through our own efforts and from inheriting the prior
trademark owner's registrations, the ASF holds registrations for
OPENOFFICE in Canada, Switzerland, and other countries, and for
OPENOFFICE.ORG and/or the gull design in the US, EU, India, and a wide
variety of other countries.  The ASF has registered APACHE separately,
so it is a registered trademark, although the whole phrase is not yet
registered.


> 
>> It does show a live trademark for the old "OpenOffice.org" and
>> also for "LibreOffice" (for The Document Foundation). But no
>> "Apache OpenOffice". Anyone can file for a trademark for "Apache
>> OpenOffice", as they have done already with the domain
>> "ApacheOpenOffice.org".
> 
> If someone other than the ASF tried to register "Apache OpenOffice"
> as a trademark we would oppose that registration and I am very
> confident we would be successful.

Indeed, while it depends on the jurisdiction, any third party attempt to
register that name in the US would clearly be refused due to likelihood
of confusion with our existing mark(s).

> 
> Domain registration is not trademark registration.

This.  Domains and trademarks are wholly separate areas of law, with
trademarks being the far more complex (and costly) area.  For end user
office application software, our rights for the name are well
established internationally.

> 
> The registration of ApacheOpenOffice.org looks to be abusive. The
> Apache OpenOffice PMC has some options for dealing with that. How
> they wish to proceed is a decision for them. Note that such issues
> are generally dealt with in private, not public, so you are unlikely
> to see a discussion about what to do about this specific issue on a
> public ASF mailing list.

Yes, I look to the PMC to resolve this on private@; it's likely if we
can't solve it politely the ASF would file a UDRP to remove it.

- Shane

> 
> Mark

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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Hagar Delest]

Le 07/09/2016 à 16:55, Dennis E. Hamilton a écrit :

3. I suspect that discussions about available software alternatives would arise 
on users@oo.a.o and particularly on the Community Forums. That would happen 
naturally without requiring the project to take any positions or provide any 
kind of exclusivity of one provider over others.


I was rather surprised but there has been almost no question from users about 
that.
We opened a discussion (as already linked) in the EN forum and mainly power 
users posted. Too early to conclude if forum users are not aware yet or just 
don't care.
Very few messages on the users ML also for an alternative.

The wiki page is a great idea so that this discussion can slowly die and the 
energies can be focused on more efficient matters.

Anyway, even if the topic raised fears, if the outcome is a quick new release 
as it seems the case, it will prove that all those who propagated FUD were 
wrong. It may give AOO some visibility again (and new contributors). So in the 
end, not that bad.

Hagar

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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote:
> WARNING.  The ApacheOpenOffice. Org site described in this exchange is a 
> malicious site. DO NOT INVESTIGATE.
>

The malicious website has the Google AdWords UA ID "UA-19309218-3".
That ID is also used in the following websites,
http://pub-db.com/google-analytics/UA-19309218.html

Simos

>  - Dennis
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mark Thomas [mailto:ma...@apache.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 02:08
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>>
>> On 2016-09-06 17:06 (+0100), Simos Xenitellis
>> <simos.li...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just responding to these specific bits with my Apache Brand Management
>> Committee member hat on.
>>
>> > which claims that the Apache Foundation has the Apache OpenOfficeâ„¢
>> and
>> > OpenOffice.org®.
>> > However, my search at the US Trademark database does not show an
>> > "Apache OpenOffice" registered trademark.
>>
>> Which is as expected. Note the TM. That denotes that "Apache OpenOffice"
>> is a trademark, just not a registered one. It is a gross simplification
>> but, for the ASF, it makes little/no difference to our rights whether it
>> is registered or not. Registration does make it easier to enforce
>> compliance should the trademark be infringed.
>>
>> > It does show a live trademark for the old "OpenOffice.org" and also
>> > for "LibreOffice" (for The Document Foundation).
>> > But no "Apache OpenOffice".
>> > Anyone can file for a trademark for "Apache OpenOffice", as they have
>> > done already with the domain "ApacheOpenOffice.org".
>>
>> If someone other than the ASF tried to register "Apache OpenOffice" as a
>> trademark we would oppose that registration and I am very confident we
>> would be successful.
>>
>> Domain registration is not trademark registration.
>>
>> The registration of ApacheOpenOffice.org looks to be abusive. The Apache
>> OpenOffice PMC has some options for dealing with that. How they wish to
>> proceed is a decision for them. Note that such issues are generally
>> dealt with in private, not public, so you are unlikely to see a
>> discussion about what to do about this specific issue on a public ASF
>> mailing list.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> -
>> 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: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

WARNING.  The ApacheOpenOffice. Org site described in this exchange is a 
malicious site. DO NOT INVESTIGATE.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Thomas [mailto:ma...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 02:08
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> On 2016-09-06 17:06 (+0100), Simos Xenitellis
> <simos.li...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> Just responding to these specific bits with my Apache Brand Management
> Committee member hat on.
> 
> > which claims that the Apache Foundation has the Apache OpenOfficeâ„¢
> and
> > OpenOffice.org®.
> > However, my search at the US Trademark database does not show an
> > "Apache OpenOffice" registered trademark.
> 
> Which is as expected. Note the TM. That denotes that "Apache OpenOffice"
> is a trademark, just not a registered one. It is a gross simplification
> but, for the ASF, it makes little/no difference to our rights whether it
> is registered or not. Registration does make it easier to enforce
> compliance should the trademark be infringed.
> 
> > It does show a live trademark for the old "OpenOffice.org" and also
> > for "LibreOffice" (for The Document Foundation).
> > But no "Apache OpenOffice".
> > Anyone can file for a trademark for "Apache OpenOffice", as they have
> > done already with the domain "ApacheOpenOffice.org".
> 
> If someone other than the ASF tried to register "Apache OpenOffice" as a
> trademark we would oppose that registration and I am very confident we
> would be successful.
> 
> Domain registration is not trademark registration.
> 
> The registration of ApacheOpenOffice.org looks to be abusive. The Apache
> OpenOffice PMC has some options for dealing with that. How they wish to
> proceed is a decision for them. Note that such issues are generally
> dealt with in private, not public, so you are unlikely to see a
> discussion about what to do about this specific issue on a public ASF
> mailing list.
> 
> Mark
> 
> -
> 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: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

Fine then. I'll drop it. It did deserve to be brought up though.

> On Sep 7, 2016, at 5:35 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
> On 06/09/2016 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> There is no relation whatsoever between Rob Weir and the collective 
> science-fiction work under development in this thread.
> 
> Still, I have to say that even though Rob wrote questionable posts on his own 
> blog (never speaking for Apache or OpenOffice) and even though his bad temper 
> is not under discussion, he also was an outstanding contributor and a decent 
> community member. This should not be forgotten so easily.
> 
> 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: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jose R R]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
>
> Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look like.
>
>   A. PERSPECTIVE
>   B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
>  1. Code Base
>  2. Downloads
>  3. Development Support
>  4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
>  5. Social Media Presence
>  6. Project Management Committee
>  7. Branding
>
> A. PERSPECTIVE
>
> I have regularly observed that the Apache OpenOffice project has limited 
> capacity for sustaining the project in an energetic manner.  It is also my 
> considered opinion that there is no ready supply of developers who have the 
> capacity, capability, and will to supplement the roughly half-dozen 
> volunteers holding the project together.  It doesn't matter what the reasons 
> for that might be.
>
> The Apache Project Maturity Model,
> , 
> identifies the characteristics for which an Apache project is expected to 
> strive.
>
> Recently, some elements have been brought into serious question:
>
>  QU20: The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software.
>  QU50: The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a timely 
> manner.
>
> There is also a litmus test which is kind of a red line.  That is for the 
> project to have a PMC capable of producing releases.  That means that there 
> are at least three available PMC members capable of building a functioning 
> binary from a release-candidate archive, and who do so in providing binding 
> votes to approve the release of that code.
>
> In the case of Apache OpenOffice, needing to disclose security 
> vulnerabilities for which there is no mitigation in an update has become a 
> serious issue.
>
> In responses to concerns raised in June, the PMC is currently tasked by the 
> ASF Board to account for this inability and to provide a remedy.  An 
> indicator of the seriousness of the Board's concern is the PMC been requested 
> to report to the Board every month, starting in August, rather than 
> quarterly, the normal case.  One option for remedy that must be considered is 
> retirement of the project.  The request is for the PMC's consideration among 
> other possible options.  The Board has not ordered a solution.
>
> I cannot prediction how this will all work out.  It is remiss of me not to 
> point out that retirement of the project is a serious possibility.
>
> There are those who fear that discussing retirement can become a 
> self-fulfilling prophecy.  My concern is that the project could end with a 
> bang or a whimper.  My interest is in seeing any retirement happen 
> gracefully.  That means we need to consider it as a contingency.  For 
> contingency plans, no time is a good time, but earlier is always better than 
> later.
>
>
> B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
>
> Here is a provisional list of all elements that would have to be addressed, 
> over a period of time, as part of any retirement effort.
>
> In order to understand what would have had to happen in a graceful process, 
> the assumption below is that the project has already retired.
>
> Requests for additions and adjustments to this compilation are welcome.
>
>  1. CODE BASE
>
> 1.1 The Apache OpenOffice Subversion repository where code is maintained 
> has been moved to "The Attic."  Apache Attic is an actual project, 
> .  The source code would remain
> available and could be checked-out from Subversion by anyone interested in 
> making use of it.  There is no means of committing changes.
>
> 1.2 Apache Externals/Extras consists of external libraries that are 
> relied upon by the source code but are not part of the source code.  These 
> were housed on SourceForge and elsewhere.  (a) They might have been archived 
> in conjunction with the SVN (1.1).  (b) They might be identified in a way 
> that someone attempting to build from source later on would be able to work 
> with later versions of the external dependencies.  There are additional 
> external dependencies that might have become obsolete.
>
> 1.3 Build Dependencies/Tool Chains.  The actual construction of the 
> released binaries depends on particular versions of specific tools that are 
> used for carrying out builds of binaries from the source.  The dependencies 
> as they last were used are identified in a historical location.  Some of the 
> tools and their use become obsolete over time.
>
> 1.4 GitHub Mirror.  For the GitHub Mirror of the Apache OpenOffice SVN 
> (a) pull requests are not accepted.  (b) Continuation of the presence of the 
> GitHub repository might be shut down at some point depending on GitHub policy 
> and ASF support.
>
>  2. DOWNLOADS
>
> 2.1 The source code releases, patches, and installable binaries are all 

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Mark Thomas]

On 2016-09-06 17:06 (+0100), Simos Xenitellis  
wrote: 

Just responding to these specific bits with my Apache Brand Management 
Committee member hat on.

> which claims that the Apache Foundation has the Apache OpenOffice™ and
> OpenOffice.org®.
> However, my search at the US Trademark database does not show an
> "Apache OpenOffice" registered trademark.

Which is as expected. Note the TM. That denotes that "Apache OpenOffice" is a 
trademark, just not a registered one. It is a gross simplification but, for the 
ASF, it makes little/no difference to our rights whether it is registered or 
not. Registration does make it easier to enforce compliance should the 
trademark be infringed.

> It does show a live trademark for the old "OpenOffice.org" and also
> for "LibreOffice" (for The Document Foundation).
> But no "Apache OpenOffice".
> Anyone can file for a trademark for "Apache OpenOffice", as they have
> done already with the domain "ApacheOpenOffice.org".

If someone other than the ASF tried to register "Apache OpenOffice" as a 
trademark we would oppose that registration and I am very confident we would be 
successful.

Domain registration is not trademark registration.

The registration of ApacheOpenOffice.org looks to be abusive. The Apache 
OpenOffice PMC has some options for dealing with that. How they wish to proceed 
is a decision for them. Note that such issues are generally dealt with in 
private, not public, so you are unlikely to see a discussion about what to do 
about this specific issue on a public ASF mailing list.

Mark

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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Marcus]

Am 09/07/2016 11:35 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

On 06/09/2016 Jim Jagielski wrote:

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.


There is no relation whatsoever between Rob Weir and the collective
science-fiction work under development in this thread.

Still, I have to say that even though Rob wrote questionable posts on
his own blog (never speaking for Apache or OpenOffice) and even though
his bad temper is not under discussion, he also was an outstanding
contributor and a decent community member. This should not be forgotten
so easily.


and when we speak about excuses then we could likewise demand from 
others this as we have understood their statements as damage and attacks 
against OpenOffice. So, will this happen? No, because they see it - 
obviously ;-) - a bit different.


Therefore let's keep this part in the past and look forward. If you 
really want you could state this but without to be too detailed or names.


Marcus


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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 06/09/2016 Jim Jagielski wrote:

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.


There is no relation whatsoever between Rob Weir and the collective 
science-fiction work under development in this thread.


Still, I have to say that even though Rob wrote questionable posts on 
his own blog (never speaking for Apache or OpenOffice) and even though 
his bad temper is not under discussion, he also was an outstanding 
contributor and a decent community member. This should not be forgotten 
so easily.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Marcus]

Am 09/07/2016 10:53 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Dave Fisher wrote:

I think that the appropriate place to keep this plan in whatever state
it will be kept is on one of our wikis.


Not without an appropriate disclaimer saying that this is not a
determined course of action, but merely a description of steps that
would have to be taken in the, quite unlikely at the moment, hypothesis
that the Foundation decides to retire the project. Enough damage already.


please note that we would give everyone a pointer to this special topic 
in case they look for one. Even that the text is there could be a hook 
for interpretion. Also when they want to read between the lines it could 
be understood indeed in the opposite direction. Of course a disclaimer 
could help. But I think it cannot be big enough in order to avoid every 
misunderstanding. And some people just want to understand it in a way 
they want.


Sometimes you can do what you want, it will be always wrong. And here I 
think we should leave it this thinking-game like it is and that's it. No 
need to transfer this special topic into a kind of statue where everyone 
things "...but they have thought about it, so there must be a percentge 
of truth."


My 2 ct.

Marcus


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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jörg Schmidt]

Hello imacat,

> From: imacat [mailto:ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw] 

> I see.  Thanks, Jörg, Andrea.
> 
> I'm working on two OpenOffice tools and may announce their beta
> release in one or two weeks.  I was stunned by the news, but 
> am happy to
> see it is quite different from what the press said.
> 
> As one of the team (although inactive for long), Please 
> tell me what
> I can do to make this release happen.  I shall help as much 
> as possible.

I think at the moment is the most important work to bring a new release on the 
way
to show the public that it precedes with AOO. I hope this new version will be
released at the ApacheCon.

About these programming work I can personally however not say anything because I
do not Program the OpenOffice itself.
I hope someone else can show you where you can best help at the moment.


Just for your information:
I personally help (in German AOO community) at end-user support [1], in 
extension
programming [2] and in the dissemination of OO [3].

for example:
[1]
http://de.openOffice.info

[2]
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Extensions_Packager#BasicAddonBuilder_and_AOO_4.x

[3]
http://prooo-box.org




Jörg



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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Andrea Pescetti]

Dave Fisher wrote:

I think that the appropriate place to keep this plan in whatever state it will 
be kept is on one of our wikis.


Not without an appropriate disclaimer saying that this is not a 
determined course of action, but merely a description of steps that 
would have to be taken in the, quite unlikely at the moment, hypothesis 
that the Foundation decides to retire the project. Enough damage already.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 10:23
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> Hi Dennis,
> 
> I think that the appropriate place to keep this plan in whatever state
> it will be kept is on one of our wikis. Should the time come to consider
> it seriously we won't have long email threads to review which will lead
> to even longer threads.
> 
> Thanks for your consideration of my advice.
[orcmid] 

I agree, Dave.  Will get around to it.

 - Dennis
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On Sep 7, 2016, at 7:55 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote:
> >
[ ... ]


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

RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I have been receiving private communications agitated about whether or not the 
ASF would recommend a closed-source or commercial project as something someone 
might use as an alternative to Apache OpenOffice in the event of retirement.  
I'm asked whether or not prominent open-source alternatives would be 
recommended.

 1. It is premature to know what alternatives would be identified.  We are 
nowhere close to that.  This is my thinking out-loud.  It is not something that 
the PMC is discussion or considering.  There is no reason to work on such 
retirement details unless the need to go further arises.  For now, this 
[DISCUSS] is about identification of what would be involved and not something 
being put into action and detailed farther.

 2. Nevertheless, as I have already stated, my recommendation would be to make 
no recommendation, and especially not promote one over others using our 
automated check for updates.  Instead, there could be a retirement advisory and 
recommendation that alternatives be considered.  That could lead to a web page 
like the one we now provide where third-parties who offer support, other 
services, books, tutorials, etc., can be linked to, all without any 
endorsements.  One approach would be to open that up for other providers of 
productivity software as well.  The links would be to materials of those 
providers but there would be no recommendation.  There might be minimal 
information (platforms, ODF formats supported, other formats supported, 
localizations, extensions/templates available, but nothing deep - simple 
check-offs as offered by the providers).  This remains to be identified and 
populated and there is need to figure out details now or even agree on this 
approach.  

 3. I suspect that discussions about available software alternatives would 
arise on users@oo.a.o and particularly on the Community Forums.  That would 
happen naturally without requiring the project to take any positions or provide 
any kind of exclusivity of one provider over others.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 09:05
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
[ ... ]
> A couple of different observations:
> 
> >2.4 The mechanism for announcing updates to installed versions of
> OpenOffice binaries is adjusted to indicate that (a) particular versions
> are no longer supported.  (b) For the latest distribution(s), there may
> be advice to users about investigating still-supported alternatives.
> >
> 
> I was careful, there, not to indicate an automatic preference to another
> comparable software product.  Rather, I would prefer users be given a
> page that identifies alternatives for them to consider, whatever their
> license, whatever their commercial nature.  By the time that retirement
> would get to that point, I think there would be ample discussion and
> public knowledge of alternatives as well.
> 
> I support the idea of renaming any pivot toward becoming a framework.  I
> also think it would be good to allow AOO retirement, in that case, and
> have the framework effort go through incubation.  The AOO code base
> would remain to be cherry-picked and morphed, and probably undertaken in
> Git.  I also think that could be an opportunity to revitalize the ODF
> Toolkit podling effort and even meld the pivot into it.  The POI folk
> might have suggestions along those lines too.
> 
> Just thoughts.
> 
> 
> -
> 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: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Rich Bowen]

On 2016-09-06 16:00 (-0400), Jan Høydahl  wrote: 
> A well written Press Release from the AOO PMC could be a timely move now?
> It could be published on the Apache blog as well as sent to various editors.
> The PR should be short, to the point and suitable for copy/paste into news 
> articles.
> It should paint the broader picture, the state of the project, the current 
> push for
> more developers etc. It could also explain ASF's focus on healthy communities,
> as an explanation for the [DISCUSS] thread, and the fact that an Apache 
> project 
> not longer able to produce releases *may* end up being retired.
> 
> Could we get writing help from Apache public relations staff?


Sally offered (over on priv...@openoffice.apache.org) to assist in exactly that 
way. You can contact her at pr...@apache.org to arrange things.


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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[imacat]

I see.  Thanks, Jörg, Andrea.

I'm working on two OpenOffice tools and may announce their beta
release in one or two weeks.  I was stunned by the news, but am happy to
see it is quite different from what the press said.

As one of the team (although inactive for long), Please tell me what
I can do to make this release happen.  I shall help as much as possible.

Jörg Schmidt on 2016/09/07 04:25 said:
> The task of AOO is not the formulation of their own death message, but the 
> further development of the project, *even* in difficult times. 
> 
> There was the proposal to publish a new release in November (during 
> ApacheCon), that is imho a right step.
> 
> 
> Jörg
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jan Høydahl [mailto:jan@cominvent.com] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 10:00 PM
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement 
>> Involve? (long)
>>
>> A well written Press Release from the AOO PMC could be a 
>> timely move now?
>> It could be published on the Apache blog as well as sent to 
>> various editors.
>> The PR should be short, to the point and suitable for 
>> copy/paste into news articles.
>> It should paint the broader picture, the state of the 
>> project, the current push for
>> more developers etc. It could also explain ASF's focus on 
>> healthy communities,
>> as an explanation for the [DISCUSS] thread, and the fact that 
>> an Apache project 
>> not longer able to produce releases *may* end up being retired.
>>
>> Could we get writing help from Apache public relations staff?
>>
>> --
>> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
>> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>>
>>> 6. sep. 2016 kl. 20.13 skrev Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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:
>>&g

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Keith N. McKenna]

Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Jim Jagielski  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
> 
[knmc]
OpenOffice.org actually does exist there. The trademark and copyright
rights to OpenOffice.org were transferred to the ASF along with the
source code. Objective reality is that Apache OpenOffice is an active
project.[/knmc]
> 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.
[knmc]
Rob was an active contributor to all facets of AOO. There are a lot of
strong feelings on both sides of the issue.
[/knmc]
Regards
Keith
> 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  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 
> 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
>>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

++1

> On Sep 6, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Jan Høydahl <jan@cominvent.com> wrote:
> 
> A public statement may slow the flood of FUD, protecting our end users, while 
> a new release in November will
> give a clear signal that the project did not choose retirement, ss will all 
> subsequent releases.
> 
> --
> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
> 
>> 6. sep. 2016 kl. 22.25 skrev Jörg Schmidt <joe...@j-m-schmidt.de>:
>> 
>> The task of AOO is not the formulation of their own death message, but the 
>> further development of the project, *even* in difficult times. 
>> 
>> There was the proposal to publish a new release in November (during 
>> ApacheCon), that is imho a right step.
>> 
>> 
>> Jörg
>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Jan Høydahl [mailto:jan@cominvent.com] 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 10:00 PM
>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement 
>>> Involve? (long)
>>> 
>>> A well written Press Release from the AOO PMC could be a 
>>> timely move now?
>>> It could be published on the Apache blog as well as sent to 
>>> various editors.
>>> The PR should be short, to the point and suitable for 
>>> copy/paste into news articles.
>>> It should paint the broader picture, the state of the 
>>> project, the current push for
>>> more developers etc. It could also explain ASF's focus on 
>>> healthy communities,
>>> as an explanation for the [DISCUSS] thread, and the fact that 
>>> an Apache project 
>>> not longer able to produce releases *may* end up being retired.
>>> 
>>> Could we get writing help from Apache public relations staff?
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
>>> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>>> 
>>>> 6. sep. 2016 kl. 20.13 skrev Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>:
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 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, schri

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jan Høydahl]

A public statement may slow the flood of FUD, protecting our end users, while a 
new release in November will
give a clear signal that the project did not choose retirement, ss will all 
subsequent releases.

--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com

> 6. sep. 2016 kl. 22.25 skrev Jörg Schmidt <joe...@j-m-schmidt.de>:
> 
> The task of AOO is not the formulation of their own death message, but the 
> further development of the project, *even* in difficult times. 
> 
> There was the proposal to publish a new release in November (during 
> ApacheCon), that is imho a right step.
> 
> 
> Jörg
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jan Høydahl [mailto:jan@cominvent.com] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 10:00 PM
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement 
>> Involve? (long)
>> 
>> A well written Press Release from the AOO PMC could be a 
>> timely move now?
>> It could be published on the Apache blog as well as sent to 
>> various editors.
>> The PR should be short, to the point and suitable for 
>> copy/paste into news articles.
>> It should paint the broader picture, the state of the 
>> project, the current push for
>> more developers etc. It could also explain ASF's focus on 
>> healthy communities,
>> as an explanation for the [DISCUSS] thread, and the fact that 
>> an Apache project 
>> not longer able to produce releases *may* end up being retired.
>> 
>> Could we get writing help from Apache public relations staff?
>> 
>> --
>> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
>> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>> 
>>> 6. sep. 2016 kl. 20.13 skrev Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>:
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 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:
>

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jörg Schmidt]

The task of AOO is not the formulation of their own death message, but the 
further development of the project, *even* in difficult times. 

There was the proposal to publish a new release in November (during ApacheCon), 
that is imho a right step.


Jörg

> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Høydahl [mailto:jan@cominvent.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 10:00 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement 
> Involve? (long)
> 
> A well written Press Release from the AOO PMC could be a 
> timely move now?
> It could be published on the Apache blog as well as sent to 
> various editors.
> The PR should be short, to the point and suitable for 
> copy/paste into news articles.
> It should paint the broader picture, the state of the 
> project, the current push for
> more developers etc. It could also explain ASF's focus on 
> healthy communities,
> as an explanation for the [DISCUSS] thread, and the fact that 
> an Apache project 
> not longer able to produce releases *may* end up being retired.
> 
> Could we get writing help from Apache public relations staff?
> 
> --
> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
> 
> > 6. sep. 2016 kl. 20.13 skrev Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>:
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jan Høydahl]

A well written Press Release from the AOO PMC could be a timely move now?
It could be published on the Apache blog as well as sent to various editors.
The PR should be short, to the point and suitable for copy/paste into news 
articles.
It should paint the broader picture, the state of the project, the current push 
for
more developers etc. It could also explain ASF's focus on healthy communities,
as an explanation for the [DISCUSS] thread, and the fact that an Apache project 
not longer able to produce releases *may* end up being retired.

Could we get writing help from Apache public relations staff?

--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com

> 6. sep. 2016 kl. 20.13 skrev Jim Jagielski :
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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  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 
 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
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

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.

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  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 
>>> 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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Marcus]

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 
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

RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

+1

> -Original Message-
> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 08:23
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> +1
> 
> I'm here for the present and the future, not the past.
> 
> 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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
> As different "technical press" outlets make their own derivations of other 
> articles, there is incorrect quotation and reference to historical matters 
> that have nothing to do with the present state and how we move forward.
>
> For me, the LWN and ArsTechnica coverage is relatively fact-based.  Now, 
> there are some others that tend to be more responsible with regard to 
> journalism:
>
>  * PCWorld 
> .
>
>  * ZDNet, on the other hand, is lazily derivative by borrowing on other 
> articles.  It also shows ignorance of how Apache projects operate when it 
> mentions "lack of funding." and perpetuates the idea that Microsoft Office or 
> LibreOffice be switched to in the CVE advisory.  The statement about other 
> products was for testing dodgy Impress documents that users might be 
> concerned about.  In any case, now that there is a hotfix, Version 2.0 of the 
> advisory does not need to address that. 
> .
>

A common mistake with all articles (well, apart from the LWN one) is
that they use the plain "OpenOffice" name to describe what is
officially "Apache OpenOffice".
AFAIK, the project does not have a trademark on "OpenOffice", but does
on "Apache OpenOffice".
The main website, at http://www.openoffice.org/, is a mix of "Apache
OpenOffice" and plain "OpenOffice" which is confusing.

I checked the documentation at http://openoffice.apache.org/trademarks.html
which claims that the Apache Foundation has the Apache OpenOffice™ and
OpenOffice.org®.
However, my search at the US Trademark database does not show an
"Apache OpenOffice" registered trademark.
It does show a live trademark for the old "OpenOffice.org" and also
for "LibreOffice" (for The Document Foundation).
But no "Apache OpenOffice".
Anyone can file for a trademark for "Apache OpenOffice", as they have
done already with the domain "ApacheOpenOffice.org".

Simos

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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Patricia Shanahan]

+1

I'm here for the present and the future, not the past.

On 9/6/2016 8:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:



On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt 
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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Rich Bowen]

On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt  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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

It appears to me that what "we" should do is to create a blog
entry on blogs.a.o which provides more depth and detail in
this whole kerfluffle. It could contain WHY the original [DISCUSS]
thread was sent, that it was, in fact, a [DISCUSS] and basically
to initiate some *thought* and not any sort of admission that
AOO is dead or dieing (my follow-up may have not helped there,
but it was the basis for why the board wanted answers), clear
up some history and FUD which has been spread and summarize that
this awareness has resulted in lots and lots of people coming to
AOO and offering their help and talents.

Personally, I'd also like to see us "apologize" for allowing
Rob Weir to go off a little "extreme" in numerous cases. Again,
I doubt that anyone on the TDF/LO side would do the same, and admit
their "overzealousness" at times (to the detriment of cooperation),
but just because others don't do what they should is no reason for
us to not to. If "apologize" is too strong, at least honestly
acknowledge it.

I understand that the previous paragraph may be controversial so
take it or leave it.

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

RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Response in-line.

> -Original Message-
> From: Federico Leva (Nemo) [mailto:nemow...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 03:30
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> I see the biggest point as missing from the list/plan posted by Dennis
> E. Hamilton: an easy upgrade path for current OpenOffice users, to make
> sure that people aren't inconvenienced and that the efforts OpenOffice
> contributors' made for the growth FLOSS aren't wasted.
> 
> Perhaps some of the install/upgrade facilities could automate the switch
> to LibreOffice, and/or the most visited URLs (such as /download/ on the
> OOo website and /files/latest/download on Sourceforge) could be
> redirected to the LibreOffice equivalents.
> 
> I'm sure the devs can find technically suitable solutions. If ASF can't
> handle such long-term preservation, another stable entity with long-term
> interest in the task could be transferred all assets and tasked with the
> goal (for instance The Document Foundation?).
[orcmid] 

The sketch is not developed to that level of detail and there would be much to 
consider if retirement, which would extend over months, were the option taken.  
The point of a graceful retirement is to ensure that the extensive OpenOffice 
community is well-served and achieves a soft landing.

Continuing the [DISCUSS], I pointed out that advice about where to find 
alternatives could be provided as part of the "updates available" periodic 
reminders at the web site.  My own preference is that we not choose a 
successor, but provide a menu of choices for users to investigate and choose 
from.  In general, ASF projects do not endorse products and services, but do 
provide information on what is available.  This strikes me as a valuable 
approach as part of any retirement scenario.

> 
> Nemo
> 
> P.s.: To archive a MediaWiki website, you can create a static copy with
> mwoffliner https://github.com/kiwix/mwoffliner and serve it with
> kiwix-serve; all history should be preserved with dumps on the Internet
> Archive: https://github.com/WikiTeam/wikiteam/wiki/Tutorial . Software
> for WARC can also prove useful for any website.
[orcmid] 

This is covered in the [DISCUSS] material.  In particular the Apache Attic 
project provides much of this.

Thank you for the information about kiwix-serve.  Creating static sites would 
be important in preserving the MediaWiki.

 - 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: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

As different "technical press" outlets make their own derivations of other 
articles, there is incorrect quotation and reference to historical matters that 
have nothing to do with the present state and how we move forward.  

For me, the LWN and ArsTechnica coverage is relatively fact-based.  Now, there 
are some others that tend to be more responsible with regard to journalism:

 * PCWorld 
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/3116445/open-source-tools/openoffice-coders-debate-retiring-the-project.html>.

 * ZDNet, on the other hand, is lazily derivative by borrowing on other 
articles.  It also shows ignorance of how Apache projects operate when it 
mentions "lack of funding." and perpetuates the idea that Microsoft Office or 
LibreOffice be switched to in the CVE advisory.  The statement about other 
products was for testing dodgy Impress documents that users might be concerned 
about.  In any case, now that there is a hotfix, Version 2.0 of the advisory 
does not need to address that. 
<http://www.zdnet.com/article/onetime-ms-office-challenger-openoffice-we-may-shut-down-due-to-dwindling-support/>.

Finally, this discussion is not a zero-sum game.  Striving to expand 
development coverage and address the need to be able to make timely maintenance 
updates for dangerous defects, including security vulnerabilities are all 
important.  This [DISCUSS] is about anticipating all of the stages and moving 
parts to address as part of any graceful retirement.  That there is also 
inspiration of non-retirement alternatives is very useful and the rush to 
address that is heartening.  But all paths are contingent on having the 
capacity to act and adequate expert capabilities.  If retirement is the 
direction taken, that must also be while there is the capacity to carry it out.

It is also important to understand that this public list is *the* place to 
address all of that.  It is how the Apache Software Foundation provides 
transparency and embraces its community in developing its technical approaches, 
always striving to serve the public interest as required in its Charter.  Being 
suppressed by worries of outside scrutiny and adversarial articles and 
responses is not something that should dissuade us.  Problems have to be faced 
bravely and openly.

 - Dennis



> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 10:40
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> And here's another:
> <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/openoffice-after-
> years-of-neglect-could-shut-down/>.
> 
> This one is also rather straightforward, using this list for its
> sources.
> 
> I looked through the comments.  There is nothing that we haven't seen
> before.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> > Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 08:05
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve?
> (long)
> >
> > Also, <http://lwn.net/Articles/699047/>.
> >
> > The article itself is very straightforward.  The comments wander
> around
> > all over the place with the usual pontifications about corporate
> > influence, etc.
> >
> > An important point is made, by the way, over how it is that
> LibreOffice
> > deployment is far easier than that for AOO, and also much improved.
> >
> >  - Dennios
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: RA Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
> > > Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 04:01
> > > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve?
> > (long)
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > our discussion became public:
> > >
> > > http://www.linux-magazin.de/content/view/full/106599
> > >
> > > This shows a public interest. So "going public" seems not to
> > difficult.
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > 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: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Andrea Pescetti]

Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

I see the biggest point as missing from the list/plan posted by Dennis
E. Hamilton: an easy upgrade path for current OpenOffice users


It was not a plan. It was a what-if game that tried to analyze with an 
excessive level of detail how to execute one of the possible options. 
Seeing reactions, and hoping that the current energy is channeled 
correctly, I would say that at the moment a decision to retire 
OpenOffice is not the most likely option... thus making this entire 
discussion void.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Federico Leva (Nemo) [mailto:nemow...@gmail.com] 

> Perhaps some of the install/upgrade facilities could automate 
> the switch 
> to LibreOffice, and/or the most visited URLs (such as 
> /download/ on the 
> OOo website and /files/latest/download on Sourceforge) could be 
> redirected to the LibreOffice equivalents.

-1

> (for instance The Document Foundation?).

-1


OpenOffice is an independent project and not part of LibreOffice and certainly 
not part of the TDF.


Jörg


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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dave Fisher]

I don't have very much free time, but once MacOSX build instructions are 
rewritten and the process clean. I am willing to validate the instructions and 
each step on a fresh Mac. This would also put me a position to cast a binding 
vote on a release when that is ready.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 2, 2016, at 3:42 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> Yes, still VERY valid!
> 
>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Jim,
>> 
>> I seem to recall that you made an offer to help with Mac builds. I know you 
>> helped during incubation. Is your offer still valid?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 6:59 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
> On Sep 2, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
 
> Patricia, we are still discussing. We are balancing reasons, 
> advantages
> and disadvantages, for different solutions. There is no decision made.
> 
> And more and more I believe, it was a good idea to start that 
> discussion
> on a public list. So everything is transparent.
> 
> I like the debian Social Contract and point 3 is:
> 
> "We will not hide problems"
 
 This is a reasonable approach for a project which is surrounded by 
 friends. 
 
 It is not necessarily a good concept for a project that has been cleaved 
 by third
 parties and whose aim is to destroy it. When the TDF had only had the 
 intention to
 make OpenOffice independent of Oracle, they would never have attacked AOO.
>>> 
>>> sorry, but I can't agree with that.
>>> 
>>> Will self-serving trolls contort what we say here to promote their
>>> own agendas? Sure. What we want is the *truth* to be out there,
>>> so when these trolls spew their FUD, the reality of the situation
>>> is there for others to read, and understand, and grok.
>>> 
>>> At the very least, if what you say is true, we can claim the
>>> high-ground. We should strive for that no matter what.
>>> -
>>> 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: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dave Fisher]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 2, 2016, at 5:37 PM, toki  wrote:
> 
>> On 02/09/2016 20:12, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> 
>> I disagree with consumer vs corporate. Individuals have benefited greatly 
>> from all of the free projects like HTTPD,
> 
> HTTPD is a Daemon, run for websites --- corporate, not individuals.

A question what is the procurement process for individuals, governments, NGOs 
and corporations for any Apache software? Non-existent.

This helps all of the public.

Individuals are benefited. Any Jane Q Public can put together a website and 
service for next to no software cost. It's free and communities are willing to 
help. 

> 
>> tomcat,
> 
> Web server. Again, corporate, not individuals.
> 
>> poi
> 
> This is a set of Java Libraries. Again corporate, not individuals
> 
>> Tika,
> 
> Content detection software. Again corporate, not individuals
> 
>> Solr,
> Enterprise search platform. Again, corporate not individuals
> 
>> Lucene,
> 
> Information retrieval software library.  Again, corporate not individuals.
> 
>> We are striving to be a community and not a marriage. The bar to enter or 
>> exit a community is much different.
> 
> The problem with parables, as that the audience more often that not
> fails to understand their meaning.

Or they might reject there application.

Regards,
Dave


> 
> jonathon
> 
> -
> 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: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[toki]

On 02/09/2016 20:12, Dave Fisher wrote:

> I disagree with consumer vs corporate. Individuals have benefited greatly 
> from all of the free projects like HTTPD, 

HTTPD is a Daemon, run for websites --- corporate, not individuals.

>tomcat, 

Web server. Again, corporate, not individuals.

>poi

This is a set of Java Libraries. Again corporate, not individuals

>Tika,

Content detection software. Again corporate, not individuals

>Solr,
Enterprise search platform. Again, corporate not individuals

>Lucene,

Information retrieval software library.  Again, corporate not individuals.

> We are striving to be a community and not a marriage. The bar to enter or 
> exit a community is much different.

The problem with parables, as that the audience more often that not
fails to understand their meaning.

jonathon

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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

Yes, still VERY valid!

> On Sep 2, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> I seem to recall that you made an offer to help with Mac builds. I know you 
> helped during incubation. Is your offer still valid?
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 6:59 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> 
>> 
 On Sep 2, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
 
 From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
>>> 
 Patricia, we are still discussing. We are balancing reasons, 
 advantages
 and disadvantages, for different solutions. There is no decision made.
 
 And more and more I believe, it was a good idea to start that 
 discussion
 on a public list. So everything is transparent.
 
 I like the debian Social Contract and point 3 is:
 
 "We will not hide problems"
>>> 
>>> This is a reasonable approach for a project which is surrounded by friends. 
>>> 
>>> It is not necessarily a good concept for a project that has been cleaved by 
>>> third
>>> parties and whose aim is to destroy it. When the TDF had only had the 
>>> intention to
>>> make OpenOffice independent of Oracle, they would never have attacked AOO.
>> 
>> sorry, but I can't agree with that.
>> 
>> Will self-serving trolls contort what we say here to promote their
>> own agendas? Sure. What we want is the *truth* to be out there,
>> so when these trolls spew their FUD, the reality of the situation
>> is there for others to read, and understand, and grok.
>> 
>> At the very least, if what you say is true, we can claim the
>> high-ground. We should strive for that no matter what.
>> -
>> 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: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[toki]

On 02/09/2016 12:52, RA Stehmann wrote:

>> being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
>> being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be consumed
>> by actual end-user implementations.

> If AOO is not an end-user focused project 

AOo is one of the few --- perhaps only --- Apache Foundation project
that is end-user focused. It is the only one that is consumer, as
opposed to corporate focused.

As a framework, or library, the project would be much more aligned with
The Apache Foundation's sphere of expertise and knowledge.

> Also people, who build binaries are obsolete.

Even with frameworks, binaries have to be built. They simply aren't
distributed.

> The first way might be the "Apache way", but it is definitely not the way for 
> and of the OpenOffice community.

Upon meeting, the couple is entranced with each other, and get married.
Having learnt more about each other, they discover that things are not
what they thought they were, so they get divorced.
If both sides had been willing to make adjustments, the divorce would
not have happened.

jonathon

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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dave Fisher]

Hi Jim,

I seem to recall that you made an offer to help with Mac builds. I know you 
helped during incubation. Is your offer still valid?

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 2, 2016, at 6:59 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> 
>>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
>> 
>>> Patricia, we are still discussing. We are balancing reasons, 
>>> advantages
>>> and disadvantages, for different solutions. There is no decision made.
>>> 
>>> And more and more I believe, it was a good idea to start that 
>>> discussion
>>> on a public list. So everything is transparent.
>>> 
>>> I like the debian Social Contract and point 3 is:
>>> 
>>> "We will not hide problems"
>> 
>> This is a reasonable approach for a project which is surrounded by friends. 
>> 
>> It is not necessarily a good concept for a project that has been cleaved by 
>> third
>> parties and whose aim is to destroy it. When the TDF had only had the 
>> intention to
>> make OpenOffice independent of Oracle, they would never have attacked AOO.
> 
> sorry, but I can't agree with that.
> 
> Will self-serving trolls contort what we say here to promote their
> own agendas? Sure. What we want is the *truth* to be out there,
> so when these trolls spew their FUD, the reality of the situation
> is there for others to read, and understand, and grok.
> 
> At the very least, if what you say is true, we can claim the
> high-ground. We should strive for that no matter what.
> -
> 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: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 22:08
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:motley.crue@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 21:23
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Cc: priv...@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve?
> (long)
> >
> > > (3) I think that working towards being able to release rather than
> > patch
> > > as Patricia has suggested is our best way to solve the security
> issue.
> > The
> > > quick patch is not much faster and has been proven to be more of a
> > > challenge then kick starting the broken build process.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Forgive me for being a little behind.  What is broken in the build
> > process?
> > Technical problem, or process issue, or other or what?
[orcmid] 

I should add that the situation recounted below was not the first time this 
happened.

Also, I gave the wrong date for when the CVE-2016-1513 defect was reported to 
us.  It was 2015-10-20, not 2016 of course.

Now, if you look at CVE-2015-1774, 
<http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2015-1774.html>, you'll see that 
the disclosure and related advisory was made on 2015-04-27 (that was Version 
1.0).  We did not have a fix, we had only the workaround.  This disclosure 
happened because the defect applied in the original openoffice.org code base 
and applied to other products that did have a fix.  The remedy, for AOO, was to 
remove the offending library and its use from 4.1.2 on 2015-10-28.

Furthermore, 4.1.2 was itself an emergency release because of the imminent 
disclosure of the other four CVEs fixed in that release and listed on 
<http://www.openoffice.org/security/bulletin.html>.  The peer distributions 
actually held up their issuance of security updates and disclosure so that AOO 
could catch up with 4.1.2.  If you look at the credits of those four CVEs, 
you'll see that the [OfficeSecurity] list members were instrumental in creating 
fixes that AOO also used.  Our problem was how much longer it took to produce 
the emergency release of 4.1.2 (and also desist from putting in other pent-up 
fixes to do so).

That was a nail-biter.  It was clear that the [Officesecurity] folk had lost 
patience with AOO as a hold-up of rapid repair of common defects in our 
products.  This was also stated very clearly at the AOO PMC.  (The AOO Security 
team can do much to analyze reported defects and figure out fixes, but it 
cannot do releases.  The PMC has to act on that.)

There was some unhappiness about forcing 4.1.2 out the door.  Some preferred 
going straight to 4.2.0 which, with UI and localization changes, would take 
longer and have increased regression risk.  That tension persists.

And here we are.

  2015-10-28 4.1.2
  2014-08-21 4.1.1
  2014-04-29 4.1
  2013-10-01 4.0.1
  2013-07-17 4
  2013-01-30 3.4.1 refresh (8 more languages)
  2012-08-21 3.4.1 incubating
  2012-05-08 3.4   incubating

> >
> [orcmid]
> 
> This is off-topic for this thread, but it may be helpful in illustrating
> why the Board wants to know what the project's considerations are with
> respect to retirement and in particular, with regard to avoiding the
> situation I will now recount.
> 
> The remark about a patch has to do with CVE-2016-1513, with our advisory
> at
> <http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2016-1513.html>.
> 
> The vulnerability, and a proof of concept were reported to the project
> on 2016-10-20 as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 was going out the door.
> 
> We had figured out the source-code fix in March.
> 
> On June 7, the reporter was concerned about sitting on the disclosure
> any longer and gave us a June deadline, proposing to disclose even
> though we had not committed to an AOO update.  We were sitting on the
> fix because we didn't want to give anyone ideas when they saw it applied
> to the source code unless there was a release in the works.
> 
> We negotiated a disclosure extension to July 21.  Part of that agreement
> was our working to create a hotfix instead of attempting to work up a
> full maintenance release (e.g., a 4.1.3).  On July 21 we issued an
> advisory that disclosed existence of the vulnerability without offering
> any repaired software.
> 
> We had the corrected shared library at the time of disclosure, but had
> not tested much for possible regressions with it.  Also, instructions
> needed to be written.  General Availability of the Hotfix, 4.1.2-patch1,
> was on August 30, after more testing, QA of the instructions 

RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Also, <http://lwn.net/Articles/699047/>.

The article itself is very straightforward.  The comments wander around all 
over the place with the usual pontifications about corporate influence, etc.

An important point is made, by the way, over how it is that LibreOffice 
deployment is far easier than that for AOO, and also much improved.

 - Dennios

> -Original Message-
> From: RA Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 04:01
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> Hello,
> 
> our discussion became public:
> 
> http://www.linux-magazin.de/content/view/full/106599
> 
> This shows a public interest. So "going public" seems not to difficult.
> 
> Kind regards
> Michael
> 
> 



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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 2, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
> 
>> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de] 
> 
>> Patricia, we are still discussing. We are balancing reasons, 
>> advantages
>> and disadvantages, for different solutions. There is no decision made.
>> 
>> And more and more I believe, it was a good idea to start that 
>> discussion
>> on a public list. So everything is transparent.
>> 
>> I like the debian Social Contract and point 3 is:
>> 
>> "We will not hide problems"
> 
> This is a reasonable approach for a project which is surrounded by friends. 
> 
> It is not necessarily a good concept for a project that has been cleaved by 
> third
> parties and whose aim is to destroy it. When the TDF had only had the 
> intention to
> make OpenOffice independent of Oracle, they would never have attacked AOO.
> 
> 

sorry, but I can't agree with that.

Will self-serving trolls contort what we say here to promote their
own agendas? Sure. What we want is the *truth* to be out there,
so when these trolls spew their FUD, the reality of the situation
is there for others to read, and understand, and grok.

At the very least, if what you say is true, we can claim the
high-ground. We should strive for that no matter what.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Roberto Galoppini [mailto:roberto.galopp...@gmail.com] 

> We are on the same page here, and if security issues (real 
> ones) would be
> left uncovered it would be fine if you and/or the board will step in.
> 
> In the meanwhile PLEASE let us work, and let's see if we can 
> keep changing
> in the right direction.

+1, absolute consent from me. I regret that I am not a developer, and thereby 
can not help.


I assure the community that I will continue my work for OpenOffice (macro 
programming and end-user support)



Greetings,
Jörg



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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

This whole discussion is a chance to "prove me wrong" (as someone
"out of touch") as well as to prove to the entire OO community
what those "positive things" are.

I am glad that the status-quo of today != the status-quo as of
(today - 3weeksAgo).

I am reminded of this scene from Pulp Fiction (apologies for
the language: I didn't write this. Blame "edgy" QT):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NlrgjgOHrw


> On Sep 2, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Roberto Galoppini  
> wrote:
> 
> On Sep 2, 2016 3:29 PM, "Jim Jagielski"  wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, I would assume that many existing people would leave.
>> 
>> But, as I mentioned, I would assume (hope) that many people
>> would join, and many of those would be from others in the
>> entire OO eco-system.
>> 
>> Your reply seems to suggest that with the current status of AOO,
>> maintaining an end-user focus is possible. Current evidence,
>> unfortunately, makes that somewhat questionable.
> 
> Jim if you're paying attention, and I say if just because I know you have
> been out of touch recently, you can't have missed that a number of positive
> things HAPPENED here. So if you see people having confidence maybe it would
> be good to think twice and wonder if we might have reasons to think
> otherwise.
> 
>> The current status-quo is untenable and unacceptable. Change
>> needs to happen. I suggested one route, nothing more, nothing
>> less.
> 
> We are on the same page here, and if security issues (real ones) would be
> left uncovered it would be fine if you and/or the board will step in.
> 
> In the meanwhile PLEASE let us work, and let's see if we can keep changing
> in the right direction.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Roberto
> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 8:52 AM, RA Stehmann 
> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Am 02.09.2016 um 14:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> 
 
 What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present
 time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
 being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be
> consumed
 by actual end-user implementations.
 
>>> 
>>> If AOO is not an end-user focused project a lot of people will leave
>>> this community because they will be useless. People who are doing
>>> end-user support, who are doing end-user documentation and are doing
>>> what we call "marketing" etc.
>>> 
>>> Also people, who build binaries are obsolet. Only coders will be needed
>>> and I don't know, whether all remained will stay under that conditions.
>>> 
>>> I don't see a great difference between that way and a retirement.
>>> 
>>> The first way might be the "Apache way", but it is definitely not the
>>> way for and of the OpenOffice community.
>>> 
>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 


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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de] 

> Patricia, we are still discussing. We are balancing reasons, 
> advantages
> and disadvantages, for different solutions. There is no decision made.
> 
> And more and more I believe, it was a good idea to start that 
> discussion
> on a public list. So everything is transparent.
> 
> I like the debian Social Contract and point 3 is:
> 
> "We will not hide problems"

This is a reasonable approach for a project which is surrounded by friends. 

It is not necessarily a good concept for a project that has been cleaved by 
third
parties and whose aim is to destroy it. When the TDF had only had the intention 
to
make OpenOffice independent of Oracle, they would never have attacked AOO.


Greetings,
Jörg


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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Roberto Galoppini]

On Sep 2, 2016 3:29 PM, "Jim Jagielski"  wrote:
>
> Yes, I would assume that many existing people would leave.
>
> But, as I mentioned, I would assume (hope) that many people
> would join, and many of those would be from others in the
> entire OO eco-system.
>
> Your reply seems to suggest that with the current status of AOO,
> maintaining an end-user focus is possible. Current evidence,
> unfortunately, makes that somewhat questionable.

Jim if you're paying attention, and I say if just because I know you have
been out of touch recently, you can't have missed that a number of positive
things HAPPENED here. So if you see people having confidence maybe it would
be good to think twice and wonder if we might have reasons to think
otherwise.

> The current status-quo is untenable and unacceptable. Change
> needs to happen. I suggested one route, nothing more, nothing
> less.

We are on the same page here, and if security issues (real ones) would be
left uncovered it would be fine if you and/or the board will step in.

In the meanwhile PLEASE let us work, and let's see if we can keep changing
in the right direction.

Thanks,

Roberto

>
> > On Sep 2, 2016, at 8:52 AM, RA Stehmann 
wrote:
> >
> > Am 02.09.2016 um 14:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> >
> >>
> >> What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present
> >> time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
> >> being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be
consumed
> >> by actual end-user implementations.
> >>
> >
> > If AOO is not an end-user focused project a lot of people will leave
> > this community because they will be useless. People who are doing
> > end-user support, who are doing end-user documentation and are doing
> > what we call "marketing" etc.
> >
> > Also people, who build binaries are obsolet. Only coders will be needed
> > and I don't know, whether all remained will stay under that conditions.
> >
> > I don't see a great difference between that way and a retirement.
> >
> > The first way might be the "Apache way", but it is definitely not the
> > way for and of the OpenOffice community.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dr. Michael Stehmann]

Am 02.09.2016 um 15:08 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

> 
> This discussion has a serious self fulfilling prophecy downside. The
> less ASF's commitment to AOO, the less my commitment is. I had been
> thinking of buying a Mac and learning to do builds on it. That is an
> investment of time, energy, and a small amount of money. Why do it, if
> AOO is just going to get shut down anyway?

Patricia, we are still discussing. We are balancing reasons, advantages
and disadvantages, for different solutions. There is no decision made.

And more and more I believe, it was a good idea to start that discussion
on a public list. So everything is transparent.

I like the debian Social Contract and point 3 is:

"We will not hide problems"

Kind regards
Michael






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

BTW, can we drop private@ on this and simply continue the
discussion on dev@?

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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

Yes, I would assume that many existing people would leave.

But, as I mentioned, I would assume (hope) that many people
would join, and many of those would be from others in the
entire OO eco-system.

Your reply seems to suggest that with the current status of AOO,
maintaining an end-user focus is possible. Current evidence,
unfortunately, makes that somewhat questionable.

The current status-quo is untenable and unacceptable. Change
needs to happen. I suggested one route, nothing more, nothing
less.

> On Sep 2, 2016, at 8:52 AM, RA Stehmann  
> wrote:
> 
> Am 02.09.2016 um 14:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> 
>> 
>> What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present
>> time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
>> being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be consumed
>> by actual end-user implementations.
>> 
> 
> If AOO is not an end-user focused project a lot of people will leave
> this community because they will be useless. People who are doing
> end-user support, who are doing end-user documentation and are doing
> what we call "marketing" etc.
> 
> Also people, who build binaries are obsolet. Only coders will be needed
> and I don't know, whether all remained will stay under that conditions.
> 
> I don't see a great difference between that way and a retirement.
> 
> The first way might be the "Apache way", but it is definitely not the
> way for and of the OpenOffice community.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Kind regards
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 


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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Patricia Shanahan]

On 9/2/2016 5:52 AM, RA Stehmann wrote:

Am 02.09.2016 um 14:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski:



What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present
time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be consumed
by actual end-user implementations.



If AOO is not an end-user focused project a lot of people will leave
this community because they will be useless. People who are doing
end-user support, who are doing end-user documentation and are doing
what we call "marketing" etc.

Also people, who build binaries are obsolet. Only coders will be needed
and I don't know, whether all remained will stay under that conditions.


I certainly won't stay. I am interested in keeping the end user 
application viable. The library/framework idea does not interest me at all.


This discussion has a serious self fulfilling prophecy downside. The 
less ASF's commitment to AOO, the less my commitment is. I had been 
thinking of buying a Mac and learning to do builds on it. That is an 
investment of time, energy, and a small amount of money. Why do it, if 
AOO is just going to get shut down anyway?


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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jorg Schmidt]

> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 

> Secondly, as alluded to above, we should prepare ourselves 
> for the FUD,
> the "AOO is dead" victory chants, the numerous anti-AOO and 
> anti-Apache
> spewings, etc... There are some who will use this as a self-serving
> soapboxing opportunity, and warp the facts into some Bizarro alternate
> universe history. We should be there to set the facts straight but
> also resign ourselves to the fact that their voices will 
> likely be louder
> than ours.

You're absolutely right.


> Secondly, part and parcel with this "pivot" is that we rename 
> the project
> to something more accurate to what our new function would be 
> and we use
> the AOO landing page to reference and redirect to the various OO
> implementations out there. In fact, I would even suggest us 
> considering
> going further and redirecting AOO traffic to LO, so that 
> people considering
> "OpenOffice" get routed to the LO site (either automatically 
> or via some
> click/OK interface).

-1

OpenOffice is not LibreOffice! 

never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example, Rob Weir) were insulted 
by
TDF representatives.



Greetings,
Jorg


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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

Dennis, thanks for opening up this conversation.

As noted over the last few months, it has become obvious to the
board that AOO has not been a healthy project for some time.
Again, there are many, many reasons for this, and it doesn't
help to go into them here and now. The simple fact is that we are at
this point now, so what should be done?

First of all, let's address the elephant in the room: Some people
(mostly naysayers and people who love stirring up sh*t) will say that
"Apache had this coming" or that we were "stupid or arrogant" in
taking on this challenge. Doing so simply shows their own ignorance,
but it still stings I'm sure. Even if AOO had not done 1 single release,
the donation of the codebase *and the relicensing of said codebase to
the ALv2* has been a *significant* plus to the open office ecosystem.
This has allowed the other players in the game to have true IP
provenance, as well as the ability to relicense things, as LO did
almost immediately.

This is something MAJOR that many people will forget and ignore, but it
is something we should be proud of. As things proceed, and the haters
start (continue) hating, these are things we should remind ourselves
of.

Secondly, as alluded to above, we should prepare ourselves for the FUD,
the "AOO is dead" victory chants, the numerous anti-AOO and anti-Apache
spewings, etc... There are some who will use this as a self-serving
soapboxing opportunity, and warp the facts into some Bizarro alternate
universe history. We should be there to set the facts straight but
also resign ourselves to the fact that their voices will likely be louder
than ours.

Now, with that out of the way, here are my thoughts on retirement. I
have previously shared these but am doing so again.

What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present
time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not
being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be consumed
by actual end-user implementations.

This is similar to the initial thoughts behind our acceptance of AOO in
the 1st place: that AOO would form the basis/foundation/core-implementations
and others would build upon those to create more specialized and enhanced
OpenOffice alternatives; and since it was a core, a common shared core,
the expectation was that these alternatives would work together, in true
FOSS fashion, and AOO would see code and patches from these alternatives
in improving this core. As we all know, this did not happen, and instead
of sharing, these alternatives never contributed back.

So with all that being said, you may be asking, "Jim, if they didn't
contribute then why would the contribute now?". Let me answer that.

First of all, I think they saw us as competitors, rather than co-
operators. Some of this was due to bad-blood, and some of it was due
to stupid posturing on both sides. But the main reason why, imo, was
because we were also end-user. End users needed to make a *choice* between
AOO and SomethingElse. By no longer being an end-user application,
that goes away.

Secondly, part and parcel with this "pivot" is that we rename the project
to something more accurate to what our new function would be and we use
the AOO landing page to reference and redirect to the various OO
implementations out there. In fact, I would even suggest us considering
going further and redirecting AOO traffic to LO, so that people considering
"OpenOffice" get routed to the LO site (either automatically or via some
click/OK interface).

With these 2 changes, as obvious olive branches, I think we will
see all players in the OO development eco-system be willing contributors
to the new project. And this will give the new project a new lease
on life.

Cheers!


> On Sep 1, 2016, at 7:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> 
> Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look like.
> 
>  A. PERSPECTIVE
>  B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
> 1. Code Base
> 2. Downloads
> 3. Development Support
> 4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
> 5. Social Media Presence
> 6. Project Management Committee
> 7. Branding
> 
> A. PERSPECTIVE
> 
> I have regularly observed that the Apache OpenOffice project has limited 
> capacity for sustaining the project in an energetic manner.  It is also my 
> considered opinion that there is no ready supply of developers who have the 
> capacity, capability, and will to supplement the roughly half-dozen 
> volunteers holding the project together.  It doesn't matter what the reasons 
> for that might be.
> 
> The Apache Project Maturity Model,
> , 
> identifies the characteristics for which an Apache project is expected to 
> strive. 
> 
> Recently, some elements have been brought into serious question:
> 
> QU20: The 

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[RA Stehmann]

Hello,

our discussion became public:

http://www.linux-magazin.de/content/view/full/106599

This shows a public interest. So "going public" seems not to difficult.

Kind regards
Michael





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Roberto Galoppini]

Quick top note: to avoid multiple mails I'll comment this and the others
messages here.

First, I totally agree with Andrea, let's focus on what needs to be done,
it's inappropriate at best to discuss anything related to the shutdown at
this time. Yet if someone enjoys the exercise of style that's ok, but
please don't ask people doing the work to stop doing the right thing for
engaging in this game. Enough said.

Second, as Michael says we need more developers. When I was at SourceForge
we have been often able to help projects here and there to find more
developers, I'm confident Dave Brondsema (Apache Allura VP) can help us to
get one or more calls out via forums, blog and newsletters.

On the same line we could ask some help to get the news out via Slashdot, I
guess at the end of the day after all the blame it would be a news to let
people know the community is still there, and some how growing. As far as
we're ok with the Slashdot style of communication, we would probably have
good chance to be covered.


On Friday, 2 September 2016, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> > From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de
> ]
>
> > the situation as I see it (I am no developer) is, that we need
> > "developers, developers, developers, developers ... ".
>
> > [...]
>
> This is not wrong, but ...
>
> Developers will participate primarily in projects which remain publicly
> well.
>
> If we look at LibreOffice and compare:
> LibreOffice, that is *good* (not more) software and *excellent* public
> relations.
> OpenOffice, that is *exellent* software and *pretty bad* public relations.
>
> We need to understand evaluate software as the normal user: their first
> scale is essential to public presentation of a software, and only
> secondarily the purely technical characteristics of a software.
>
> We need to understand the difference between a software such as the Apache
> Webserver https://httpd.apache.org/ (a software for experts) and
> OpenOffice (a software for end users).
>
>
> The problem of AOO is a Specific:
>
> many people who have worked for OOo (.org!) done their way and OOo has
> accepted the results and the work integrated into the project.
>
> The operation of Apache is too formalistic for such people, for example,
> for the local German community of OpenOffice. At the time of OpenOffice.org
> many helpers did their part, because there were few organizational hurdles.
>
> Example:
> I have been working for many years for the PrOOo-box (
> http://www.prooo-box.org), at the very beginning was that a purely
> private project, BUT it was always a project to support OpenOffice.
> The community of OOo has recognized this and has the PrOOo-box as part of
> OpenOffice accepted (more precisely, as part of the German community of OO).
>
> In Apache, however we are only "third-party". No question, the
> classification as "third-party" is formally correct, because it conforms to
> the rules of Apache, but it inhibits the practical work.
>
> *It is urgently needed to give local communities more autonomy, which
> would forward the work.*
>
>
> Let me say for my own:
> I work more than 10 years for OpenOffice (.org and Apache) and I am all
> the time loyal to OpenOffice. I am now a committer of Apache, and of course
> I respect the rules of Apache ... BUT in practice, there are task where you
> have to act, and it is not always time to comply with formalities.
>
> example:
> Last month, the PrOOo-box was published in a large German IT magazine [1].
> This was a great success for the PrOOo-box. I would have preferred if it
> had been a success for OpenOffice.
>
> What i mean?
> We (the german community, and all local communities) need the opportunity
> to speak locally for OpenOffice. It is undisputed that this must be
> coordinated with the international Apache OpenOffice community, but this
> coordination can only be done in the form of a frame, not for every single
> little action, because we have no time for the coordination of every detail.


> Having been part of OOo in the old times I remember well the local
> chapters, wonder if that would really collide with the Apache way, though.
> Speak locally not only should be possible, but also praised. I understand
> the "third party" thing might be more complex to handle, still we could
> evalute on a case by case basis what we could do. Even if it takes time,
> maybe it's not a waste of it.


> Roberto


>
>
>
> Greetings
> Jörg
>
>
> [1]
> https://www.idgshop.de/PC-WELT-Plus-09-2016.htm?
> websale8=idg=1-6058=2-5278
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jörg Schmidt]

Hello, 

> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de] 

> the situation as I see it (I am no developer) is, that we need
> "developers, developers, developers, developers ... ".

> [...]

This is not wrong, but ...

Developers will participate primarily in projects which remain publicly well.

If we look at LibreOffice and compare:
LibreOffice, that is *good* (not more) software and *excellent* public 
relations.
OpenOffice, that is *exellent* software and *pretty bad* public relations.

We need to understand evaluate software as the normal user: their first scale 
is essential to public presentation of a software, and only secondarily the 
purely technical characteristics of a software.

We need to understand the difference between a software such as the Apache 
Webserver https://httpd.apache.org/ (a software for experts) and OpenOffice (a 
software for end users).


The problem of AOO is a Specific:

many people who have worked for OOo (.org!) done their way and OOo has accepted 
the results and the work integrated into the project.

The operation of Apache is too formalistic for such people, for example, for 
the local German community of OpenOffice. At the time of OpenOffice.org many 
helpers did their part, because there were few organizational hurdles.

Example:
I have been working for many years for the PrOOo-box 
(http://www.prooo-box.org), at the very beginning was that a purely private 
project, BUT it was always a project to support OpenOffice.
The community of OOo has recognized this and has the PrOOo-box as part of 
OpenOffice accepted (more precisely, as part of the German community of OO).

In Apache, however we are only "third-party". No question, the classification 
as "third-party" is formally correct, because it conforms to the rules of 
Apache, but it inhibits the practical work.

*It is urgently needed to give local communities more autonomy, which would 
forward the work.*


Let me say for my own:
I work more than 10 years for OpenOffice (.org and Apache) and I am all the 
time loyal to OpenOffice. I am now a committer of Apache, and of course I 
respect the rules of Apache ... BUT in practice, there are task where you have 
to act, and it is not always time to comply with formalities.

example:
Last month, the PrOOo-box was published in a large German IT magazine [1]. This 
was a great success for the PrOOo-box. I would have preferred if it had been a 
success for OpenOffice. 

What i mean?
We (the german community, and all local communities) need the opportunity to 
speak locally for OpenOffice. It is undisputed that this must be coordinated 
with the international Apache OpenOffice community, but this coordination can 
only be done in the form of a frame, not for every single little action, 
because we have no time for the coordination of every detail.


Greetings
Jörg


[1]
https://www.idgshop.de/PC-WELT-Plus-09-2016.htm?websale8=idg=1-6058=2-5278



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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Andrea Pescetti]

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

One option for remedy that must be considered is retirement of the project.  ...
There are those who fear that discussing retirement can become a 
self-fulfilling prophecy.


This is becoming too much. There are other options. Namely, a new 
release will invalidate the prerequisites for your mail. Out of respect 
for the people who volunteered to steer a new release we should be 
supportive of them instead of playing the "what if" game.


Still, thank you for showing that retirement would be much more 
difficult than making a new release! So the best (my favorite) option is 
now clearly to make a release happen.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:motley.crue@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 21:49
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Dennis Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> >
> >
> > What alternative do you see?
> >
> >
> >
> There's no particular reason that I can see, that AOO shouldn't be able
> to
> produce secure software, issue releases and
> do all of those other things.  We've done it in the past (and yeah, I
> feel
> guilty about saying "we" since I haven't been very active. Mea culpa),
> and
> it's not like the project caught bubonic plague or something.  Yeah, I
> know
> a lot of people prefer to contribute to LO and not AOO, and that losing
> the
> people IBM was paying was a big hit.   But I can't help but think
> there's a
> way to get more people involved and contributing here.  So I'd rather
> see
> discussion around "how do we attract additional
> contributors (or fix whatever other problems we have)?"  than talk about
> a
> "retirement plan."  I really do think that if people start putting a lot
> of
> energy into that, it will rob even more energy from the project.
> 
> Or maybe there are other options that could be considered, even if only
> as
> interim steps.  Somebody mentioned something about a problem making Mac
> releases. OK fine, let's drop Mac support for now.  Maybe that frees up
> some energy for other things.  OK, radical suggestion and probably won't
> be
> met with a lot of support, but the point is to say, let's think outside
> the
> box a little and see if there are some other ideas we could adopt.
> 
> 
[orcmid] 

I think you will be heartened that there is just such an effort underway and 
many think that will be the answer.

Are you one of those who can "put a lot of energy into it?"  Do you know where 
you'd direct that energy to come up with likely candidates for becoming more 
involved?

With regard to interim steps, it is striking to realize that, as low as the 
MacOSX population is, it is almost double our Linux user base [;<).




> 
> Phil


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

RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:motley.crue@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 21:23
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: priv...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> > (3) I think that working towards being able to release rather than
> patch
> > as Patricia has suggested is our best way to solve the security issue.
> The
> > quick patch is not much faster and has been proven to be more of a
> > challenge then kick starting the broken build process.
> >
> 
> 
> Forgive me for being a little behind.  What is broken in the build
> process?
> Technical problem, or process issue, or other or what?
> 
[orcmid] 

This is off-topic for this thread, but it may be helpful in illustrating why 
the Board wants to know what the project's considerations are with respect to 
retirement and in particular, with regard to avoiding the situation I will now 
recount.

The remark about a patch has to do with CVE-2016-1513, with our advisory at 
<http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2016-1513.html>.

The vulnerability, and a proof of concept were reported to the project on 
2016-10-20 as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 was going out the door.  

We had figured out the source-code fix in March.  

On June 7, the reporter was concerned about sitting on the disclosure any 
longer and gave us a June deadline, proposing to disclose even though we had 
not committed to an AOO update.  We were sitting on the fix because we didn't 
want to give anyone ideas when they saw it applied to the source code unless 
there was a release in the works.  

We negotiated a disclosure extension to July 21.  Part of that agreement was 
our working to create a hotfix instead of attempting to work up a full 
maintenance release (e.g., a 4.1.3).  On July 21 we issued an advisory that 
disclosed existence of the vulnerability without offering any repaired 
software.  

We had the corrected shared library at the time of disclosure, but had not 
tested much for possible regressions with it.  Also, instructions needed to be 
written.  General Availability of the Hotfix, 4.1.2-patch1, was on August 30, 
after more testing, QA of the instructions and the fix, and adding a couple of 
localizations.  The QA period did turn up a couple of glitches and improvements 
to the instructions and also included scripts to simplify the task for Windows 
users.

There are two prospects for this year: a 4.1.3 maintenance release for some 
important maintenance-only items and the 4.2.0 feature release.  In either case 
it is likely that an update of any kind will be a year since the release of 
Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2.

If anyone wants to look into the issues of producing releases, I suggest you 
confirm the 4.1.2 release by compiling it from the source archive using the 
available build instructions and see how well you can replicate the released 
binary for the same platform.  Where we fall the most short is having enough 
folks who can do this for Windows and MacOSX, covering almost 95% of our user 
base [;<).

> 
> Phil


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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Phillip Rhodes]

>
>
> What alternative do you see?
>
>
>
There's no particular reason that I can see, that AOO shouldn't be able to
produce secure software, issue releases and
do all of those other things.  We've done it in the past (and yeah, I feel
guilty about saying "we" since I haven't been very active. Mea culpa), and
it's not like the project caught bubonic plague or something.  Yeah, I know
a lot of people prefer to contribute to LO and not AOO, and that losing the
people IBM was paying was a big hit.   But I can't help but think there's a
way to get more people involved and contributing here.  So I'd rather see
discussion around "how do we attract additional
contributors (or fix whatever other problems we have)?"  than talk about a
"retirement plan."  I really do think that if people start putting a lot of
energy into that, it will rob even more energy from the project.

Or maybe there are other options that could be considered, even if only as
interim steps.  Somebody mentioned something about a problem making Mac
releases. OK fine, let's drop Mac support for now.  Maybe that frees up
some energy for other things.  OK, radical suggestion and probably won't be
met with a lot of support, but the point is to say, let's think outside the
box a little and see if there are some other ideas we could adopt.



Phil

RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:motley.crue@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 21:16
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> Wow, just wow.  I have to say, I think even broaching this topic is a
> mistake.  "Self-fulfilling prophecy"? Not even that, it'll be a "3rd
> party
> fulfilling prophecy" as soon as this hits the press.  There are a lot of
> people out there who seem to have it in for AOO and have for a while...
> now
> you *know* there will be a headline appearing in the next week, reading
> "Apache OpenOffice Mulls Retirement" or "AOO Begins To Wind Down", etc.
> Yeah, it's crappy journalism, but it's almost 100% certain to happen.
> And
> that's just going to dampen enthusiasm even more.
> 
> I wish I could say I had a magic bullet of an answer for how to get
> things
> moving again, but I don't.  But I don't think opening a discussion about
> retirement and giving AOO's enemies more ammunition is a strong tactical
> move.
[orcmid] 

You're right Phil, it is not meant to be a tactical (or even strategic) move in 
some sort of adversarial situation.

How else can we work through these difficulties, and understand our options as 
a community?  

Being a project of the Apache Software Foundation brings with it some rather 
unique requirements for operation in the public interest and operating in the 
open with our community, including the public that relies on Apache OpenOffice 
software.

I don't know any way to accomplish that in a way that outsiders can't spin 
however they like.  We need the engagement and many eyes and thoughts of our 
community, as reflected here on dev@.  

What alternative do you see?

> 
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> 
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look
> like.
> >
> >   A. PERSPECTIVE
> >   B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
> >  1. Code Base
> >  2. Downloads
> >  3. Development Support
> >  4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
> >  5. Social Media Presence
> >  6. Project Management Committee
> >  7. Branding
> >
[ ... ] >


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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Phillip Rhodes]

> (3) I think that working towards being able to release rather than patch
> as Patricia has suggested is our best way to solve the security issue. The
> quick patch is not much faster and has been proven to be more of a
> challenge then kick starting the broken build process.
>


Forgive me for being a little behind.  What is broken in the build process?
Technical problem, or process issue, or other or what?


Phil

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Phillip Rhodes]

Wow, just wow.  I have to say, I think even broaching this topic is a
mistake.  "Self-fulfilling prophecy"? Not even that, it'll be a "3rd party
fulfilling prophecy" as soon as this hits the press.  There are a lot of
people out there who seem to have it in for AOO and have for a while... now
you *know* there will be a headline appearing in the next week, reading
"Apache OpenOffice Mulls Retirement" or "AOO Begins To Wind Down", etc.
Yeah, it's crappy journalism, but it's almost 100% certain to happen.  And
that's just going to dampen enthusiasm even more.

I wish I could say I had a magic bullet of an answer for how to get things
moving again, but I don't.  But I don't think opening a discussion about
retirement and giving AOO's enemies more ammunition is a strong tactical
move.


Phil


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton 
wrote:

> Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look like.
>
>   A. PERSPECTIVE
>   B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
>  1. Code Base
>  2. Downloads
>  3. Development Support
>  4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
>  5. Social Media Presence
>  6. Project Management Committee
>  7. Branding
>
> A. PERSPECTIVE
>
> I have regularly observed that the Apache OpenOffice project has limited
> capacity for sustaining the project in an energetic manner.  It is also my
> considered opinion that there is no ready supply of developers who have the
> capacity, capability, and will to supplement the roughly half-dozen
> volunteers holding the project together.  It doesn't matter what the
> reasons for that might be.
>
> The Apache Project Maturity Model,
> ,
> identifies the characteristics for which an Apache project is expected to
> strive.
>
> Recently, some elements have been brought into serious question:
>
>  QU20: The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software.
>  QU50: The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a
> timely manner.
>
> There is also a litmus test which is kind of a red line.  That is for the
> project to have a PMC capable of producing releases.  That means that there
> are at least three available PMC members capable of building a functioning
> binary from a release-candidate archive, and who do so in providing binding
> votes to approve the release of that code.
>
> In the case of Apache OpenOffice, needing to disclose security
> vulnerabilities for which there is no mitigation in an update has become a
> serious issue.
>
> In responses to concerns raised in June, the PMC is currently tasked by
> the ASF Board to account for this inability and to provide a remedy.  An
> indicator of the seriousness of the Board's concern is the PMC been
> requested to report to the Board every month, starting in August, rather
> than quarterly, the normal case.  One option for remedy that must be
> considered is retirement of the project.  The request is for the PMC's
> consideration among other possible options.  The Board has not ordered a
> solution.
>
> I cannot prediction how this will all work out.  It is remiss of me not to
> point out that retirement of the project is a serious possibility.
>
> There are those who fear that discussing retirement can become a
> self-fulfilling prophecy.  My concern is that the project could end with a
> bang or a whimper.  My interest is in seeing any retirement happen
> gracefully.  That means we need to consider it as a contingency.  For
> contingency plans, no time is a good time, but earlier is always better
> than later.
>
>
> B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
>
> Here is a provisional list of all elements that would have to be
> addressed, over a period of time, as part of any retirement effort.
>
> In order to understand what would have had to happen in a graceful
> process, the assumption below is that the project has already retired.
>
> Requests for additions and adjustments to this compilation are welcome.
>
>  1. CODE BASE
>
> 1.1 The Apache OpenOffice Subversion repository where code is
> maintained has been moved to "The Attic."  Apache Attic is an actual
> project, .  The source code would remain
> available and could be checked-out from Subversion by anyone interested in
> making use of it.  There is no means of committing changes.
>
> 1.2 Apache Externals/Extras consists of external libraries that are
> relied upon by the source code but are not part of the source code.  These
> were housed on SourceForge and elsewhere.  (a) They might have been
> archived in conjunction with the SVN (1.1).  (b) They might be identified
> in a way that someone attempting to build from source later on would be
> able to work with later versions of the external 

RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

[BCC to PMC]

> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 19:27
> To: priv...@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> Hi Dennis,
> 
> I don't have objections to this topic, but I feel I need to make a few
> suggestions before this thread is either ignored or a confused mess.
> 
> (1) a long, official policy statement like this is best put into a wiki
> page where many can edit it and it can be an easy discussion and not a
> confused email mess that is started with something that is tl:dr. The
> maturity model was recently developed by the comdev participants on the
> wiki and email
> Effectively. This document needs to be developed in the same way.
[orcmid] 

Good idea.  I see no reason not to follow that path.  This was my 
thought-starter.

I was not intending an official policy statement.  It is a discussion request, 
with some background information for perspective.  (Oh, I had to use orcmid@ 
a.o because of the BCC, since that's how I am on private@ though.  I see the 
confusion I causes doing that.)


> 
> (2) why is this cross posted to private and DEV? To do so implies that
> there is some other non-open discussion in parallel. You and I have run
> into unexpected results from this strange cross posting practice of
> yours (hi Simon)
[orcmid] 

It was not cross-posted.  I intentionally did not do that.  The BCC was to 
private@, just as I am doing now.  It was an easy way to provide a heads-up to 
the PMC for a discussion to notice on dev@, since some don't siphon through all 
of the dev@ material regularly.  It is not on dev@ as a cross-posting.


> 
> (3) I think that working towards being able to release rather than patch
> as Patricia has suggested is our best way to solve the security issue.
> The quick patch is not much faster and has been proven to be more of a
> challenge then kick starting the broken build process.
[orcmid] 

That would be interesting to determine.  Now that we have released a Hotfix, I 
think we can get it done more quickly in the future, but it is certainly not as 
good as simply offering the community a full update to install.

That is a different subject though.  It would be great to have that outcome.

> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On Sep 1, 2016, at 4:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look
> like.
> >
> >  A. PERSPECTIVE
> >  B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
> > 1. Code Base
> > 2. Downloads
> > 3. Development Support
> > 4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
> > 5. Social Media Presence
> > 6. Project Management Committee
> > 7. Branding
> >
[ ... ]


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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hmm ... the discussion sounds a bit like Brexit ...

With the important difference that it is now evident that Brexit
didn't have a plan.

Having a retirement plan is important for our users and for the ASF
and while I think the discussion is sane and important I think we should 
focus now on the next release. It is clear to me that

even if AOO were to be retired, we still have to push out a
new release mainly because we do have stuff that should see
the light of a release.

For the release we are certainly seeing some deficiencies:

- Can we responsibly deliver AOO 4.2.0 for the Mac? If the base/java
issue is as serious as it sounds and since we don't have much developer
feedback or even a buildbot, we may have to release 4.2.0 with a Mac
version!

After the release there are certainly much more things to discuss.

Pedro.


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

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dave Fisher]

Hi Dennis,

I don't have objections to this topic, but I feel I need to make a few 
suggestions before this thread is either ignored or a confused mess.

(1) a long, official policy statement like this is best put into a wiki page 
where many can edit it and it can be an easy discussion and not a confused 
email mess that is started with something that is tl:dr. The maturity model was 
recently developed by the comdev participants on the wiki and email
Effectively. This document needs to be developed in the same way.

(2) why is this cross posted to private and DEV? To do so implies that there is 
some other non-open discussion in parallel. You and I have run into unexpected 
results from this strange cross posting practice of yours (hi Simon)

(3) I think that working towards being able to release rather than patch as 
Patricia has suggested is our best way to solve the security issue. The quick 
patch is not much faster and has been proven to be more of a challenge then 
kick starting the broken build process.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 1, 2016, at 4:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> 
> Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look like.
> 
>  A. PERSPECTIVE
>  B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
> 1. Code Base
> 2. Downloads
> 3. Development Support
> 4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
> 5. Social Media Presence
> 6. Project Management Committee
> 7. Branding
> 
> A. PERSPECTIVE
> 
> I have regularly observed that the Apache OpenOffice project has limited 
> capacity for sustaining the project in an energetic manner.  It is also my 
> considered opinion that there is no ready supply of developers who have the 
> capacity, capability, and will to supplement the roughly half-dozen 
> volunteers holding the project together.  It doesn't matter what the reasons 
> for that might be.
> 
> The Apache Project Maturity Model,
> , 
> identifies the characteristics for which an Apache project is expected to 
> strive. 
> 
> Recently, some elements have been brought into serious question:
> 
> QU20: The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software.
> QU50: The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a timely 
> manner.
> 
> There is also a litmus test which is kind of a red line.  That is for the 
> project to have a PMC capable of producing releases.  That means that there 
> are at least three available PMC members capable of building a functioning 
> binary from a release-candidate archive, and who do so in providing binding 
> votes to approve the release of that code.  
> 
> In the case of Apache OpenOffice, needing to disclose security 
> vulnerabilities for which there is no mitigation in an update has become a 
> serious issue.
> 
> In responses to concerns raised in June, the PMC is currently tasked by the 
> ASF Board to account for this inability and to provide a remedy.  An 
> indicator of the seriousness of the Board's concern is the PMC been requested 
> to report to the Board every month, starting in August, rather than 
> quarterly, the normal case.  One option for remedy that must be considered is 
> retirement of the project.  The request is for the PMC's consideration among 
> other possible options.  The Board has not ordered a solution. 
> 
> I cannot prediction how this will all work out.  It is remiss of me not to 
> point out that retirement of the project is a serious possibility.
> 
> There are those who fear that discussing retirement can become a 
> self-fulfilling prophecy.  My concern is that the project could end with a 
> bang or a whimper.  My interest is in seeing any retirement happen 
> gracefully.  That means we need to consider it as a contingency.  For 
> contingency plans, no time is a good time, but earlier is always better than 
> later.
> 
> 
> B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
> 
> Here is a provisional list of all elements that would have to be addressed, 
> over a period of time, as part of any retirement effort.   
> 
> In order to understand what would have had to happen in a graceful process, 
> the assumption below is that the project has already retired.
> 
> Requests for additions and adjustments to this compilation are welcome.
> 
> 1. CODE BASE
> 
>1.1 The Apache OpenOffice Subversion repository where code is maintained 
> has been moved to "The Attic."  Apache Attic is an actual project, 
> .  The source code would remain
> available and could be checked-out from Subversion by anyone interested in 
> making use of it.  There is no means of committing changes.
> 
>1.2 Apache Externals/Extras consists of external libraries that are relied 
> upon by the source code but are not part of the source code.  These were 
> housed