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