Re: Graduation timeline: A reminder for project members, press and list observers
Sent from my tablet On Oct 12, 2012 6:29 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: ... As a minor update, the only observation we received so far (besides a substantial number of +1 votes, no abstentions or -1) was that almost all the proposed PMC members do not belong to other Apache projects; our mentors were asked if they perceived this as a problem, and we didn't get an answer from them so far. Actually the observation was that there's only one Member. The motivation behind this concern is twofold (note this is my interpretation, not necessarily the view of the person asking the question): This is a large and complex project that is requiring the ASF to adapt in many areas and resist other changes. Therefore the Membership needs to be in agreement about foundational issues. The lack of members on the PMC means might be limited early visibility into upcoming foundational issues. Secondly, this is a large and complex project that would benefit a great deal from the ongoing support of ASF Members from a community perspective. I, and other mentors voted +1 on the recommendation so clearly we believe that the PPMC is in good shape. But it doesn't yet have deep roots in the Apache Way. This is not about the health of the PPMC it is about the need for guidance (for example, I like to think I'm pretty much in control of my own affairs but I still bounce things to my life coach occasionally). However, graduating doesn't remove access to mentoring, it just changes the role of those mentors. These things need to be remembered by the community as a whole. In particular members need to ensure that they actively engage with the ASF and use the support and guidance available to ensure AOO continues to develop healthily. Personaly, I see a problem that needs to be managed but not one that should slow graduation. Hopefully this will be the last time I speak with an official mentor hat on ;) Ross Regards, Andrea.
Re: Graduation timeline: A reminder for project members, press and list observers
Sent from my tablet On Oct 13, 2012 11:00 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: ?.. It never occurred to me that any of them would have necessarily been interested. The fact that it never occurred to anyone participating in the definition of the PMC membership is, in my opinion, a major failing of process which was designed to identify people with sufficient merit. I would have thought all of your active mentors have earned sufficient merit and should have been invited to join. Furthermore, at least on mentor indicated a desire to serve on the PMC, so there was no need for it to occur to anyone, it was explicit. This is the first time I've seen a PPMC fail nominate its active mentors as PMC members. There is a lesson in there for the community but it is no longer my place to convey what I think that lesson is (since my last mail was my last as a mentor) Ross
Re: Graduation timeline: A reminder for project members, press and list observers
Yes, it's easily resolved, Dave already indicated the three ways it might be resolved. Like I said its more of a lesson to be learned than a reason to delay. Awareness of the issue is enough for now. Ross Sent from mobile, forgive terseness and errors On Oct 14, 2012 5:55 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Oct 14, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:50:06PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: The fact that it never occurred to anyone participating in the definition of the PMC membership is, in my opinion, a major failing of process which was designed to identify people with sufficient merit. Now that you mentioned it, the process was more democratic, than meritocratic: it didn't only fail to identify people with sufficient merit, it also failed to measure merit (that's why I voted 0). Isn't this easy to solve? All we need is for one proposed PMC-member to say that they will, as one of their first actions as a TLP PMC member, propose the former mentors for PMC membership. Is anyone willing to state this? Yes. That has been my plan. I also would accept any additions to the PMC that the Board chooses to make. Regards, Dave -Rob Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina
Re: Graduation timeline: A reminder for project members, press and list observers
Sent from my tablet On Oct 14, 2012 9:18 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Oct 14, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:50:06PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: The fact that it never occurred to anyone participating in the definition of the PMC membership is, in my opinion, a major failing of process which was designed to identify people with sufficient merit. Now that you mentioned it, the process was more democratic, than meritocratic: it didn't only fail to identify people with sufficient merit, it also failed to measure merit (that's why I voted 0). Isn't this easy to solve? All we need is for one proposed PMC-member to say that they will, as one of their first actions as a TLP PMC member, propose the former mentors for PMC membership. Is anyone willing to state this? Yes. That has been my plan. I also would accept any additions to the PMC that the Board chooses to make. Great. Personally I think it makes sense for the PMC to manage its own evolution. This is a non-trivial part of The Apache Way. I realize that the ASF Board has the ability in extraordinary situations to intervene directly in a PMC's decision making process. As a last resort and a blunt instrument are the terms I recall being used earlier in reference to Board intervention. It will be very interesting to see if they think this is a situation that warrants such action. Please don't quote things out of context, it doesn't help. Changing a resolution is not an extraordinary situation, its part of the board's responsibility to the foundation. The PMC I currently chair, for example, had a couple of relevant and appropriate people added by the board before creation. That being said, I am not suggesting the board will take such an action, I cannot predict the actions of a board of 9. I will observe, that a concern has been raised and the reactions of this community to those concerns has been, on the whole, appreciative and appropriate (and I don't mean only Dave's statement above, in fact I dont think that is necessary). Ross -Rob Regards, Dave -Rob Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina
Re: Marketing events
On 9 October 2012 22:05, Raphael Bircher rbirc...@apache.org wrote: ... It would be a very rare open source even that did not have at least one Apache member present. Maybe in US. In Europe, Apache is nearly nowhere present. Not even at FLOSS Events. I'm afraid your assumption is incorrect. The ASF is much broader and deeper than you imaging. Rob is right to ask how AOO might use that network to its advantage. http://people.apache.org/map.html However, I do think the general discussion should continue as Ian says later in the thread this is not an either/or thing. Ross
Re: Marketing events
On 10 October 2012 13:13, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: +1, this is just brainstorming about something of common interest so at this stage its best to be as public as possible. If there is a clear proposal outside the scope of ASF then we should move it outside. OK. The issue of funding people to take part in marketing has always been an issue since the start of OOo. It might well be out of the scope of ASF but it is certainly no disadvantage to be able to fund experienced people to speak at important events. Is AOO different from other ASF projects in that respect? Probably a) because of its size and b) because of its end-user focus. In the spirit of brainstorming the, lets consider. I can imagine someone looking to fund development work, if they desire the outcome of that work. Ditto for translations. Maybe even a crowd-funded documentation effort. In all the cases their is a return to the person funding. But I'm having a hard time imagining a business model based on person A giving money to person B to market to person C. EU give a grant to person B to educate people (people C) about the benefits of Open Source. This is just one possible example. We ran an EU learner workshop a couple of weeks ago on the subject of digital audio recording. https://theingots.org/community/GLWS Grant was just under 30,000 Euro for putting on the event and paying travel expenses of 12 delegates from 4 countries. These are one way of getting funding into marketing. There are probably many others but they need people with expertise and people with time to make applications because it's not straightforward. But then again neither is developing AOO code ;-) This makes sense. It is worth also considering the relationship between the ASF and Google when we participate in Google Summer of Code. If that is possible, what else is possible? The ASF doesn't receive the money for the development the student does. It is paid directly to the Student, not to the ASF. Google has no influence over which projects are accepted or how we run them. So, looking at GSoC is a reasonably good model, there is no formal relationship between the ASF and Google - that model works. Could the ASF be the recipient of grants? IMHO, No. The ASF will only accept donations without strings. Most grants, certainly the kind Ian is discussing, have strings (in the form of defined work packages, deliverables and reporting requirements). Ross
Re: ApacheconEU2012
As a student you're entitled tithe student rate of 75 EUR. See the tickets page of the website. Sent from my tablet On Oct 5, 2012 7:32 AM, catriona cawh...@sctelco.net.au wrote: Dear sir/Madam, My name is Catriona White, I am currently a full-time student in South Australia. I am a Apache Open Office community member and recently received an invitation to attend the Conference in Sinsheim, Germany. As I am a student my finances are slight, so I am applying for support to attend the conference on the 5th-8th November. Please consider my request for a ticket discount as I would love to travel to Germany for the conference. Yours Sincerely, Catriona White mobile 0427253391
Re: OpenOffice status
As most people here know graduation from the Incubator is dependent on the IPMCs recommendation and the Boards approval. Once the project graduates it is entirely self-governing. For the IPMC to recommend graduation the mentors, who represent the IPMC, must be satisfied with the PPMCs ability to self manage as an ASF project. This includes managing the community as well as managing the technical aspects. Managing an ASF community can be difficult. I recently posted a series of articles on the Outercurve foundations blog on the topic of open source governace, the most recent identified some of the problems facing meritocratic projects like those found in the ASF. In this mail I express my individual opinion, as just one mentor, as to whether the Apache OpenOffice podling is ready to graduate. My conclusion is: whilst there are some remaining challenges for the community there is strong evidence that the community is ready to graduate. There are people stepping up and demonstrating an understanding of meritocracy and how it differs from other similar forms of governance, most notably oligarchy. There are a good number of people taking responsibility for the health of the community as a whole and pushing forwards past problems that rise up, sometimes from unexpected quarters. It is my belief that the community is open to third parties and that there is no single controlling influence within the AOO community. I also believe that a removal of the Incubating tag line will enable the community to more easily engage with some of the more cautious participants in the Open Document Formats ecosystem. For this reason, I am generally in favour of graduation at this time. AOO finds itself in a highly visible space. Whilst the majority of users of OpenOffice are unaware of how it is developed much of the Open Source world looks to major projects like this as a yard-stick. What the AOO PMC does in the future will be picked apart and, in some cases, replicated across a wide number of projects within the broader Open Document Format ecosystem. The community members who have stepped up during this Incubation phase need to keep focused on the goal of being a truly meritocratic project. That means spending time managing the community aspects of the project as well as the technical aspects. I no longer have significant concerns about the communities ability to do this. Keep up the great work. Ross On 15 September 2012 00:02, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: FYI, as posted on gene...@incubator.apache.org. -Rob -- Forwarded message -- From: Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:52 AM Subject: OpenOffice status To: gene...@incubator.apache.org Hi, Thanks for the report, OpenOffice! After spend a few hours yesterday digging through list archives and other materials I'm overall pretty happy with the things I'm seeing. As also mentioned on your report, I believe you're well on your way to establish a set of project-level bylaws or at least a good shared understanding on community structure and behavior. From my perspective it looks like you'll be ready to graduate as soon as those discussions have reached good enough consensus. BR, Jukka Zitting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Need Apache Member/Officer to submit list creation request (Was: [PROPOSAL] Reinvigorate extension authors community)
On 2 October 2012 15:40, Daniel Shahaf danie...@apache.org wrote: Dave Fisher wrote on Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 07:33:16 -0700: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5334 Someone else beat me to it. Actually they didn't, as of right now there is no request in the queue (private@incubator will be emailed a notification once the request is made) There is no option on the form for requesting @incubator.apache.org lists. Is this an oversight or me being dumb? Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List
On 25 September 2012 11:22, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 September 2012 06:15, imacat ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw wrote: I feel honored to be listed. I would like to help PMC if there is a chance. In any case, I suggest at least one female should be included in the PMC, to encourage the contribution of females in the community and bring diverse voices in PMC. It is very important to encourage more and more female contributors to join the community, and make them feel that OpenOffice is theirs', not of some male geeks. +1 broad representation is important. IMHO this is a bad idea and if we go down this route it demonstrates that we do not understand The Apache Way. I don't think the idea of actively seeking broad representation is necessarily counter to the Apache Way. It depends on exactly how that representation is achieved. The PMC *is not* representative. The PMC is inclusive of *all that show merit* for the things that the PMC is responsible for. To have a PMC based on representation suggests that members are included for things other than merit, or that other potential members are excluded based on representation concerns regardless of their demonstrated merit. Both are wrong. I agree both are wrong. On the other hand I really hope that Imacat and others seek to address the issue of inclusion of all. Such work is, in itself, worthy of merit yet is often not recognised as such in software projects like those here in the ASF. Similarly, activities that limit the participation of others can destroy a project community. This can happen either intentionally (such behaviours have no place in an ASF project) or unintentionally (in which case such behaviours need to be corrected by the community). It's this latter situation that can be very hard to manage. It raises the question of does adherence to and enforcement of the code of conduct trump technical merit? [ASIDE: the Community Development PMC, d...@community.apache.org, are always looking to make the ASF more welcoming to all. There are some useful experiences there and the PMC is always looking for other ideas] Ross
Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List
Just to confirm that I have received no offline nominations. Sent from my tablet On Sep 19, 2012 12:00 AM, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote: (top posting after private messages - I cannot describe the shame I feel... ;-) I have an option that I believe will handle Andrea's concerns. I have spoken with Ross and he is amenable to receiving Proposed PMC entries off list. If anyone is concerned about sending their list to ooo-dev, you can send it to Ross ( rgardler at apache) instead, and at the end of the period (next Sunday), he will send an anonymized summary of the votes he has received, along with a breakdown of submissions by committers/PPMC vs other community members. We have received lists from 10 people and have 25 nominees with multiple votes. It would be great to get even more feedback. A. On 9/18/2012 1:17 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 17/09/2012 Andrew Rist wrote: * This is not a vote. This is a search for consensus. Please no '-1' replies. Let's see what this process produces, and then discuss from there. It seems that the process is working quite well, and that we are on the right way to bootstrap a PMC by consensus. I surely don't want to block the current process, but I wonder if allowing people to vote (actually, express preferences) anonymously would be better for some volunteers/cultures. Our mentors have often stated that we have secure voting solutions available, but maybe this is overkill and time-consuming, and it would be enough to allow people to send their lists to a mentor (if available), who would repost them here. It is not an issue that I feel personally: it's OK for me to continue with public messages on ooo-dev. But it could be that others have problems, and in that case I'd encourage them to speak up so that we can find a way to ensure that everyone can express their opinions. Regards, Andrea.
Re: [REQUEST] Apache OpenOffice (incubating) - fund allocation for ACEU 2012
On 24 September 2012 17:14, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: On Sep 24, 2012, at 4:48 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: ... the Apache OpenOffice (incubating) community wants to spend some of its fund for ApacheCon EU (ACEU) 2012 - see the corresponding thread on ooo-dev@i.a.o [1]. We are currently discussing the granting processes - see [2]. The purpose of this post is to assure ASF's charity status and to clarify the actual spending of the money regarding our planned fund allocation. We want to spend the following money for ACEU 2012 participants from the Apache OpenOffice (incubating) community: - 10 x 300/600 EUR for travel expense subsidy - 30 x 100 EUR for ticket discounts for non-committers Questions regarding assurence of charity status: (1) Do the planned spendings violate our charity status? I'm not the person to definitively answer this -- I believe this has to do with legal@ too, luckily the VP, Legal is also on the treasurer list :) so he can help decide if there needs to be a legal@ CC here. To my knowledge though, I think that you already have approval to proceed based on old discussions I saw regarding this topic on board@, and also based on Ross Gardler being a board@ guy and Apache OO mentor and bringing this up too. I don't speak for the board, however, the board did approve the principle of using SPI money for this. I've checked with Jim as President and he confirms that he see's no problem. The treasurer list was copied on that communication and I reported it back to the ooo-dev list. In summary, I believe we are good to go (said with my EVP hat since Jim spoke with his Pres hat so it's my problem if this is bad information) (2) What do we need to consider in our planned granting processes to assure our charity status? I think the most important thing is to make sure that the process is traceable and auditable, IIRC. That is correct. We should also add fair and non-discriminatory. The applications process and evaluation process needs to be public (I'm assuming this is not a needs based evaluation, if it is needs based it will be more complex as privacy is also necessary). Questions regarding actual spending of the money: (1) Is it possible to spend the ticket discount money via a special promotion code in the ACEU 2012 ticket system? Not sure about this :) The ApacheCon folks, or Mellissa, our EA, would probably be good people to ask, so I've CC'ed Melissa here. Yes, it is possible. What we need to know (send to plann...@apachecon.com) is: - ticket name - discount code - discount level - promotion start and end dates Ross
Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List
On 20 September 2012 11:49, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: Once a PMC exists, new members must be nominated and discussed on the private@tlp list. Votes are held on the private list, so is not secret, but it is not public either. There are very few *must* items in the ASF. In fact it is up to the PMC to decide how and where the decision is made. When voting on people most, but not all, projects do it in private. Ross
Re: [PROPOSAL] Fund Allocation for ApacheCon EU 2012, Germany in Nov. 2012
From the ASF perspective the proposal below is good to go. We do need to ensure the decision making process is documented and recorded. We also need to ensure we work with the treasurer to get the money to individuals. From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness On Sep 18, 2012 4:37 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi Ross, On 18.09.2012 15:53, Ross Gardler wrote: I've sent this to treasurer@ since it will, ultimately be the treasurer who signs off on any spend. I don't expect any problems, just making sure the specifics of the proposal don't step over any lines drawn by our charitable status. Thanks for getting our treasurer involved. I had it on my todo list to get in touch with our treasurer in order to clarify how the money is pratical is spent in case the proposal gets accepted. I hope that the proposal and the may be following process does not violate our charitable status and I am looking to work together with our treasurer to keep us on the right way. Best regards, Oliver. On 18 September 2012 12:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi, I have learned that the following discussion/proposal should to be on ooo-dev instead of ooo-private. A summary for the background: AOO has some money from the pre-Apache time (the SPI fund) which we (AOO community) can spend for our project. There was a discussion on ooo-private to use some of this money for the ApacheCon EU 2012, Germany in Nov. 2012. A small discussion took place and more or less ended in the below proposal which I had made: Here is my proposal for fund allocation for ApacheCon EU 2012, Germany in Nov. 2012; more or less a summary of the former discussion of this topic. - 10 x 300 EUR flat subsidies for travel expenses; double the subsidy for cases of hardship, e.g. persons who need to take a long flight. -- criteria for granting subsidy: (a) preference order: invited speakers, committers, non-committers (b) person lacks of corporate funding and TAC funding (c) person needs to spend at least 300 EUR on travel (d) person need accommodation for at least 2 nights - 30 x 100 EUR ticket discount for non-committers -- criteria for granting discount: (a) person lacks of corporate funding and TAC funding A small group of volunteers are needed to drive the granting process: - define application form and deadlines - run the application process - accept/reject the applications I am volunteering to be part of this small group. Who else is joining? If nobody objects in the next 72 hours, I will put the proposal into practice. Best regards, Oliver.
Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List
I don't object to this process. But lets be clear, PMC membership is *not* a popularity contest, it's a recognition of merit. So the number of nominations is irrelevant, more nominations just means that the individual has been seen by more people. Sometimes merit stuff is not visible to many, e.g. I know how much effort some members of this PPMC have put into the AOO track at ACEU, most of that work is invisible here so only one or two people will recognise that merit. This is not an objection to the process being followed, just an objection to the idea that the number of nominations is important. Ross On 19 September 2012 21:06, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/9/19 Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org +1 There is absolutely nothing wrong with a list process for individuals nominating 10 persons for the PPMC. Furthermore, let's have just one procedure in place at a time. When this one is concluded, there will be occasion to reflect and determine the next steps. The tabulation will be very interesting, since we'll know the frequency with which various individuals are nominated by others. That's an useful straw poll. What is made of it is something that will happen in full view and without haste. Furthermore, there is no need to discuss or justify the nominations being made. (There is not much value in nominating individuals who have declined to be on the PMC, but there's no harm either.) I recommend that the process continue. My only objection is that having secret nominations is not compatible with the Apache Way and the oversight responsibilities of the ASF. There are private ballots, but not secret ones as far as I know. I recommend that no one accept nominations privately and that those who have already sent theirs via any back-channel use ooo-private if they do not want their selection of names made public. +1 (Even if I see no point on hiding the vote). Regards Ricardo (Since there are no -1 votes, and everybody is constrained to 10, I have trouble seeing the problem.) There is no reason to identify those who have nominated anyone on the consolidated report. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:26 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List On 09/19/2012 10:38 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: [ ... ] In this way, a wiki can provide more than a mail list post. Louis Yes, a wiki can provide more than a mail post, but I think this exercise is valid, and provides a convenient way for *anyone* on this list to express an opinion without explicitly stating why. I actually think this is a point in the mailing lists favor. This approach is simple and based on impressions of individuals involved with this project. I don't see much wrong with that. Picking 10 has been difficult for all of us, but I did understand that 10 was not a magic number for the final PMC. I agree with Juergen that we should complete this circle. I've found it pretty interesting so far. -- MzK We never sit anything out. We are cups, constantly and quietly being filled. The trick is, knowing how to tip ourselves over and let the beautiful stuff out. -- Ray Bradbury, Zen in the Art of Writing -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: [PROPOSAL] Fund Allocation for ApacheCon EU 2012, Germany in Nov. 2012
I've sent this to treasurer@ since it will, ultimately be the treasurer who signs off on any spend. I don't expect any problems, just making sure the specifics of the proposal don't step over any lines drawn by our charitable status. Ross On 18 September 2012 12:57, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann orwittm...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi, I have learned that the following discussion/proposal should to be on ooo-dev instead of ooo-private. A summary for the background: AOO has some money from the pre-Apache time (the SPI fund) which we (AOO community) can spend for our project. There was a discussion on ooo-private to use some of this money for the ApacheCon EU 2012, Germany in Nov. 2012. A small discussion took place and more or less ended in the below proposal which I had made: Here is my proposal for fund allocation for ApacheCon EU 2012, Germany in Nov. 2012; more or less a summary of the former discussion of this topic. - 10 x 300 EUR flat subsidies for travel expenses; double the subsidy for cases of hardship, e.g. persons who need to take a long flight. -- criteria for granting subsidy: (a) preference order: invited speakers, committers, non-committers (b) person lacks of corporate funding and TAC funding (c) person needs to spend at least 300 EUR on travel (d) person need accommodation for at least 2 nights - 30 x 100 EUR ticket discount for non-committers -- criteria for granting discount: (a) person lacks of corporate funding and TAC funding A small group of volunteers are needed to drive the granting process: - define application form and deadlines - run the application process - accept/reject the applications I am volunteering to be part of this small group. Who else is joining? If nobody objects in the next 72 hours, I will put the proposal into practice. Best regards, Oliver. -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Moderating ooo-private
Many user enquiries come to ooo-private and are moderated through. They shouldn't be. That list should have almost zero traffic. Users are finding the list somehow, seems the documentation needs fixing. For those that do find their way through consider rejecting them with a boiler plate response directing to correct support channels. Sent from my tablet On Sep 15, 2012 4:37 AM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote: Gentlemen, As a frequent contributor to a regional newspaper, I want to be able to import these .PDF documents so I can do searches for specific words to find what they say on issues of interest. http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf http://assets.dstatic.org/dnc-platform/2012-National-Platform.pdf Yet when I tried, the import failed to capture and display the text seen in an Adobe reader. So tell me, when will Open Office be able to import .PDF files like these? Thanks, Kirk W. Fraser
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
There are, as many have pointed out, two issues. The first is, can AOO do what it is doing - the answer to this one is yes and has been clearly expressed a number of times in this thread. The second is whether AOO can go a step further than what it is already doing. The answer to this is No, as has been expressed a number of times in this thread. If we separate these issues out then we can proceed. The first issue is resolved (the release vote passed with the original objection being withdrawn). The second issue remains open. It is for the AOO PPMC to find a solution to this. I can see two potential solutions to the problem. Which is right for the AOO project is not the concern of gernal@. So let's drop general@ from this discussion so we can focus on the actual problem rather than this never ending circular thread. On Aug 27, 2012 8:56 AM, donald_harbi...@us.ibm.com wrote: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote on 08/27/2012 08:43:35 AM: From: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com To: gene...@incubator.apache.org, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org, Cc: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Date: 08/27/2012 08:44 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote On Aug 26, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: No. There is NO WAY IN HELL the org can indemnify a volunteer who produces a binary build themselves. Please don't bother asking legal-discuss to tackle this. Here's an analogy: for a long, long time Bill Rowe has taken it upon himself to create binary builds of Apache httpd for the large Windows community. Netware binary builds are also occasionally released (see http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi). These are available right from the official httpd download page and located right next to the official source code, yet they are artifacts NOT released (officially) by the ASF or the httpd PMC, but are available from a trusted source. Isn't that all the end-user cares about? And isn't that sufficient for AOO? Yes, that's what end users care about. But it's not sufficient for AOO since we are seeking alternative distribution channels. Effort to exponentially expand distribution channels require code signing. These discussions were started on legal@ with no resolution. Sorry I don't have the reference for that handy. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
On 27 August 2012 19:03, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: So - if I may be so bold. Reading email this morning my gut feeling is that there is a lot of violent agreement going on.. I agree. If everyone will just step away from their keyboards for a couple of days, then come back with a precise statement of what needs to be done over and above the current binary artefacts then we will be able to move forward. Give it a couple of days though. Let the points being made here sink in a little. Stop the gut reaction emails. It's a waste of everyone's time. Ross
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
Moving back to AOO lists These argument is a waste of everyones time. It seems to me that what is/is not permissible is clear, indeed has been clear for some time.the summary is... Patches welcome. More importantly... As for some members of the AOO PPMC implying this is all new to them because it is not documented in precise language is frankly insulting to mentors whom have worked hard to communicate release policy around binaries. Individuals arguing against those who know the ASF well, and are supported by the vast majority of community commentators (including those opting to stay silent because their points have been made), are not demonstrating their ability to work in a collaborative, constructive project environment. When creating a PMC we are looking for people who can resolve conflict, not make conflict. PMC members need to be constructive not obstructive. A failure to recognise the difference is a demonstration of a failure to understand how ASF projects work. PMC membership does not empower people to contribute to the code, it empowers them to ensure the community is healthy. The style of argumentation on this topic is, in some cases, destructive not constructive. I'm not replying to a specific mail or individual, I'm simply asking people to consider whether sending another email is constructive or destructive. Is it possible to put that time into a constructive patch instead? Ross On Aug 26, 2012 7:26 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 26.08.2012 13:15, Tim Williams wrote: Marvin gave the link earlier in this thread. 4th para is the relevant bit. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what The relevant part is in the last paragraph. However, that says convenience and defines version numbering requirements, but it does /not/ state that the binaries are not sanctioned by the ASF and are not part of the official ASF release. It would be very useful if that paragraph were amended to say so explicitly. I've had no end of trouble trying to explain to managers and customers that any binaries that come from the ASF are not official. Regardless of the policy stated numerous times in this thread and on this list, this is not clear anywhere in the bylaws or other online documentation (that I can find). -- Brane P.S.: I asked this same question on legal-discuss a week ago. My post has not even been moderated through as of today, so referring people to that list doesn't appear to be too helpful. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
Some people think, others have stayed clearly and unambiguously. Including mentors who have voted on your binary release. If the peanut gallery it's a confused then educate, don't argue. As for those demanding a policy, I repeat my original statement - patches welcome. The arguments are pointless. You want precision. You have it. It's in the thread. You we given a clear and direct response to your proposal. Don't tell me to read the thread again. I already wasted my time reading it twice. As well as time spent reviewing the AOO release. Draw out the clarity that exists then, if necessary, go to legal@ with three remainder. Continuing to argue is a waste if time. From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness On Aug 26, 2012 10:17 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: Moving back to AOO lists These argument is a waste of everyones time. It seems to me that what is/is not permissible is clear, indeed has been clear for some time.the summary is... Patches welcome. Clear to some, but obviously not clear to others on the IPMC, since some are suggesting that this podling is not in conformance with ASF policy with regard to releases. More importantly... As for some members of the AOO PPMC implying this is all new to them because it is not documented in precise language is frankly insulting to mentors whom have worked hard to communicate release policy around binaries. Ross you should read the entire thread. You'll find that some on the IPMC are suggesting that there is more to policy that what you or Joe think there is. I'm trying to figure out exactly what that delta is. If you have anything constructive to add, I'm sure it would be appreciated. It is one thing to have an unwritten policy, it is another to have vastly different interpretations of what that policy is. For something as critical as defining what a release is, since there are clearly differences of opinion, it is probably time to raise it above the level of folklore, and write it down. No one should be genuinely insulted by a request that what is claimed as ASF policy be written down, especially if someone has already volunteered to do the drafting. In any case I now count four people on the IPMC list who are suggesting that we need a written policy in this area, to remove ambiguity. Individuals arguing against those who know the ASF well, and are supported by the vast majority of community commentators (including those opting to stay silent because their points have been made), are not demonstrating their ability to work in a collaborative, constructive project environment. When creating a PMC we are looking for people who can resolve conflict, not make conflict. PMC members need to be constructive not obstructive. A failure to recognise the difference is a demonstration of a failure to understand how ASF projects work. PMC membership does not empower people to contribute to the code, it empowers them to ensure the community is healthy. IMHO it is very constructive in a disagreement to at least identify, with some precision, what it is that we are disagreeing about. Until that occurs, we're just going in circles. So far I'm the only one in that thread who has put forward a constructive proposal for this language, and asked if there was anything to add. -Rob The style of argumentation on this topic is, in some cases, destructive not constructive. I'm not replying to a specific mail or individual, I'm simply asking people to consider whether sending another email is constructive or destructive. Is it possible to put that time into a constructive patch instead? Ross On Aug 26, 2012 7:26 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 26.08.2012 13:15, Tim Williams wrote: Marvin gave the link earlier in this thread. 4th para is the relevant bit. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what The relevant part is in the last paragraph. However, that says convenience and defines version numbering requirements, but it does /not/ state that the binaries are not sanctioned by the ASF and are not part of the official ASF release. It would be very useful if that paragraph were amended to say so explicitly. I've had no end of trouble trying to explain to managers and customers that any binaries that come from the ASF are not official. Regardless of the policy stated numerous times in this thread and on this list, this is not clear anywhere in the bylaws or other online documentation (that I can find). -- Brane P.S.: I asked this same question on legal-discuss a week ago. My post has not even been moderated through as of today, so referring people to that list doesn't appear to be too helpful. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed PMC Chair nomination process
On 23 August 2012 19:49, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 23, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: I'm not comfortable having a PMC Chair election and nomination on ooo-dev. It appears the IPMC was able to do this for their own Chair. I also agree that we should form the PMC membership first. See my response to Dennis on this. There is no PMC here, only a PPMC. Or maybe think of it this way; in the end we're deciding on a graduation resolution that has three main items: a scope, a PMC and a PMC Chair. This is a single resolution. Whose votes are binding on whether to send this resolution to the IPMC? The proposed PMC you think? That would be circular. Five of us could then just nominate ourselves as the PMC, vote a Chair and send that along. IMHO, we should base this in the ASF governance, which is PPMC appointed by IPMC, created by the ASF Board, which are elected by the ASF Members. Creating a new voting body out of nothing does not seem ideal. Now I understand the confusion. The PPMC is responsible for all three of the main items. Then the IPMC is responsible. Then the Board. The Chair coming from the PMC is not the same as the PMC electing the Chair. Exactly. Don't get too caught up in whose votes are binding and whose are not. Votes are for conflict resolution not decision making. The PPMC, even though it doesn't formally have binding votes on anything is still the body that is expected to make the decisions. The formality (which is a requirement of law) will, almost without exception, follow the wishes of the PPMC in matters such as this. Really, the order of creating the PPMC, PMC roster and the resolution isn't really important. What is important is that the community unites around the final resolution. Ross
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed PMC Chair nomination process
: 1) Nominations would be open for 72 hours. Anyone can nominate someone for the role. Self-nominations are fine. And of course nominations can be declined. 2) If there is only one nomination, then we are done, provided there are no sustained objections. 3) If there is more than one nomination we discuss on the list for another 72 hours. Discussion would primarily be on ooo-dev, but some subjects might be directed to ooo-private. 4) If after 72-hours discussion there are still two or more nominees then we vote. Everyone would be welcome to vote, but binding votes would be from PPMC members. If there are more than 2 candidates we would probably need to use a more complicated voting system, or have a run-off vote if none of the nominees receive an outright majority. Any improvements or alternatives to this basic scheme? Regards, -Rob -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed PMC Chair nomination process
to do this? A strawman proposal: 1) Nominations would be open for 72 hours. Anyone can nominate someone for the role. Self-nominations are fine. And of course nominations can be declined. 2) If there is only one nomination, then we are done, provided there are no sustained objections. 3) If there is more than one nomination we discuss on the list for another 72 hours. Discussion would primarily be on ooo-dev, but some subjects might be directed to ooo-private. 4) If after 72-hours discussion there are still two or more nominees then we vote. Everyone would be welcome to vote, but binding votes would be from PPMC members. If there are more than 2 candidates we would probably need to use a more complicated voting system, or have a run-off vote if none of the nominees receive an outright majority. Any improvements or alternatives to this basic scheme? Regards, -Rob -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
I'm unable to vote either way until: A) a PMC chair has been identified by the community B) a resolution for the TLP is prepared which will define what we are voting on Note, I'm generally in favour of the proposal but I do want to be sure that the community has the resources it needs to continue to build and maintain a healthy,vibrant and inclusive community. There are some candidates for PMC chair that I can think of, but I don't know if they want the role. In a healthy community the PMC role is just taking responsibility for board reports (not necessarily writing them, just making sure they get written) and any community actions requested by the board. It shouldn't be a time consuming role, but it can become so on occasion. This query should not prevent the community expressing their opinion in the vote. I just wanted to let you know why I will be abstaining. You only need my vote when it comes to the actual graduation vote. Ross On Aug 19, 2012 4:53 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Please vote in the main [VOTE] thread, and have discussion in this thread. Thanks! -Rob
Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
Regarding finishing my duties as a mentor - yes I'll certainly help. I seem to have hit an extremely busy period that doesn't seem to be ending, but I intend to finish things off here. As I am sure other mentors are. Ross On Aug 19, 2012 10:08 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 19, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: I'm unable to vote either way until: A) a PMC chair has been identified by the community B) a resolution for the TLP is prepared which will define what we are voting on Note, I'm generally in favour of the proposal but I do want to be sure that the community has the resources it needs to continue to build and maintain a healthy,vibrant and inclusive community. There are some candidates for PMC chair that I can think of, but I don't know if they want the role. In a healthy community the PMC role is just taking responsibility for board reports (not necessarily writing them, just making sure they get written) and any community actions requested by the board. It shouldn't be a time consuming role, but it can become so on occasion. This query should not prevent the community expressing their opinion in the vote. I just wanted to let you know why I will be abstaining. You only need my vote when it comes to the actual graduation vote. I understand. BTW - There are some Mentor related status items on [1] that need action. Would you be able to take care of those items? Thanks Regards, Dave [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html Ross On Aug 19, 2012 4:53 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Please vote in the main [VOTE] thread, and have discussion in this thread. Thanks! -Rob
Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
I only wanted to indicate why I was abstaining. This need not be a concern. I could have made no comment but that might have been interpreted as an absent mentor by some. I'm happy to explain my reasons further if anything is not clear, but without understanding what part you don't understand its hard to expand on my points. Instead I'll just try and reassure you. The timeline graphic you point to is new to me. It looks really useful. You'll note that I said I will abstain until I see the resolution (including the PMC chair). You'll also note I said my abstention should not affect the community vote. I believe my position is consistent with the chart, which shows the community vote prior to the charter andthe IPMC (of which I am a member) vote after the charter. Ross On Aug 19, 2012 11:59 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I'm unable to vote either way until: A) a PMC chair has been identified by the community B) a resolution for the TLP is prepared which will define what we are voting on Those points will be addressed in the proposed Resolution we send to the IPMC. What we're having right now is the preliminary community graduation vote, which according this diagram from the IPMC's Guide to Successful Graduation occurs *before* the charter is created: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#toplevel Not that this same guide says of this community vote, It is unlikely that IPMC members will vote to approve graduation unless the Mentors and community positively express their readiness for graduation. So I am slightly concerned that you do not feel able to vote in this ballot, which merely expresses (per the graduation guidelines) our readiness for graduation. -Rob Note, I'm generally in favour of the proposal but I do want to be sure that the community has the resources it needs to continue to build and maintain a healthy,vibrant and inclusive community. There are some candidates for PMC chair that I can think of, but I don't know if they want the role. In a healthy community the PMC role is just taking responsibility for board reports (not necessarily writing them, just making sure they get written) and any community actions requested by the board. It shouldn't be a time consuming role, but it can become so on occasion. This query should not prevent the community expressing their opinion in the vote. I just wanted to let you know why I will be abstaining. You only need my vote when it comes to the actual graduation vote. Ross On Aug 19, 2012 4:53 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Please vote in the main [VOTE] thread, and have discussion in this thread. Thanks! -Rob
Some requests... ApacheCon and OpenOffice
popular. I'd then like to hear what is good about the ASF, does it bring any of the good times aspects back? Are there good aspects you'd like to bring back? I'd like to think that such a presentation would have just one slide covering the bad stuff - something that just said some things weren't so good - this led to a forking of the community - AOO is one of the outcomes from that forking and we're doing great thank you - partly because the ASF has brought us... My last request (for today at least) is for someone to run a session on setting up a dev environment for AOO. Ideally this will go from a fresh Windows install in a VM to building AOO in its entirety. Furthermore it would be best for someone else to record this session using a screen recorder and later turn it into a online resource. I hope others can take the time to post their requests here and just as importantly, some nice developers submit the sessions for us ;-) -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Branding on extensions site
Is there a reason the extensions site is using the old oo.o logo rather than the AOO one? Ross
Re: [PROPOSAL] Create a Translator Role
Please ensure this wont pose problems for infra. From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness On Jul 7, 2012 8:37 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: I'd like to propose that the project consider a special level of Committer called Translator. These individuals will need to meet the following requirements: (1) Sign an ICLA and have it on file. (2) Be sponsored by a member of the PPMC. Once a sponsor is found. (A) The Sponsor starts a VOTE thread for Translator by the PPMC on ooo-private. (B) With a successful VOTE an Apache ID is requested. The Apache ID is setup just like for a Committer except no SVN Karma is granted. The Translator would have access to pootle.a.o and people.a.o. Translators who earn merit can later be VOTEd into Committer and PPMC roles. If the project wants to do this then I'll take it up with the IPMC to see if it is an acceptable practice. Regards, Dave
Fwd: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Seems we missed a bit of process... From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness -- Forwarded message -- From: Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com Date: Jul 8, 2012 3:22 AM Subject: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence To: general-incubator gene...@incubator.apache.org The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item: 2009-02-09 kato 2009-02-13 stonehenge 2009-05-13 socialsite 2010-05-19 amber 2010-09-05 nuvem 2010-11-12 kitty 2010-11-24 stanbol 2011-06-13 openofficeorg Said checklist item is: Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. How long do we host software without explicitly stating we have these rights? Personally I think 1 year is more than enough, even for OpenOffice. Note that this list comes from https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/projects Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
I'd suggest being even more patient. In my experience people don't give answers to general queries involving legal issues. A specific question, like please can we we have CWS foo since the community wishes to integrate it is more likely to get a response. The general case, as far as we are aware, remains the same. Oracle have, so far, never refused our requests when they have been specific and actionable. Ross On Jul 4, 2012 12:22 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Jul 3, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: --- Mar 3/7/12, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com ha scritto: ... On 3 Jul 2012, at 15:29, Pedro Giffuni wrote: --- Mar 3/7/12, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com ha scritto: ... Please can we have an update on that effort to get all the CWS made available then? It seems a perfectly reasonable request, one I and others have been making here since the inception of the project and one I am not able to go negotiate personally so need to keep asking about here. What effort? Mentioned in an e-mail linked from the OP, dated June 7, 2011 - those of us inside the project have been raising this topic from very early on, as you can see. Making it easy for outside developers to meet their needs is a great way to have them begin to join in and become insiders like you. The message is at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4dee6c86.5070...@oracle.com%3E S. OK. I think that in that mail message we stands for Oracle, not for Apache, so you'd have to ask Andrew Rist with his Oracle hat. OK, thanks. Andrew, do you have an update on the outcome of your assertion We are trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in the OOo repositories (this was in the context of the CWSs) please? Please do be patient when waiting for a response, tomorrow is a holiday you may remember - US Independence Day. It's on a Wednesday and many people are taking time off this week. While the weather in most of the US is atrociously hot, it is absolutely perfect here on the Pacific Coast. Regards, Dave Cheers! S.
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Hi Bjoern, If the CWS was included in the original SGA then it is available under the AL2. If it was not included in that original SGA, you want to bring it here and the OpenOffice project want to see the work committed then Oracle will, in all likelihood, make it available to us. Therefore, I suggest the following order of execution: - determine whether the OpenOffice committers want the work - confirm that Oracle have already or will make the code available under the AL2 at our request - submit patches against AOO trunk Ross On 3 July 2012 12:17, Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com wrote: Hi all, back in my Oracle days I did some work in CWS swbookmarkfixes01 which would be convenient not having to recreate. According to: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktikvbfnr1viwqyw1+spzf68zx5g...@mail.gmail.com%3E ownership of the CWS is now at ASF. So two simple questions: - Is this (my) work in this CWS released under AL2 to the public already with this? - If not and I do the work to re-base this CWS against master, and have it checked into an Apache SVN branch will the work then be immediately available under the ALv2 license? Best, Bjoern -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache OpenOffice Conference 2012
On 27 June 2012 14:50, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Kevin Grignon kevingrignon...@gmail.comwrote: Don, I've added some content to the planning doc on the cwiki. Question: is the conference focused on opensource methods and process, or on the actual products, or both? To be honest, it is our to make it be what we envision. There are no 'rules' per se. If you have a great idea for a session, then propose it. I'm still looking for a signal on how to proceed with the CFP process. In the meantime, we are advised to plan, plan, and more plan...in other words, assume we have full control over what we want to do for now at least. A good plan will trump no plan or a lousy plan on any given day. +1 Although it may help to understand what other Apache Developers have come to expect (not that this should limit you). It's about meeting people you work with on open source projects. It's about learning how to work more effectively with them. It's about finding new people and new collaboration opportunities. It's learning other projects. it's about building community both within and beyond your projects. It's about communicating to potential contributors why they should care and how they can engage. So, as Don says, anything goes, at least at this stage of planning. Ross
[DISCUSS] Participate in another GSoC like programme
Some may recall that I kept promising the arrival of students from an EU Commission project on a GSoC style pilot in formal education. This was a very long way from successful but there was zero impact on our projects since we asked PMCs to mark GSoC level projects as mentor. This enabled us to provide a list of suitable projects for the students without PMCs needing to do additional work. I've now been approached by another EU Commission project proposal team that wants to do something similar, but this time with students doing the work as part of their assessed coursework (i.e. they have a strong motivation for doing the work). Another, big difference this time is that one of the partner organisations has ASF committers (2 of) and there are three open source savvy commercial organisations on the bid (DISCLOSURE: one of them is my little consultancy company). Given the way these proposals get written, there is a very tight deadline on this (2 days). I got a first draft of the proposal this weekend and I am now satisfied that what is being asked of associate partners is acceptable (i.e we won't be responsible for students education). However, there isn't enough time for a proper discuss then vote process. I'm therefore running these in parallel. If anyone has *any* serious concerns about rushing like this please vote -1 and I'll go back to plan B which is simply to highlight my engagement with the ASF as an individual. Note that I will not be voting given the obvious conflict of interest. However, if the funding is approved I will be taking full responsibility for all aspects of administration within the ASF (and other associate partners). Note I have also notified board@ and will cancel the vote if the board raises a concern. In terms of deliverables from the project think of GSoC where the students get credits towards their degree rather than cash (Semester of Code rather than Summer of Code). If successful the project will provide a manual for other universities wishing to offer such real world experience to their students. Our PMCs will choose to offer mentors based on the quality of student applications - if there are no students that look interesting we have no further commitments. Here is the text of the letter of intent I propose to sign if the ComDev PMC approves: start copied text --- The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) provides support for the Apache community of open-source software projects. That community provide software products for the public good. The ASF is made up of over 100 top level projects that cover a wide range of technologies. Chances are that if anyone is looking for a rewarding experience in Open Source, you are going to find it here. The Apache projects are defined by collaborative consensus based processes, an open, pragmatic software license and a desire to create high quality software that leads the way in its field. We are recognized as one of the most influential software organisations of our time and are often seen as the gold standard of open source software development. We have participated in the Google Summer of Code programme since its inception and continue to mentor around 40 students per year. We have had great success with this programme with some of our earliest students still working with us. The OSKA project has the potential to extend the benefits of the Google Summer of Code programme into formal education whilst still allowing our communities to work alongside students in real world open source projects. As a voluntary organisation we cannot guarantee that students will succeed, but we can provide an environment in which any sufficiently able student will find our projects supportive and educational. We look forward to extending our Google Summer of Code efforts to support the OSKA trial. -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Participate in another GSoC like programme
My apologies, I sent this to the wrong list (damned autocomplete) please ignore (or pick it up on d...@community.apache.org if you are interested) On 25 June 2012 13:15, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: Some may recall that I kept promising the arrival of students from an EU Commission project on a GSoC style pilot in formal education. This was a very long way from successful but there was zero impact on our projects since we asked PMCs to mark GSoC level projects as mentor. This enabled us to provide a list of suitable projects for the students without PMCs needing to do additional work. I've now been approached by another EU Commission project proposal team that wants to do something similar, but this time with students doing the work as part of their assessed coursework (i.e. they have a strong motivation for doing the work). Another, big difference this time is that one of the partner organisations has ASF committers (2 of) and there are three open source savvy commercial organisations on the bid (DISCLOSURE: one of them is my little consultancy company). Given the way these proposals get written, there is a very tight deadline on this (2 days). I got a first draft of the proposal this weekend and I am now satisfied that what is being asked of associate partners is acceptable (i.e we won't be responsible for students education). However, there isn't enough time for a proper discuss then vote process. I'm therefore running these in parallel. If anyone has *any* serious concerns about rushing like this please vote -1 and I'll go back to plan B which is simply to highlight my engagement with the ASF as an individual. Note that I will not be voting given the obvious conflict of interest. However, if the funding is approved I will be taking full responsibility for all aspects of administration within the ASF (and other associate partners). Note I have also notified board@ and will cancel the vote if the board raises a concern. In terms of deliverables from the project think of GSoC where the students get credits towards their degree rather than cash (Semester of Code rather than Summer of Code). If successful the project will provide a manual for other universities wishing to offer such real world experience to their students. Our PMCs will choose to offer mentors based on the quality of student applications - if there are no students that look interesting we have no further commitments. Here is the text of the letter of intent I propose to sign if the ComDev PMC approves: start copied text --- The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) provides support for the Apache community of open-source software projects. That community provide software products for the public good. The ASF is made up of over 100 top level projects that cover a wide range of technologies. Chances are that if anyone is looking for a rewarding experience in Open Source, you are going to find it here. The Apache projects are defined by collaborative consensus based processes, an open, pragmatic software license and a desire to create high quality software that leads the way in its field. We are recognized as one of the most influential software organisations of our time and are often seen as the gold standard of open source software development. We have participated in the Google Summer of Code programme since its inception and continue to mentor around 40 students per year. We have had great success with this programme with some of our earliest students still working with us. The OSKA project has the potential to extend the benefits of the Google Summer of Code programme into formal education whilst still allowing our communities to work alongside students in real world open source projects. As a voluntary organisation we cannot guarantee that students will succeed, but we can provide an environment in which any sufficiently able student will find our projects supportive and educational. We look forward to extending our Google Summer of Code efforts to support the OSKA trial. -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
[VOTE] Participate in another GSoC like project
This is an unusual vote in that it is running in parallel to the DISCUSS thread as a result of external time restraints. It is also unusual in that I am not likely to be able to leave it running for a full 72 hours for the same reason (minimum 36 hours, will push as late as I can). For this reason please feel free to vote -1 if you feel this is insufficient time to properly evaluate (I've even provided this as a vote option) Please see the parallel DISCUSS thread before voting (in particular note the DISCLOSURE there which means I have a conflict of interest in this vote and thus will not be voting). [ ] +1 Agree to sign a non-binding letter of intent to participate in a GSoC like pilot project as described in this votes DISCUSS thread [ ] -1 Do not participate in the OSKA pilot project due to limited time for appropriate consensus building [ ] -1 Do not sign because ... -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: [VOTE] Participate in another GSoC like project
Again - sorry - wrong list - not sure what is going on this mornig (see d...@community.apache.org if you want to vote) On 25 June 2012 13:30, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: This is an unusual vote in that it is running in parallel to the DISCUSS thread as a result of external time restraints. It is also unusual in that I am not likely to be able to leave it running for a full 72 hours for the same reason (minimum 36 hours, will push as late as I can). For this reason please feel free to vote -1 if you feel this is insufficient time to properly evaluate (I've even provided this as a vote option) Please see the parallel DISCUSS thread before voting (in particular note the DISCLOSURE there which means I have a conflict of interest in this vote and thus will not be voting). [ ] +1 Agree to sign a non-binding letter of intent to participate in a GSoC like pilot project as described in this votes DISCUSS thread [ ] -1 Do not participate in the OSKA pilot project due to limited time for appropriate consensus building [ ] -1 Do not sign because ... -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Must use the incubating qualifier
It has been pointed out on the general list that AOO is not always using the incubating qualifier. For example recent blog posts don't include it. Let's not forget it please. Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
Re: Must use the incubating qualifier
The way to deal with these things is acknowledge the need to use the qualifier. Where there is a reasonable argument (blog titles on the ASF home page for example) undertake to improve things and move on. These things come up occasionally when an interested IPMC member does a review and sees things the rest of us missed. I brought it here in the hope of preventing an IPMC mega-thread. Acknowledge it there, deal with it here. If it helps, I'm not worried about the logo thing, but that might be just me. Ross On Saturday, 23 June 2012, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamiltondennis.hamil...@acm.org @ dennis.hamil...@acm.orgacm.org dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I think it would be good and wait until the original reporter identifies what the specific infraction is and what its cure is. One part of the complaint is how AOOi is mentioned in tweets by @TheASF. Those are not, as far as I am aware, anything under our control whatsoever. I would not dispense with full atom feeds. Having (incubating) used at the beginning of a post, even with a link to what that entails, could be useful. Whether it needs to be in the title or not remains to be seen. Of course, whatever the practice is asserted to be, it will need to be honored by all incubating projects, of course. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir robw...@apache.org@ robw...@apache.org apache.org robw...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 08:40 To: ooo-dev@ ooo-dev@incubator.apache.orgincubator.apache.orgooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Must use the incubating qualifier On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:53 AM, drew jensen drewjensen.inboxdrewjensen.in...@gmail.com @ drewjensen.in...@gmail.comgmail.com drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 09:51 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, drew drew@ d...@baseanswers.com baseanswers.com d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 08:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Rob Weir robweirrobw...@apache.org @ robw...@apache.orgapache.org robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Ross Gardler rgardler rgard...@opendirective.com@rgard...@opendirective.com opendirective.com rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: It has been pointed out on the general list that AOO is not always using the incubating qualifier. For example recent blog posts don't include it. It is right there, first thing on the page, in a very large font, for every blog post: Apache OpenOffice (incubating) E.g, : https://https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache blogs.apache.orghttps://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache /OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apachehttps://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache Note the title of the page says Apache OpenOffice (incubating). Ditto for the largest (and first) header on the page. Looking at the general list, it sounds like NIck's issue was that blog aggregators, such as used by Apache for generating content on the home page are not picking up on this. Hi, Maybe, I just read the incubator list also I think Nick is saying that _any_ time the phrase Apache OpenOffice is used it must have the word incubating included, not just in the title. But that's not the policy. The policy is that it must be called out as incubating at first mention in the document. That's what I thought also - I'm saying how it reads to me, that's all. Maybe the key is to realize that when we publish a blog post, we publish two things: 1) A web page, which does IMHO have the correct incubation notices on it. 2) An Atom feed that will be used by websites and services outside of our immediate control, and which will not bring along the full page context from the blog. On the second one, I think the remedy might be get the incubation notice into the post (entry) titles. It may be possible to do this automatically (per my previous post), but it could be done manually as well. -Rob -Rob //drew snip
Re: [EVENT] OSCON?
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Jun 22, 2012 10:16 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts lui...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On 2012-06-21, at 10:56 , Donald Harbison wrote: Is anyone planning on attending OSCON 2012 in Portland Oregon, July 16 - 20? http://www.oscon.com/oscon2012 It'd be great to know if the project will have any representation there. I'll be there, too, but was not planning on presenting on AOO directly. I'm also to be at the pre-conference unconference Community Leadership Summit. One thing that Oscon does make possible is Birds of a Feather (BoF). Also, meet ups. Usually, these are only of interest for coders. That is to say, if I were to convene one, I'm sure everyone who would otherwise be intrigued would find something else more convenient to do. At least wrt coding. Note there will be some ASF hackathon space on Mon and Tues. Wrt to, say, the new AOO and what it spells for OO, there might be a some interest, but what would be gained, really? On the other hand, I (or Ross, I guess) could arrange for some AOO-focused media interviews. Those are useful. If so, I'd ask to have a few things to relay to the media. These could be mentioned on the blog. I won't be doing any media stuff around AOO. Happy to help out if the PPMC wants me to do so, but I have no plans to lead anything. Ross -louis
Re: [EVENT] OSCON?
I'll be there, but not planning to represent the AOO project. Of course if there is anything I can do while there... From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness On Jun 21, 2012 3:57 PM, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone planning on attending OSCON 2012 in Portland Oregon, July 16 - 20? http://www.oscon.com/oscon2012 It'd be great to know if the project will have any representation there.
Re: Tutorial: How to Use the Apache CMS Web Interface
I'd suggest this is the kind of thing that would fit really well with the proposed conference. We have hackspaces and this is an ideal way to get newbies contributing to the project quickly and easily. Anyone want to coordinate something like this? Ross On 20 June 2012 15:07, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: On 6/15/12 3:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote: My first attempt making a video with Camtasia. Hopefully this will be useful to someone starting to use the CMS for the first time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcDZN3Lu6HA well done, I love short video tutorials ;-) with a good fresh coffee at hand. Maybe you can share some more experience how you create it, what steps are necessary to trim the video etc. This was done with a 30-day trial version of Camtasia Studio: http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia.html It works like a screen capture tool: You define what area of the screen you want to record, what audio device to capture, etc. After recording it has a simple editor to insert titles, transitions, remove unnecessary pauses, etc. Finally, it takes the project, encodes it as WMV and automatically uploads it to YouTube. There is a lot more depth to the Camtasia features -- I only scratched the surface -- but you can get a lot done with just the basic features. Other than that, the idea is the same as any tutorial, whether given live, printed, video, podcast, whatever. Have a clear idea of what you want the user to take away, and break it down into clear steps. I can think of many more such short video tutorials describing features in the office. For example many users don't know the concept of styles. So how about a short video explaining style and to create and use one. Or edit/change an existing one... Another idea would be a set of short videos examining each of the new features in AOO 3.4. Many many short videos of the same style, means common intro page pointing to our project + content video + common finish with further info regarding the project or something like that. Maybe also a common place on Youtube for these. Right now the videos are just in my personal account. But it would be better, think, if we had an AOO-branded account where such things could live. This would make it easier for the users to find. Or maybe the way to do this is via common tagging? It's perfect promotion for our project in several ways. We provide useful tutorials that help our users, we show how easy it can be to join the project and do something useful, we do some good marketing for our project in general... Juergen -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: [Spi-private] OpenOffice funds
This is in hand. See the mail I sent last night to SPI (copied to the ooo-private@ and treasurer@ list as replies may contain financial information). Ross On 20 June 2012 15:46, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Wolf Halton wolf.hal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Wolf Halton wolf.hal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:05 PM, MJ Ray m...@debian.org wrote: Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com I'm jumping in and speaking as a mentor of AOO and ASF VP of Community Development. Thanks - and just to be clear, I'm only speaking as an ordinary contributing member of SPI, who felt a responsibility to ask what I felt were obvious questions. So, I can't see any of these emails: [...] For more information on this please see the mail sent by Wolf Halton to treasu...@spi-inc.org on 19 March 2012 (subject monies collected for OpenOffice.org) and copied to bo...@spi-inc.org by Michael Schultheiss on the same day. [...] as - for reasons which I think I know and agree with - those mailboxes are not visible to all members. Thanks for quoting parts of it, but it's enough to learn that assurances have been sent. I trust the board to judge whether they feel that they are sufficient to ensure that SPI-held funds are used honestly, as described at the time they were raised. Thanks also for explaining the absence from the projects listing. (I am, of course, saddened to see an association-supported project now apparently forked into two(?) foundation-supported projects, because open and voluntary membership and equality are important to me, but I'm just odd like that.) Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ Thanks for getting the funds released. Wolf, have the funds been received by Fundraising@ ? I was under the impression that they have not been. This will be helpful to know as we focus on how to plan the OpenOffice track within the ApacheCon Europe for November. Wolf -- This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org Don, Louis has been leading the charge here for a little while and I have fallen out of the loop a bit. Louis, are you working this to conclusion with Michael @SPI? I recommend we close this out asap if there are no further outstanding issues, which I don't think there are, other than to link Fundraising@ with Michael to conclude the transaction. See Sam's note following for a suggestion on the next step in this regard. Wolf -- This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com Open-Source Software in Libraries - http://FOSS4Lib.org Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org Apache Open Office Developer wolfhal...@apache.org -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: *DRAFT FINAL* June board report
I'm a little concerned about this idea of AOO being somehow different from other Apache projects. Its not, its just software. In Apache projects everyone is equal. If someone earns merit they earn merit, it makes no difference how that merit is earned. The issue here should not be a different class of contributor it should be how to facilitate a different type of contribution and thus bootstrap their involvement in the project. Please don't create an artificial layer of hierarchy in order to do that. Hierarchy in an open development project is bad. Note we have a VP who has never written a line of code in their life. As far as I'm aware they have never written a translation string or any documentation. Despite this there was no need to create a new class of community member to bring them into the ASF. I propose the problem is in the workflow not in the structure of ASF projects. If that is the case then we need to examine why non-committer translators are unable to contribute efficiently. Find out why our default policies say they need to be committees and address that issue. For example, are contributions to Pootle any different to patches sent via JIR# from an IP point of view? If not then there is no need for an ICLA but there is a need for an audit trail. Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Jun 7, 2012 11:30 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr h...@apache.org wrote: ... I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with pootle currently requires committership, which results in translators having having to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The board needs to decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or not and what the alternatives are. No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project to define its own expectations of committers. it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where new users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined with an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer. But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all. Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that we can reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with them on a fast-track. I agree that the limitation suboptimal. I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel able to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle then infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution. I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate action to address things like that ;-) Careful with the I - madness lies that way ;-) This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding. It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to proceed I'm sure others will help guide you. I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-) Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term Apache contributor where users can register for an user account by accepting that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be by email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have to be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc. The contributor role at Apache already handles this. A contributor can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki, contribute documentation, etc. What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in SVN. So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including translations. I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for contributors to add translations to Pootle. I can see the justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle. But the anonymous part of this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal standpoint. For example, those who
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
My question is is it necessary. See my overlapping post. Essentially, why is it perceived that an iCLA is needed for initial contributions via Pootle. Aren't they roughly equivalent to patches via bugzilla? Shouldn't we be working on the workflow to ensure contribution is as easy as possible? Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Jun 8, 2012 12:08 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: +1 on this discussion so far. I was skeptical but I favor how this is going. Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no. - Dennis PS: Changing to the [DISCUSS] that is called for and to have it be visible. -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 09:41 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: *DRAFT FINAL* June board report On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr h...@apache.org wrote: ... I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with pootle currently requires committership, which results in translators having having to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The board needs to decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or not and what the alternatives are. No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project to define its own expectations of committers. it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where new users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined with an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer. But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all. Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that we can reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with them on a fast-track. I agree that the limitation suboptimal. I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel able to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle then infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution. I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate action to address things like that ;-) Careful with the I - madness lies that way ;-) This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding. It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to proceed I'm sure others will help guide you. I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-) Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term Apache contributor where users can register for an user account by accepting that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be by email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have to be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc. The contributor role at Apache already handles this. A contributor can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki, contribute documentation, etc. What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in SVN. So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including translations. I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for contributors to add translations to Pootle. I can see the justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle. But the anonymous part of this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal standpoint. For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their contributions marked as being from nobody in the UI: https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/ Isn't that rather insulting? [reposted since I didn't see this topic change] yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special submission access if you will be granted to the Pootle server. As in we would like to be able to allow people with an iCLA on file to register for access to the pootle server. We can call these people invited translators Should we add
Re: *DRAFT FINAL* June board report
On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr h...@apache.org wrote: ... I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with pootle currently requires committership, which results in translators having having to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The board needs to decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or not and what the alternatives are. No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project to define its own expectations of committers. Thanks for highlighting it. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: *DRAFT FINAL* June board report
On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr h...@apache.org wrote: ... I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with pootle currently requires committership, which results in translators having having to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The board needs to decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or not and what the alternatives are. No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project to define its own expectations of committers. it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where new users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined with an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer. But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all. Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that we can reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with them on a fast-track. I agree that the limitation suboptimal. I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel able to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle then infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution. I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate action to address things like that ;-) Careful with the I - madness lies that way ;-) This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding. It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to proceed I'm sure others will help guide you. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Tolerance and acceptance
I move that there is no need to continue to fuel the fires of AOO vs LO. The PPMC is now effective at ignoring anti-AOO materials on our own lists. I suggest the PPMC should further silence inflammatory posts that are anti-LO on our lists. For example, a recent post on ooo-users said: The LO guys should have thought about that before forking OpenOffice following Novell's siren's call. (remember the first major fork of OpenOffice was Novell's Go-OO which incorporated the MS OOXML support). In fact, it was their actions that killed the commercial prospects of StarOffice, which Oracle had renamed Oracle Open Office (without the .org). I suggest that the ooo-users list is not the place for these kinds of opinions, regardless of their validity. This is especially true when they are made in response to a positive comment, which was The main goal has always been to create the best Office suite possible - so let's unite around that. Our communities need to be welcoming. There is no chance of creating unity if disunity is the response. I'm not suggesting this be tackled onlist, that can be counter-productive too. I'm merely highlighting it and encouraging individuals on the PPMC who agree with me to consider sending a polite but firm request to stay focused on helping users on the ooo-users list. Ross
Re: Tolerance and acceptance
On 6 June 2012 12:24, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I suggest that the ooo-users list is not the place for these kinds of opinions, regardless of their validity. Thank you to the kind soul who pointed out how easy it is to offend in these sensitive matters. The above should have said regardless of their validity or otherwise ;-) Ross
Re: Tolerance and acceptance
On 6 June 2012 13:06, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: I move that there is no need to continue to fuel the fires of AOO vs LO. The PPMC is now effective at ignoring anti-AOO materials on our own lists. I suggest the PPMC should further silence inflammatory posts that are anti-LO on our lists. And what about negative posts about AOO? Shoul we silence those? I hope not. Negative posts from users (within some bounds of decorum) is valuable feedback to the project. I think we should value frank discourse about the product and where it falls short. I think it is pretty clear that I'm not talking about valuable discussion. I'm talking about unnecessary inflammatory remarks which contribute nothing or, worse, are detrimental. Project members, on the other hand, should lead by example, and focus on constructive comments. +1 So although I agree with your sentiment here, I think we need to be very careful when considering silencing inflammatory posts in general, since a ham fisted approach would also silence criticism of AOO, which is valuable to receive. OK, my initial language makes it sound like I'm saying that we should tell people to shut up. That was a poor choice of words on my part. Instead why lets focus on the actual action I'm advocating: I'm not suggesting this be tackled onlist, that can be counter-productive too. I'm merely highlighting it and encouraging individuals on the PPMC who agree with me to consider sending a polite but firm request to stay focused on helping users on the ooo-users list. Ross -Rob For example, a recent post on ooo-users said: The LO guys should have thought about that before forking OpenOffice following Novell's siren's call. (remember the first major fork of OpenOffice was Novell's Go-OO which incorporated the MS OOXML support). In fact, it was their actions that killed the commercial prospects of StarOffice, which Oracle had renamed Oracle Open Office (without the .org). I suggest that the ooo-users list is not the place for these kinds of opinions, regardless of their validity. This is especially true when they are made in response to a positive comment, which was The main goal has always been to create the best Office suite possible - so let's unite around that. Our communities need to be welcoming. There is no chance of creating unity if disunity is the response. I'm not suggesting this be tackled onlist, that can be counter-productive too. I'm merely highlighting it and encouraging individuals on the PPMC who agree with me to consider sending a polite but firm request to stay focused on helping users on the ooo-users list. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: *DRAFT* June board report...please help
Yes, I agree the funding thing is confusing. It is a situation that the ASF is not set up to manage, and one that probably won't happen again. That being said, someone in the PPMC needs to own these things. I'm aware of their status, so it is possible, but it would seem nobody else is tracking each step as things gradually move forwards. Of course, we are all volunteers here, I'm not blaming anyone just highlighting some of the problems a volunteer organisation needs to address. Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Jun 6, 2012 6:16 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/05/2012 11:35 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Kay Schenk wrote: - We released Apache OpenOffice 3.4 on May 8, 2012. This release included: Five different client platform install versions in 15 languages Six plus source: Windows, Mac, Linux 32-bit RPM, Linux 32-bit DEB, Linux 64-bit RPM, Linux 64-bit DEB. Thanks Andrea -- apparently my eyes are failing me! :( Regards, Andrea. -- --**--** MzK Everything will be all right in the end... if it's not all right then it's not the end. -- Sonny, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
Re: *DRAFT* June board report...please help
On 5 June 2012 21:34, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: * Issues for IPMC or ASF Board Awareness * - None What about the possibility of leaks and the damage this might do to the community? You may have omitted it because you feel it is being handled OK and that there is nothing really to report at this stage. If that is the case then I would say that. The goal here is to give a heads up to the IPMC/Board that there is a serious issue and that it is being dealt with internally. If it is not resolved to the communities satisfaction and escalation is the first the IPMC/Board hear of this that will be considered bad form. You may also have omitted it because you are aware the IPMC and Board are already informed. This is true, but the board report is an opportunity for those who are not satisfied with progress to raise further issues and, if they so wish, escalate. I therefore try and include all items that cause significant tension. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for the board to ask a PMC chair to provide more information if something like this is not included in a report (a board member will often scan lists during review). They don't want to have to do detective work but if it looks like an issue is being ignored they will seek clarification. Note, the board reports are public so be sparing with details. The IPMC/Board has access to the private archives if they want details. From my last update to this list I think you could say: Possible leaks of information from the ooo-private email list are being investigated. Our first objective is to first establish if and how leaks occurred. Once full details are available we will be working to address the issue directly. No action is currently required from the board and an update will be provided, at the latest, in our next report. - We have improved to act more as a self organized project to address and solve project related topics (eg. budget transfer from SPI, forum moderation). There is certainly improvement but still the SPI issue is not resolved, calling that out explicitly makes me thing the PPMC is unaware of activity on this issue. This is falling between the cracks, partly because a change in VP fundraising resulted in a further delay after the issue seemed to be resolved on the SPI side. However, the item was raised at the last board meeting and everything should now be cleared up. I have it on my todo list to close this off, but that would not be the PPMC being self-managing and nobody here has asked me what needs to be done still (if someone could pick this up I'd be grateful, just mail fundrais...@apache.org and ask if we are clear to have SPI transfer funds). You probably also want to mention that the PPMC is starting to plan for graduation. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: *DRAFT* June board report...please help
On 6 June 2012 00:14, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote: ... You probably also want to mention that the PPMC is starting to plan for graduation. Well I did mention that we were in the discussion stage on this, but I can be more explicit. I missed it, not sure if that was my rush to give you feedback or whether it needs to be more explicit - your call on that one. Oh, and I forgot to say thank you for picking this up. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: *DRAFT* June board report...please help
On 6 June 2012 01:20, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote: On 6 June 2012 00:14, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: OK, here is the latest revision--and guess what, after some digging, I found the SPI deal is done! YAY! Hold up... http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.ooo.devel/16846 Sorry to disappoint. The cheque mentioned in that post was cancelled due to the change in chair of Fundraising and further questions being asked here in the ASF. See http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.ooo.devel/16845/match=schultheiss Unfortunately my note about further questions overlapped with the cheque notification otherwise I would have kept my mouth shut and returned the money if approval had not been given. Sometimes email and a rotating planet work against us... Ross Ross Ross
Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the graduation process)
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 31, 2012 5:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: Hi Jürgen; Let me clarify some issues too ... On 05/31/12 10:39, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: ... ... 6. we agreed to upstream changes to external libs where possible and necessary. And we agreed to improve the workflow to use the tar-balls from their original source where possible over time and where we can rely on the overall availability (e.g. dependencies to Apache libs, etc.) Yes. Most of them are just uninteresting upstream. This is the part that really bothers me. There is a world of difference between providing unmodified cat-b sources and providing modified cat-b sources. The ASF only releases software under the ALv2. If any of these cat-b sources have modifications they cannot, IMHO, be managed by the ASF unless specific approval for an exception to policy is sought. If there are no modifications the position is much less clear, but still needs examination. I admit this is very clear. I don't expect such development to be a requirement for graduation but the transitory situation of a source release that depends on carrying category-B tarballs in SVN now is not really acceptable. I do expect this to be sorted out before graduation. That might be as simple as getting clarity on the policy, it might be more than that. However, as a mentor I am uncertain about the practice adopted here and as such will not encourage the IPMC to vote for graduation until someone in the PPMC gets clarity. As a mentor I'm not going to do it. I've been asked to stop doing stuff for the community and let it manage its own afairs, and I'm happy to do so. Ross
Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the graduation process)
On 1 June 2012 09:50, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: On 6/1/12 9:47 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 31, 2012 5:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: ... I admit this is very clear. I don't expect such development to be a requirement for graduation but the transitory situation of a source release that depends on carrying category-B tarballs in SVN now is not really acceptable. I do expect this to be sorted out before graduation. it is addressed already That might be as simple as getting clarity on the policy, it might be more than that. However, as a mentor I am uncertain about the practice adopted here and as such will not encourage the IPMC to vote for graduation until someone in the PPMC gets clarity. what do you expect? Someone needs to take out all the rhetoric and abstract concepts. Pick any one of the cat-b cases and describe *exactly* how it is addressed in that case and *exactly* how this conforms to documented ASF policies. Once we have clarity on the first case we can ask whether any of the other cases are different and then examine those. Should we remove all this dependencies and make AOO more or less unusable or better uninteresting for real usage? I am making no comment on what the technical solution is. I want to see consensus. Consensus cannot be gained by shouting at one another about vague examples. I want concrete examples on a case by case basis until nobody is objecting or until the issues can be clearly communicated to either the IPMC or legal@ so that a clarification of ASF policy can be made. Anyway I think we tried everything to address this and we still work on improvements step by step. If that is not enough for graduation I would feel very unsatisfied. It is, and always has been, a condition of graduation that the IP situation in the project conforms to ASF policies. There is a question about these tarballs and it must be resolved before graduation. Ross
Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the graduation process)
Just bringing this item back to the top. Nobody has linked to a policy
that allows this or disallows it yet. However, Pedro has indicated he
doesn't object to this specific case.
Can we consider this one done? If so that is good progress (thank you
Jurgen for making consensus possible on one specific case).
Lets move onto the next one. Pedro raised a concern about a specific
case and, if I'm following right there isn't consenus on that one (I
wouldn't be surprised if I'm not following right since I'm tired of
reading the arguments that go round in circles and stopped as soon as
it descended again into non-specific cases).
Can we have an equally detailed and clear description about the case
Pedro highlights? We only need the facts about the problem being
solved and the current solution, not the arguments for/against. Pedro,
I suggest it's your turn since Jurgen started the ball rolling, Rob
can be up next (sorry to sound like a school teacher, please think of
me as a conductor not a school teacher - I'm not trying to patronise,
it's just it's very late here and I still have a client deliverable
that AOO has stood in the way of for the last two days).
Once we have the facts laid out nice and cleanly lets seek pointers to
policy that allows or disallows the solution in place. If pointers are
not possible lets take the specific case to the IPMC for
clarification.
Ross
On 1 June 2012 11:09, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi,
sorry for top posting but I followed Ross advice and will give a
concrete example.
Hunspell - MPL + LGPL
- we use currently version 1.2.9 and compile the source in our build env
on demand when the correct configure switch is used
- we apply 4 or in case of mingw 5 patch files (depends on the mechanism
that is used in our build env generally for this kind of things)
3 of these patch files contains minor changes used/necessary for our
build env.
For example hunspell-solaris.patch:
###
--- misc/hunspell-1.2.9.orig/src/tools/hunspell.cxx 2010-02-27
23:42:05.0 +
+++ misc/build/hunspell-1.2.9/src/tools/hunspell.cxx 2010-02-27
23:43:02.0 +
@@ -10,6 +10,9 @@
#include hunspell.hxx
#include csutil.hxx
+// switch off iconv support for tests (fixing Solaris problems)
+#undef HAVE_ICONV
+
#ifndef HUNSPELL_EXTRA
#define suggest_auto suggest
#endif
###
One patch apply a back port patch for an important issue that is fixed
in a newer version. Don't ask me why we haven't upgraded the version
already. But that is as I mentioned before on our plan.
hunspell-stackmash.patch
###
--- misc/hunspell-1.2.9/src/hunspell/hunspell.cxx 2010-03-04
10:25:06.0 +
+++ misc/build/hunspell-1.2.9/src/hunspell/hunspell.cxx 2010-03-04
10:25:38.0 +
@@ -1665,7 +1665,7 @@
if (!q2) return 0; // bad XML input
if (check_xml_par(q, type=, analyze)) {
int n = 0, s = 0;
- if (get_xml_par(cw, strchr(q2, ''), MAXWORDUTF8LEN)) n =
analyze(slst, cw);
+ if (get_xml_par(cw, strchr(q2, ''), MAXWORDUTF8LEN - 1)) n =
analyze(slst, cw);
if (n == 0) return 0;
// convert the result to codeaana1/aaana2/a/code format
for (int i = 0; i n; i++) s+= strlen((*slst)[i]);
@@ -1686,13 +1686,13 @@
(*slst)[0] = r;
return 1;
} else if (check_xml_par(q, type=, stem)) {
- if (get_xml_par(cw, strchr(q2, ''), MAXWORDUTF8LEN)) return
stem(slst, cw);
+ if (get_xml_par(cw, strchr(q2, ''), MAXWORDUTF8LEN - 1)) return
stem(slst, cw);
} else if (check_xml_par(q, type=, generate)) {
- int n = get_xml_par(cw, strchr(q2, ''), MAXWORDUTF8LEN);
+ int n = get_xml_par(cw, strchr(q2, ''), MAXWORDUTF8LEN - 1);
if (n == 0) return 0;
char * q3 = strstr(q2 + 1, word);
if (q3) {
- if (get_xml_par(cw2, strchr(q3, ''), MAXWORDUTF8LEN)) {
+ if (get_xml_par(cw2, strchr(q3, ''), MAXWORDUTF8LEN - 1)) {
return generate(slst, cw, cw2);
}
} else {
###
This fix is fixed upstream in version 1.2.11, see
http://hunspell.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/hunspell/hunspell/src/hunspell/hunspell.cxx?r1=1.8r2=1.9
That means with our further ongoing improvements in this area we get rid
of this patch and have only minor patches for our build env.
Building these libs on demand in our build env is for convenience.
Otherwise we would have to put them somewhere else, have to duplicate
the build env or would need to build them with our build env and use the
binary libraries from there. That would mean a further huge burden to
make the development for AOO more complicate.
I hope this helps
Juergen
On 6/1/12 11:07 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 1 June 2012 09:50, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 6/1/12 9:47 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On May 31, 2012 5:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
...
I admit this is very
Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the graduation process)
On 31 May 2012 12:54, Andre Fischer a...@a-w-f.de wrote: On 31.05.2012 03:45, Pedro Giffuni wrote: --- Mer 30/5/12, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org ha scritto: ... You mean source distribution (tarballs) don't build on their own and depend on what we carry in SVN? Sounds like something is wrong. It will still build but without the tar-balls there will be missing features. And I think that missing features are much harder to explain to end users than a clean license status. (NOTE: I am neither making nor implying judgement on the dispute here about category-b licenses, I'm just making some general observations) ASF projects release source artifacts for downstream users, not binaries for end users. Yes, many projects, such as AOO, choose to provide a service whereby binaries are released. Those binaries must conform to the ASF licensing policies and, in the case of category-b licensed libraries, we have more room for maneuver since distribution is in binary form. The AOO3.4 binary release was audited and deemed conformant. I don't think anyone is questioning this so lets leave binaries and end-user needs out of the discussion. The complexity arises when the project deems it necessary to maintain category-b licensed source code independently of the originating project. Most ASF projects do not concern themselves with these complexities because either: a) they are implemented in a cross platform language, b) they do not release binaries for multiple platforms (although they may provide links to third-party binary builds, e.g. Subversion) c) they only use libraries that are available on the platforms needed, working with the upstream projects where necessary (there may be other approaches in projects I'm not familiar with). Option a) is not possible here, so option b) or c) are the only ones needing consideration (other than asking for legal@ or IPMC guidance on alternatives). As a mentor I want this resolved before graduation can progress. It might turn out that the current solution is acceptable to legal@, it might turn out that it is not. I don't really care as long as we are clear that the AOO approach to managing its dependencies is acceptable from an ASF policy perspective. At the time of writing the only thing I am certain of is that I, and at least two other mentors, have expressed a desire to see this issue resolved. Ross
Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the graduation process
On 28 May 2012 19:10, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I'd like to start the graduation process, with the aim of being a TLP in time for the 3.4.1 release. Speaking as a mentor... I want to see clarity on the category-b issue. I've commented elsewhere and hope to see progress there. Since so many people here are convinced that the current solution is OK then why doesn't someone do exactly as Rob suggests later in this thread and get a clarification of the policy? It would take far less time than arguing about it. This is the only blocker I see for graduation at this time. There is one particularly nasty job left to do - decide who will be in the PMC upon graduation and who will not. In the past I have volunteered to do this. I will compile a list of people I recommend should be a part of the PPMC and will post this for consideration. I will not take kindly to anyone contacting me offlist to make a case for or against any individuals, so please don't bother. Wait until I post the list here. Ross The IPMC has a Guide to Successful Graduation page with a lot of detail and advice: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html The calendar here is especially useful: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#toplevel It shows 4 steps: 1) a vote on ooo-dev (a community vote) on whether we want to graduate now 2) a discussion on ooo-dev leading to the draft of a charter for the new TLP 3) an IPMC vote on whether or not to recommend the podling for graduation 4) a vote by the ASF Board on a resolution creating the new TLP This thread is just a proposal. It is not the actual vote called for in #1 above. But I'd like to gauge current sentiment. Are we all +1 for going ahead? If not, please list what pre-graduation tasks you believe need to be done first. Thanks! -Rob -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
What is a PMC Chair?
Since discussion has turned to graduation I'd like to invite people to consider who they would like to have as PMC chair. The first part of this is understanding what the role of a PMC chair is. First and foremost the position of chair does not bring any additional authority over the project, at least not in normal circumstances. It is true that in the event of a deadlock the chair has a casting vote, however I have never seen this happen. In reality the chair is just the same as any other PMC member except that they are expected to do a certain amount of paperwork for the PMC and, more importantly, they are a community facilitator. You can find a full description of the responsibilities at [1]. In summary they are: - Subscribe to and monitor board@ (and board meeting minutes) and infrastructure@ at lists, ensuring the community takes any necessary actions - Submit quarterly reports - Maintain PMC membership records - Ensure everyones voice is heard Before calling for nominations (and people can self-nominate if they so desire) I would like to take a few days to allow people to ask any questions about the role and the type of individual that is best suited to be a chair. Ross [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the graduation process
On 31 May 2012 15:01, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: On 28 May 2012 19:10, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: There is one particularly nasty job left to do - decide who will be in the PMC upon graduation and who will not. In the past I have volunteered to do this. I will compile a list of people I recommend should be a part of the PPMC and will post this for consideration. I will not take kindly to anyone contacting me offlist to make a case for or against any individuals, so please don't bother. Wait until I post the list here. It is good to have someone neutral do this, so thanks. Yes, that's what I figured, and why I am volunteering myself. . I assume you will take care to look at contributions as recorded in SVN commits, but also forums, translations, Bugzilla, and other areas. I will do my best to consider all forms of contribution through official community channels. However, I am not infallible. My initial list will be an opportunity to explore and validate my process. It will not be the final list, that will be drawn up after the PPMC have an opportunity to feed back. Note, it is *not* my intention to make any kind of quality assessment of peoples contributions. I'm only interested in whether people are sufficiently *active* to warrant full privileges in the PMC. Exactly what sufficiently active means at this point is unclear. Each project has a different bar for PMC membership and we'll find that bar through evaluation of my initial list and process. I imagine the whole process will take a number of weeks. Ross
Re: What is a PMC Chair?
On 31 May 2012 15:40, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote: On 2012-05-31 10:31 AM, Yong Lin Ma wrote: How often a new chair will be selected? Yearly or depends on ... ... For a project like AOO, I personally think it would be valuable to have an expectation of an annual nomination/vote process for the chair. Just want to highlight a nuance in Shanes recommendation (which I support). This is an annual nomination/vote process, that does not necessarily mean the chair will change annually. It is also worth noting that the community can vote to remove a chair at any time. Ross
Re: What is a PMC Chair?
There is no score for an official co-chair. That is the board delegates to a single individual and that individual must take full responsibility. However, there is nothing stopping the chair sharing tasks or delegating someone to cover a board report whilst on holiday etc. Ross From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness On May 31, 2012 8:45 PM, Kazunari Hirano khir...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Can we have a co-chair or a sub-chair? Or we select a new chair immediately when the chair can't do his/her job? Thanks, khirano
Re: What is a PMC Chair?
Typical time commitment, over and above normal PMC duties and in a healthy community, would be an average of 3-10 hours a month. The range is pretty much dependent on how involved one is with the broader ASF issues, e.g. read all board and infra mail or just the essential stuff. There is a danger that one gets sucked in even further to other projects and foundation activities. At this point there really is no upper limit, but it is all voluntary. Of course if there is an issue to resolve you can add any number of additional hours to that. Ross From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness On May 31, 2012 8:52 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: Since discussion has turned to graduation I'd like to invite people to consider who they would like to have as PMC chair. The first part of this is understanding what the role of a PMC chair is. First and foremost the position of chair does not bring any additional authority over the project, at least not in normal circumstances. It is true that in the event of a deadlock the chair has a casting vote, however I have never seen this happen. In reality the chair is just the same as any other PMC member except that they are expected to do a certain amount of paperwork for the PMC and, more importantly, they are a community facilitator. You can find a full description of the responsibilities at [1]. In summary they are: - Subscribe to and monitor board@ (and board meeting minutes) and infrastructure@ at lists, ensuring the community takes any necessary actions - Submit quarterly reports - Maintain PMC membership records - Ensure everyones voice is heard Before calling for nominations (and people can self-nominate if they so desire) I would like to take a few days to allow people to ask any questions about the role and the type of individual that is best suited to be a chair. Typical time commitment? And how does the size of this project impact that? Ross [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: AOO 2 million?
+1 to a return to a focus on the community members. After Rich's interview with me another mentor pointed out that I've done more publicity around AOO than the rest of the community put together. It was pointed out that this might be making the mentoring look more important than the coding. Not a good thing. More people have to step up and provide material for the project to use. There are people ready to turn it into content and there are milestones to hang these things from. Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 25, 2012 1:45 AM, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 24, 2012, Kay Schenk wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org javascript:; wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: On 05/24/2012 11:46 AM, Rob Weir wrote: Just checking the numbers: we appear to be at 1.8 million for AOO 3.4 install downloads. It might make sense to put out another story when we hit 2 million. why not! :) OK. I'll work with Don on this.But after this I suggest we only note the downloads at 5 million intervals. Otherwise we will spend too much time writing news articles and too little time improving OpenOffice. this definitely makes sense... We might note that June 1 is the first anniversary OpenOffice with Apache. My birthday is June 2, so I'll be sure to note other milestones! :)) Maybe the new DL stats announcement, if the timeline is right, might make note of this and include a mention of how successful this new environment/arrangement has been for OpenOffice. Just a thought. IMHO, we need to return focus to the need to profile community members so we better know each other. I have a short piece on Dave Fisher ready to go in June. Let's work up more of theseplease. Louis and Nancy had volunteered previously. Anyone else want to do a 'Meet and Greet'? A good problem to have ;-) -Rob Maybe this can be combined with the piece on Symphony that Don was working on? yes...good idea! -Rob -- MzK The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. -- Mark Twain -- MzK The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. -- Mark Twain
Re: AOO 2 million?
Yes, that's true and is the point I made, in response, plus we downplayed the mentor role. But remember, I've written open letters, blog posts, computerworld articles and spoken to reporters too. The point is to have *more* committees speaking with their own voice. Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 26, 2012 9:38 AM, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: +1 to a return to a focus on the community members. After Rich's interview with me another mentor pointed out that I've done more publicity around AOO than the rest of the community put together. It was pointed out that this might be making the mentoring look more important than the coding. Not a good thing. Actually your interview came after a couple of interviews to community members and templates' creators. I'm sure Rich will be more than happy to keep interviewing community members, please let us know who wants to be featured on SourceForge community blog. Roberto More people have to step up and provide material for the project to use. There are people ready to turn it into content and there are milestones to hang these things from. Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 25, 2012 1:45 AM, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 24, 2012, Kay Schenk wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org javascript:; wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: On 05/24/2012 11:46 AM, Rob Weir wrote: Just checking the numbers: we appear to be at 1.8 million for AOO 3.4 install downloads. It might make sense to put out another story when we hit 2 million. why not! :) OK. I'll work with Don on this.But after this I suggest we only note the downloads at 5 million intervals. Otherwise we will spend too much time writing news articles and too little time improving OpenOffice. this definitely makes sense... We might note that June 1 is the first anniversary OpenOffice with Apache. My birthday is June 2, so I'll be sure to note other milestones! :)) Maybe the new DL stats announcement, if the timeline is right, might make note of this and include a mention of how successful this new environment/arrangement has been for OpenOffice. Just a thought. IMHO, we need to return focus to the need to profile community members so we better know each other. I have a short piece on Dave Fisher ready to go in June. Let's work up more of theseplease. Louis and Nancy had volunteered previously. Anyone else want to do a 'Meet and Greet'? A good problem to have ;-) -Rob Maybe this can be combined with the piece on Symphony that Don was working on? yes...good idea! -Rob -- MzK The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. -- Mark Twain -- MzK The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. -- Mark Twain -- This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
Re: AOO 2 million?
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 26, 2012 11:54 AM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 11:25 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: Yes, that's true and is the point I made, in response, plus we downplayed the mentor role. But remember, I've written open letters, blog posts, computerworld articles and spoken to reporters too. The point is to have *more* committees speaking with their own voice. Hi Ross, Then I would suggest you simply stop - it seems rather simple. Of course. Will we then have silence? Oh, and your welcome. Ross //drew Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 26, 2012 9:38 AM, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: +1 to a return to a focus on the community members. After Rich's interview with me another mentor pointed out that I've done more publicity around AOO than the rest of the community put together. It was pointed out that this might be making the mentoring look more important than the coding. Not a good thing. Actually your interview came after a couple of interviews to community members and templates' creators. I'm sure Rich will be more than happy to keep interviewing community members, please let us know who wants to be featured on SourceForge community blog. Roberto More people have to step up and provide material for the project to use. There are people ready to turn it into content and there are milestones to hang these things from. Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 25, 2012 1:45 AM, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 24, 2012, Kay Schenk wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org javascript:; wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: On 05/24/2012 11:46 AM, Rob Weir wrote: Just checking the numbers: we appear to be at 1.8 million for AOO 3.4 install downloads. It might make sense to put out another story when we hit 2 million. why not! :) OK. I'll work with Don on this.But after this I suggest we only note the downloads at 5 million intervals. Otherwise we will spend too much time writing news articles and too little time improving OpenOffice. this definitely makes sense... We might note that June 1 is the first anniversary OpenOffice with Apache. My birthday is June 2, so I'll be sure to note other milestones! :)) Maybe the new DL stats announcement, if the timeline is right, might make note of this and include a mention of how successful this new environment/arrangement has been for OpenOffice. Just a thought. IMHO, we need to return focus to the need to profile community members so we better know each other. I have a short piece on Dave Fisher ready to go in June. Let's work up more of theseplease. Louis and Nancy had volunteered previously. Anyone else want to do a 'Meet and Greet'? A good problem to have ;-) -Rob Maybe this can be combined with the piece on Symphony that Don was working on? yes...good idea! -Rob -- MzK The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. -- Mark Twain -- MzK The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. -- Mark Twain -- This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
Re: AOO 2 million?
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 26, 2012 8:37 PM, drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 20:00 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 26, 2012 11:54 AM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 11:25 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: Yes, that's true and is the point I made, in response, plus we downplayed the mentor role. But remember, I've written open letters, blog posts, computerworld articles and spoken to reporters too. The point is to have *more* committees speaking with their own voice. Hi Ross, Then I would suggest you simply stop - it seems rather simple. Of course. Will we then have silence? Oh, and your welcome. I do appreciate what you did, and I would not be bothered if you did more to be honest, but I am ready to hear from others about more substance at this point. +1000 (including your further comments below) Ross For instance: How are strategic goals going to be set? What plans are there for addressing the changes happening with user computing platforms (web, mobile), or will they? There is a whole slew of real questions I don't hear being addressed = I see Kevin talking about a UX team and being chided for it, yet I read in emails that a QE lead is already selected, and I wonder - when did that happen? I read a few sideways remarks about patches in the LibreOffice group, removing dead code or instance - something that was talked about for years at OO.o but always no solution for lack of bodies - well, ok make your cracks but I want to know then how is this group going to deal with that, or will it? Put another way, it seems to me that most of the talk, indeed the work, is still reactive and not yet proactive and I would really like to see that start to change. //drew Ross //drew Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 26, 2012 9:38 AM, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net wrote: On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: +1 to a return to a focus on the community members. After Rich's interview with me another mentor pointed out that I've done more publicity around AOO than the rest of the community put together. It was pointed out that this might be making the mentoring look more important than the coding. Not a good thing. Actually your interview came after a couple of interviews to community members and templates' creators. I'm sure Rich will be more than happy to keep interviewing community members, please let us know who wants to be featured on SourceForge community blog. Roberto More people have to step up and provide material for the project to use. There are people ready to turn it into content and there are milestones to hang these things from. Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 25, 2012 1:45 AM, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 24, 2012, Kay Schenk wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org javascript:; wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: On 05/24/2012 11:46 AM, Rob Weir wrote: Just checking the numbers: we appear to be at 1.8 million for AOO 3.4 install downloads. It might make sense to put out another story when we hit 2 million. why not! :) OK. I'll work with Don on this.But after this I suggest we only note the downloads at 5 million intervals. Otherwise we will spend too much time writing news articles and too little time improving OpenOffice. this definitely makes sense... We might note that June 1 is the first anniversary OpenOffice with Apache. My birthday is June 2, so I'll be sure to note other milestones! :)) Maybe the new DL stats announcement, if the timeline is right, might make note of this and include a mention of how successful this new environment/arrangement has been for OpenOffice. Just a thought. IMHO, we need to return focus to the need to profile community members so we better know each other. I have a short piece on Dave Fisher ready to go in June. Let's work up more of theseplease. Louis and Nancy had volunteered previously. Anyone else want to do a 'Meet and Greet'? A good problem to have
Re: LibreOffice relicensing efforts
Thanks for the pointer Shane. Its a shame people can't see this for what it is. The LO team are taking a step that makes collaboration easier from a technical point of view. This is a good thing. Yes, the sharing of code is still one way, unless individual contributors decide to submit patches to both projects. However, the work involved in doing this will be reduced by this action. This is a good thing. Well done TDF. Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 23, 2012 2:44 PM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote: In case folks haven't seen this: http://legal-discuss.markmail.**org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqiahttp://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia Which points to: http://wiki.**documentfoundation.org/**Development/Relicensinghttp://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Relicensing So it looks like there will be plenty of code sharing! 8- - Shane
Re: LibreOffice relicensing efforts
On 24 May 2012 12:44, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: Thanks for the pointer Shane. Its a shame people can't see this for what it is. The LO team are taking a step that makes collaboration easier from a technical point of view. This is a good thing. Yes, the sharing of code is still one way, unless individual contributors decide to submit patches to both projects. However, the work involved in doing this will be reduced by this action. This is a good thing. Well, yes and no. TDF always had the ability to accept ALv2 code via its compatibility with LGPL. So merely converting to MPLv2 does not enable anything that was not possible before. What does help is that they are now giving explicit thought to how this might work in their processes, and how they will note such combinations in their files. That, more than the license change, will make it easier for them to consume AOO code, and for contributors to contribute to both projects. My point is not a legal one, it is a technical one. Rebasing of the AOO code will make it easier to share patches and thus make it more likely that individuals will be willing to do so. Ross Well done TDF. Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 23, 2012 2:44 PM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote: In case folks haven't seen this: http://legal-discuss.markmail.**org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqiahttp://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia Which points to: http://wiki.**documentfoundation.org/**Development/Relicensinghttp://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Relicensing So it looks like there will be plenty of code sharing! 8- - Shane -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Apache license (invariant section)
On 22 May 2012 20:44, Guy Waterval waterval@gmail.com wrote: Is this possible and if so, how the text of the Apache 2.0 license should it be formulated? It's only possible if you change the license and then it wouldn't be the Apache license. That is there is no built in mechanism to do this. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Troll warning
On 18 May 2012 13:21, Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: But 'Rob Weir Farts During Playing of LibreOffice National Anthem will be headline news and will be retweeted 100 times. You made me ROFL. Thanks for that. Have a good Friday. I too laughed at this. However, once I stopped laughing I read the article. I'm not sure what the problem is. It seems pretty well balanced to me. I'm happy to see it being retweeted a great deal. It gives space to both the LO has won and the AOO will accelerate innovation arguments. It's now the job of this project to do that innovative work in collaboration with anyone who wants to play. Ross
Re: OpenOffice on eBay
Larry, You are entitled to your opinion but please keep it civil. Our license permits the OP from conducting business the way they want to as long as they respect our trademarks. They are seeking to do that. Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 18, 2012 10:00 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-05-18 1:40 PM Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: On 2012-05-18, at 14:18 , Chery wrote: It is free! Who would buy it from you? OpenOffice has always been sold on eBay and other similar sites. The advantage to the buyer is that she does not have to download the app., can have it around for future reference, may distribute it to those who otherwise cannot get it (yes, she could burn more and I hope she would), and so on. How does this comment apply to selling downloads of AOO? Note that the OP said I would like to get further information on how I could sell OpenOffice on eBay, either via download and/or CDROM Anyone selling OpenOffice for download is a scumbag. I also would not trust a download from anywhere but the official AOO download page. -- __**___ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs. - Edgard Varese
Re: Can you please send less emails...
Here's a trick I use. Set up a filter for your name and have it mark such mails as important. Then adopt a practice of using peoples names when you specifically want them to comment, e.g. I'd like to know what Foo has planned before we move on that. Others will follow suit. When you come back you can skim subjects fairly quickly, safe in the knowledge that if your opinion is needed for some reason the mail will have been flagged. Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 11, 2012 8:45 PM, Juergen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote: ... the next 2 weeks. I will take a break and will go on vacation for 2 weeks. It would be nice if I would not become overloaded with hundreds of emails when I am back ;-) Ok I am joking a little bit and will probably read mails from time to time but don't wonder if I don't reply so fast as usual. Translators feel free to send me emails and issues I will take care of your requests asap. Juergen
Re: Performance!
Thanks Imacat, This was originally posted to the private list so as not to offend some of our more sensitive list subscribers. However, some useful discussion started looking at why the graphs looked like they did. I, as a mentor, requested that it be moved here so that everyone, could benefit from the discussion. Imacat did not post all comments, only the link that was the catalyst, since they were made in private, it's up to others to bring their constructive thoughts here. I think I see a potential for collaboration between the various ODF related projects here. Can a few sample documents be created which produce graphs showing better performance in other ODF products? Michael, you say they can do that for LO, I invite you to do so. Such documents would help AOO developers explore weakness in AOO code. At the same time AOO could provide documents that demonstrate better AOO performance. These will help other projects explore weaknesses in their own code. RANDOM THOUGHT: are there any ODF test documents that might serve this purpose? Ross On 10 May 2012 10:25, imacat ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw wrote: FYI ^_*' Please do not attack any party, or create any FUD. --- Original mail --- Subject: Performance! Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 23:51:47 +0200 From: Armin Le Grand armin_le_gr...@me.com Nice read: http://tinyurl.com/c24awgq -- ALG (iPad) -- Best regards, imacat ^_*' ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc Woman's Voice News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/ Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/ Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/ Apache OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Troll warning
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 9, 2012 3:25 AM, Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com wrote: This is what Apache has to deal with... ... and we've consistently found the best thing to do is to follow Gandalf's lead. Gandalf (from Tolkien's The Hobbit) lets the trolls fight amongst themselves until the sun rises and turns them to stone. He does not argue with them, he does not try to prove them wrong, he does not fight them. He simply prompts them to argue amongst themselves. This is a masterclass on how to deal with trolls. We get on with writing code and putting it out there. The trolls will continue to argue until the sun rises. AOO and LO will still be here and, without the trolls, will be free to collaborate.
Re: Shout Out for our Mentors!
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On May 9, 2012 11:26 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: ... You've exceeded our expectations to get to this point so quickly, +1
[URGENT] Broken download link
The download binaries link from http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/ is broken -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: [URGENT] Broken download link
It's OK, I got Rob in chat, he's fixing. On 8 May 2012 14:54, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: The download binaries link from http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/ is broken -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: CWS licensing / summary ...
On 4 May 2012 12:07, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote: The replies so far seem to suggest that it is normal and acceptable for code available from the tip of an active branch, from the Apache project svn with an AL2 header on it, to not be under AL2. Is that correct ? Whilst in the Incubator and *not* in a release, yes that is correct. Upon graduation such incompatibly licensed code will either be removed or will be licensed under the AL2. Which happens depends on what the contributors to the AOO project want to make happen. I believe the original question has been answered here and guidance has already been provided on how to identify and fill any *specific* holes an individual might see. Perhaps you missed this question which is: How is this code and others not mentioned in the SCA going to end up under AL2 ? That was answered. I said if something is missing then make a specific proposal and if the community agrees it's needed then we'll deal with it. I am interested in re-basing the LibreOffice project on something based on this AL2 codebase. Sound great. I am happy to put work into identifying those CWS' extracting them as patches, etc. Looking forward to it. I hear and conclude two things: 1. that you are utterly uninterested in helping us re-base That is a misrepresentation of what people said. A correct summary would be that if you have specific CWSs that need to be brought over and you are prepared to put the work into making it happen then your contributions will be welcomed. The only exception to this would be if the *majority* of the community (since code cannot be vetoed in Apache projects) felt that it was inappropriate for some reason. and/or 2. that any attempt for us to engage constructively to identify and move code forwards ourselves -will- -inevitably- require us to become a 'contributor' That is the only way to ensure it happens, yes. The alternative, as explained, is to raise an issue and hope someone else has the time and motivation to do the work for you.This is, as you know, the same in pretty much all open source projects. Ross
Re: CWS licensing query ...
A small number of people have approached me offlist, as a mentor, with concerns that the PPMC might be missing important CWSs. As a mentor I want to make it clear I have *no* opinion on the technical aspect of this project and the communications have not included any specific requests. Personally I feel the message in my text below has already been communicated. However, since I have offlist communications I will speak onlist in reply and thus make this opinion explicit. If anyone on this list believes a *specific* CWS is valuable as the project as it moves forwards then here is what to do... Go to our repository and look to see if it is already there (Dave gave an example in this thread). Remember, as Rob and Pedro point out absence from the 3.4 release does not mean absence from our repositories so please check this first. If it is not there please check our mail archives, as Rob suggests, to see if the CWS was not included for good reason (if it was not explicitly discussed it may have been missed). If you still believe it is being missed (or you have new input to the discussion) post in a *new* thread saying I believe XYZ is important, how do I go about ensuring the code lands here. In that thread build consensus that the code is needed and seek guidance on how to get it. Then do the work and bring the code over. This is how an ASF project works. There are some things you won't be able to do but you will find that doing the parts you are able to do will help ensure someone is willing to step forward to do the rest of the work. If you don't have the time to do the work feel free to raise an issue on the issue tracker. Hopefully someone with more time and similar views will be available to do the work. But we promise nothing, we are all volunteers here. The only way to guarantee results is to do it yourself. This is how an ASF project works, everyone is welcome.to contribute. Valuable contributions include making *specific* requests via the issue tracker, even more valuable is doing the work to close the issue. To close. let me repeat that as a mentor (which is why I've been contacted offlist) I believe the original question has been answered here and guidance has already been provided on how to identify and fill any *specific* holes an individual might see. I'm looking forward to seeing some new contributors emerge. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com On 1 May 2012 21:22, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: On 05/01/12 12:07, Michael Meeks wrote: ... or something - though, clearly there are prolly some interesting new files there too - which would fall foul of the list in the SGA I guess. Anyhow - most interested in the status of those. Of course we don't release CWSs at all, those would have to find their way into working code first. On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 23:13 +0200, Rob Weir wrote: Were there any other specific CWS's that you are interested in, aside from aw080? I havn't done a complete audit yet; but when I last reviewed the list, there were rather a large number of useful bits of code there - everything from bug-fixes, to new features, to porting to gnumake. I understand you have been cautious, http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-October/019057.html and that's really good. I can see we will not be adopting them all. I think, for example, part of the accessibility stuff may be obsoleted by IBM's code, so if you really want to relicense all your code it may be easier to revert that and sync at a later time with AOO (good thing you are using git). I assume you have a plan for rescuing that, it'd be great to understand it in more detail. We have no plan. For 3.4, it's too late but please do provide a list of the CWSs you are using in LibreOffice with a short description and we will eventually see what we can provide in future AOO releases. Of course, if you sign an iCLA you can help things go faster :). Pedro. -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Apache branded presentation template?
On 3 May 2012 16:09, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote: We do not have an official Apache or project-related presentation template currently. Folks looking for potential content to use or mimic may be available on the ComDev project's Speaker Resource page: http://community.apache.org/speakers/index.html You probably already know about http://www.apache.org/foundation/press/kit/ it contains official images etc. Ross If folks do develop a PPMC suggested template, we could definitely put it up there as well. - Shane On 2012-05-03 11:05 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi, do we already have an Apache branded presentation template that can we share? I think about a nice template (not overloaded) with Apache OpenOfifce and Apache branding elements that can be used to talk about AOO at any kind of events. Anybody interested in designing one? Juergen -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
On 2 May 2012 16:51, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: ... I have no idea if it's common for Podlings to have a successful vote in their first attempt but I have to say this result highlights the determination and impecable work done by the group. +1 (it is not common) Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: [Spi-private] OpenOffice funds
On 30 April 2012 09:27, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: Louis I'm jumping in and speaking as a mentor of AOO and ASF VP of Community Development. OpenOffice.org was using SPI for aspects of fund raising and money management. With the transfer of the code to Apache and the development of a new community around Apache OpenOffice, as it is now called, there is no need for SPI's services. Why is there no Apache OpenOffice listed on http://projects.apache.org/indexes/alpha.html#O ? That page lists Apache Top Level Projects. Apache OpenOffice is not yet a Top Level Project, it is still in the incubator and listed at http://incubator.apache.org/ The Apache OpenOffice site is at http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/ and the http://www.openoffice.org/ is now on ASF hardware. In order to become a Top Level Project AOO needs to release a version of OpenOffice which is licensed under an Apache license and have a community that is sufficiently divers to ensure long term viability. Diversity is not a problem and the first Apache licensed release is imminent. I suspect the donations held at SPI are earmarked for OpenOffice.org so can the Apache Software Foundation handle that and avoid using the funds for foundation-level costs? The money will be used for the exclusive benefit of the OpenOffice.org project (now Apache OpenOffice) for purposes described on the original collection page. Please note that this is an exception to the normal policy within the ASF, which does not generally accept targeted donations. However, since this money was donated for a specific set of uses the ASF will honour this and make the money available to the AOO project as a discretionary budget for uses defined by the SPI collection page. For more information on this please see the mail sent by Wolf Halton to treasu...@spi-inc.org on 19 March 2012 (subject monies collected for OpenOffice.org) and copied to bo...@spi-inc.org by Michael Schultheiss on the same day. Specifically: we [the AOO project] have a project-wide consensus that any funds SPI has collected be used for developer travel and event planning. If we can piggyback on larger ASF events, this money can go a long way. Though the original information page said the monies collected might also be used to pay application developers, this use is off the table because ASF rules specifically prohibit their paying for development. Please note that the final stages of approval for the appropriate handling of this money is in progress at the ASF (I speak as a Member of the foundation, but not as a member of the Fundraising committee). We will not request final transfer until such approval has been confirmed by the Fundraising committee. However, I believe this to be a matter of process at this point. I'll leave it to the AOO community to address further issues and continue making arrangements, but if you require an official statement from the ASF please don't hesitate to ask. Ross It's not clear to me from http://www.apache.org/foundation/contributing.html Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
AOO nears graduation
I just published a piece on ComputerWorld titled Is OpenOffice.org an Apache project yet? [1] In this piece I examine what the common behaviours found in a typical Apache Top Level Project are and comment on how AOO is performing in these respects. When reading this peice you must bear in mind that I am only one mentor and others might have different opinions. Nevertheless, I'm sufficiently confident in my position on this to state them publicly. Well done AOO Ross [1] http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/apache-asserts/2012/04/is-openofficeorg-an-apache-project-yet/index.htm -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: After AOO 3.4?
My IPMC vote will, as with Dave's, have nothing to do with integration with other ASF projects. Collaboration up and downstream is very important, but no more or less so for Apache projects. Neither does the project have to demonstrate success in all areas of potential collaboration, only a governance style sufficiently open to allow positive collaboration. Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Apr 28, 2012 10:39 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Apr 28, 2012, at 1:07 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: Hello; On 04/28/12 11:32, Rob Weir wrote: I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm able to speak confidently about a few things: 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is released 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning Beyond that, do we have anything to say? Well, we have to integrate some CWSs. I am interested in gnumake4 since it might help clean some issues in the BSD port. For the rest I am not sure what is there or how stable it is so I would guess we should tackle them slowly and leave most of them for later. We also have to update some components. Anything with an Apache tag on it, like Apache Commons or Apache Lucene comes first because working with other Apache projects is key for our graduation. The amount of Apache product consumed will have nothing to do with my IPMC vote. Our community diversity, IP, and release are the main criteria. Some other components are important but involve a lot of hard work: It would be really great if someone from ICU would give a hand too. The clang port is also rather important and would help the MacOSX support. Finally, I think we should continue cleaning/replacing some Category-B software. For example, carrying an outdated version of Mozilla SeaMonkey just for addressbook support, is a nonsense. Category B cleanup and removal of prebuilt packages from SVN would be good. All in all, I think we should focus on stability and not on features. Cleaning up the Readme, branding and NOTICE will be helpful. Regards, Dave Just my $0.02. Pedro.
Re: SPI
No we don't need SPI. The ASF has its own fundraising infrastructure. Thesis simply about ensuring money donated to SPI for OOo, before the move to the ASF, is used as intended. Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Apr 29, 2012 3:28 PM, Claudio Filho filh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Sorry, but i have some doubts about SPI and AOO. Do we need the SPI? ASF can't receive funds for AOO? I remember that we started a discussion about a partnership between a NGO here, in Brazil, and SPI to receive funds to other projects, and had a conflict point in the SPI rules about the possibility of other partners, from other entities, could see and interfere in our entity. Someone saw this points? Best, Claudio
Re: SPI
On 27 April 2012 23:47, Wolf Halton wolf.hal...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Ross, I sent them a request for an update on the progress. Would you happen to know the address or paypal account to which the funds should be sent? There is a PayPal account but I suspect that since this is a largish sum it would make more sense to use a wire transfer. I'll mail the appropriate list (fundraising@) and copy you in for the reply. Thanks, Ross Wolf http://sourcefreedom.com Apache developer: wolfhal...@apache.org On Apr 18, 2012 2:54 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: On the ASF side silence is approval, on the SPI side I'd have expected a response by now. Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Apr 18, 2012 3:41 AM, Wolf Halton wolf.hal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: treasu...@spi-inc.org Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Feb 22, 2012 4:33 AM, Wolf Halton wolf.hal...@gmail.com wrote: That is a good point. It will be included in the proposal. On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: Just one thought. I don't think the consensus is *just* travel assistance. There needs to be an event to travel to, that will cost money too. I figured the proposal would be for event + travel. there is a hope that Co-location will mean event costs will be very low, but this may not be possible. Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Feb 21, 2012 8:08 PM, Wolf Halton wolf.hal...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Ross, I made a proposal and let it rock for 10 days. We have a general consensus on openoffice-dev that the monies should be going to travel-assistance, so how do I proceed from here? Wolf I haven't heard anything about this issue since I sent off the proposal a month ago. Is this a reasonable time period of silence or is it time to nudge somebody again? Wolf -- This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: rollApp Launches Free Beta “OpenOffice on iPad” Cloud-Service
On 20 April 2012 12:36, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: This was mentioned in the ODF Plugfest today, in Louis's presentation, an interesting use of OpenOffice configured to run on the iPad: http://blog.rollapp.com/2012/04/rollapp-launches-free-beta-openoffice.html Rather than recompiling for a tablet, it looks like they are taking a remoting approach with virtualized UI. This allows them to run apps like OpenOffice unmodified. Great interim technology. If they are not already here I hope someone is reaching out to them and suggesting they might want to work on embedding UI hooks for their platform. I imagine many things are clunky when you don't have real mouse actions (no double click, chunky fingers etc. Such hooks would be useful in many other ways too. I guess they are sure they will get it into the app store, but I would imagine some concerns about them providing an app store separate from Apples. No such problems for Android though - I want it. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: CWS licensing query ...
On 19 April 2012 17:24, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote: 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of them ? The SGAs signed by Oracle are, to the best of my knowledge, unmodified. The source text can be found at http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt The scope does not extend beyond the listed files. If there are files you think are needed we can talk to Oracle to see if we can have those too. I'm not sure whether it covers just one version or all versions, my guess is if we were given history then it would extend to that history too but that is my *guess* only. What is certain is that the grant covers all IP in the files listed and supplied to us. 2. Is the text of these SGA's made public somewhere ? (prolly a FAQ) I'm confused by this 'Members only' restriction that is presumed. The signed documents are private because they contain private contact details, however the text is at http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt. This is the text of the SGA signed by Oracle as I note above. It'd be really useful to have a statement on that - or perhaps I just missed an existing one, help appreciated ! If you need a firmer/clearer statement than that (i.e. from someone on the legal committee rather than an observer like me) then feel free to post to legal-disc...@apache.org where our VP Legal Affairs will be happy to respond. Ross
Re: SPI
On the ASF side silence is approval, on the SPI side I'd have expected a response by now. Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Apr 18, 2012 3:41 AM, Wolf Halton wolf.hal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: treasu...@spi-inc.org Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Feb 22, 2012 4:33 AM, Wolf Halton wolf.hal...@gmail.com wrote: That is a good point. It will be included in the proposal. On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: Just one thought. I don't think the consensus is *just* travel assistance. There needs to be an event to travel to, that will cost money too. I figured the proposal would be for event + travel. there is a hope that Co-location will mean event costs will be very low, but this may not be possible. Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Feb 21, 2012 8:08 PM, Wolf Halton wolf.hal...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Ross, I made a proposal and let it rock for 10 days. We have a general consensus on openoffice-dev that the monies should be going to travel-assistance, so how do I proceed from here? Wolf I haven't heard anything about this issue since I sent off the proposal a month ago. Is this a reasonable time period of silence or is it time to nudge somebody again? Wolf -- This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org
Re: Ditching our mirror system for an inferior solution? (was: Re: About Testing the SourceForce Mirror of AOO 3.4)
crappy end user box ;). It was slow and didn't start downloading immediately, but showed a page full of advertisement that didn't have any relation to OpenOffice.org, wanted to open a popup (MS IE said that and blocked it) Hey, Peter, you and MS IE - what's going on? Are you letting others to drive you crazy? and when the download started, it came from the Swiss mirror, but I'm in Germany! What's that? Thrown 3 years back in time? Sub-optimal. (I can guess who pays for the CDN that is rented to help out: advertising.) Do you really want to ditch what we have built? Ditching the system that improved downloading OpenOffice.org in the farthest corners of the world? Exchanging it against a handful of Sourceforge mirrors, and 250 Apache mirrors, many of which lack the capability? Some are big, but many will be far from having the bandwidth to deliver large files. Something that Apache's mirror system also can't do is sending me to my local mirror (my very ISP in my city runs a mirror, and my home IP is in their netblock). Apache mirror system sends me to *any* mirror in my country, while our current solution recognizes the network topology and lets me download from the local mirror. Especially with large files, that's very nice both for the ISP and for me as user. Sourceforge can theoretically do this (because they use a part of MirrorBrain for that purpose!) but don't have enough mirrors to play this out. This is not only useful with single ISPs, if they have a mirror; it's also useful with autonomous systems (AS) of networks that share a backbone, like most German universities in AS680 here in Germany. The german university network (DFN-Verein, some members already are producing 10 gbit) was the base infrastucture for the openoffice spreading (and staroffice before, and is now already with libreoffice too). Please don't neglect this chance for the Apache Foundation. It clearly is offered (and - regarding ftp.gwdg.de and many more - since the beginning of Apache practized). So we will have a *technically inferiour* solution in the future? That's not the Apache way, is it? I have been told more than once, on this list, that it will be the Apache mirror system and nothing else. I didn't understand the reasons (except for policy, no special treatment for individual projects), but it won't work that way IMO. Now it seems to me that the Apache mirror system seeked the help of Sourceforge.net. If that means that some doubts crept up, then I share those doubts. But I don't see Sourceforge.net as the solution either, as explained above. They have their merits, and I like their dedication and the specialized system they've built (with features that I'm envious of!), but I think our existing solution is better suited. And not only that, IMO it is a very important prerequisite of being successful. No well-working downloads, no luck with distributing FOSS that consists of large files. Dear Apache Foundation, please listen to Peter's words and use his work. It will be a win for you - incredible that you did not realize that already by yourself. You are a community product, and so you should help to show that the community is autonomous. Viele Gruesse Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoe...@gwdg.de, e...@kki.org) -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Ditching our mirror system for an inferior solution?
On 13 April 2012 14:00, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 05:38 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote: Bit late to pretend you're trying to be helpful here with the bits about NIH you like tossing around. What questions are you asking again? And what facts are you pointing out? Seems to me we had a working agreementabout a month or so, settled entirely on-list, but yesterday Peter pitches a fit and you decide NOW is the time for complaints? Gee if that's not kicking sand in the faces of the people who worked out this deal you'll have to excuse me while I figure out where else all this unwanted sand could've come from. From my recollection the discussion earlier always started from the premise that Apache mirrors would take over, I thought because that was the policy, only apache mirrors. Apache mirrors are ones sanctioned and coordinated by the ASF infra team. They are not ones that the ASF manage. SF are working directly with ASF Infra so that they become an official ASF mirror, the fact that they are providing much more than a single mirror site changes nothing. Any organisation whether they were part of the previous mirrorbrain service or not is free to work with ASF Infra to become a part of the ASF mirror system. I asked when (how) it was determined that the Mirrorbrain service was broken and had to be replaced? Nobody said it was broken. What was said is that ASF Infra are not willing or able to support two distinct mirror systems so either people step up and move (and support) mirrorbrain at the ASF or the ASF Infra team step up and make it work. ASF Infra is making it work, using the resources being offered, including those from SF. Actions speak louder than words. I'm sure ASF Infra will continue accept offers of long term support and assistance from any third party willing and able. I pointed out that it had never stopped serving up files, that TTBOMK the mirror operators had never notified this project that they would no longer work with the project. True, and the ASF Infra team asked the PPMC to reach our to those operators and ask them if they wanted to continue as part of the ASF mirror system. Infra are not dumping the old network, they are augmenting it with the existing ASF mirror and newcomers. Things look different when you look from a different angle. Ross
Re: Ditching our mirror system for an inferior solution?
On 13 April 2012 17:58, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 14:42 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: ... Alright, so it is just a matter of existing policy At this point I think I ought to let infra team members answer as they are both infra people and thus able to answer your policy questions more accurately. In my mail I was not referring to policy I was merely stating a different interpretation of what I see happening from the rather inflammatory subject line of this thread. That is not to say that I don't respect the opinion of those who believe the subject line to be valid, it's just that I trust the ASF infra team to do the best they can with the resources available. If Peter, or anyone else joins infra as an additional (active volunteer) resource then I am confident they will be welcomed with open arms. Ross
OpenMeetings GSoC project relating to OpenOffice
Just a heads up in case anyone here is interested. There is currently a discussion on the OpenMeetings (incubating) dev list about a GSoC project that involves using AOO to convert docs to JPG for display in video conferences. There might be an opportunity for some fruitful cross-project collaboration here. I'm on mobile do can't provide convenient links, sorry, search their dev list for GSoC OpenOffice if interested. Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
Re: Feedback Requested: Proposed SourceForce Mirror of AOO 3.4
On 26 March 2012 17:22, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Mark Ramm m...@geek.net wrote: - SourceForge.net would be the “recommended default download” on the website. What would that look like? On what page do we make this branch? In most of our communications we will point the public to this URL: http://download.openoffice.org (That then redirects to http://www.openoffice.org/download/) The download link then provided to the user is matched to their platform and language, based on their request headers. My thoughts would be that we split based on user preference at this page, by showing two links. One for the sf.net download, and another for the apache mirror network based download. This sounds good to me. Any feedback from Apache Infra on this proposal? Or anyone else from the PPMC? (Silence is consent) I think we need an explicit OK from Joe on this one with his infra hat on. I'll touch base with him to make sure he has read this thread. Ross
Re: After AOO 3.4, attracting new contributors
I'm not sure if Jim meant this or not, but being started doesn't mean finding things to do. The first stage is figuring out how to set up a dev environment. Could this be sensibly added to (our linked from) the get involved page? Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Mar 22, 2012 5:09 PM, Herbert Duerr h...@apache.org wrote: As a quick note, I'd *love* to dive in and start doing some coding on AOOo; it's just that I've no idea where in the heck to start... :) Additionally to what Pedro said I'd like to point to our Bugzilla at https://issues.apache.org/ooo/ which is a fountain of inspiration. E.g. http://s.apache.org/EdO shows all the ideas with more than five votes. The potential to use the same tool for tracking bugs, enhancement and feature ideas indicates the the name Bugzilla is too narrow and thus the old project to be called Issuezilla. Herbert
Sourceforge and AOO 3.4 distribution
I just had a call with Roberto from SourceForge in which he updated me on what they've done with the templates and extensions sites. I asked Roberto to send a summary to this list, but I just wanted to extend my thanks to him and the team at SourceForge, along with the people here in AOO and ASF infra who have helped. Roberto also asked if there is anything SF can do to help distributing the AOO 3.4 We've discussed this a few times but as we are now close to a release I think it is worth recapping and making sure everything is lined up OK. - what are the likely bandwidth requirements when the release goes out? - does ASF Infra feel confident the existing mirror network will support this? - can SF become a part of that mirror network in a sensible way? - note that SF does not provide direct links to the download, they provide an intermediate page with advertising - should any of the old OOo mirrors be incorporated into the ASF mirror system? - will they want the additional overhead brought by all other ASF projects? My own feeling is that the ASF infra team would not really be interesting in changing the mirror system in any way, however I am *not* member of the infra team and cannot speak for them. Joe, of course is. If the PPMC sees the need to explore SF hosting then I suggest someone picks this up and liaises between ASF Infra, AOO and SF. IF the PPMC is confident that the existing mirror system is sufficient then no need to revisit. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Sourceforge and AOO 3.4 distribution
OK, Roberto is on this list, so let's see what can be worked out. My exploratory discussions with Roberto indicated that SF are willing to work with us on a decent solution. Joe can I assume you are happy to represent ASF infra here, or should we take it straight to the infra lists? Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Mar 19, 2012 6:54 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Given the initial feedback Jurgen provided on the infra lists about the potential number of downloads a day and expected size of each download, I think it would be prudent to take advantage of any assistance sourceforge might be able to provide here. What I'm thinking is some sort of hybrid approach where the recommended default download is a sourceforge link with the Apache mirrors as auxiliary optional links further down the page. - Original Message - From: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 11:23 AM Subject: Re: Sourceforge and AOO 3.4 distribution - Original Message - From: Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 11:03 AM Subject: Sourceforge and AOO 3.4 distribution I just had a call with Roberto from SourceForge in which he updated me on what they've done with the templates and extensions sites. I asked Roberto to send a summary to this list, but I just wanted to extend my thanks to him and the team at SourceForge, along with the people here in AOO and ASF infra who have helped. Roberto also asked if there is anything SF can do to help distributing the AOO 3.4 We've discussed this a few times but as we are now close to a release I think it is worth recapping and making sure everything is lined up OK. - what are the likely bandwidth requirements when the release goes out? As far as Infra is concerned, it will depend on the total size of the artifacts being released multiplied by the number of mirrors that need to download it from us over a 6 hour period. We are considering rate-limiting our rsync service to lower the peak bandwidth needed. - does ASF Infra feel confident the existing mirror network will support this? I'd say most mirrors won't object once we give them a heads-up about how much additional disk space and bandwidth will be required. It would help if the PPMC could provide infra with an estimate of the expected number of total downloads per day during the first week or two of release, combined with the typical download size, so we may provide that information to the mirror operators and let them decide whether to stay with us or drop out. - can SF become a part of that mirror network in a sensible way? - note that SF does not provide direct links to the download, they provide an intermediate page with advertising The advertising does not exactly thrill me, and really isn't compatible with how our mirror scripts work. - should any of the old OOo mirrors be incorporated into the ASF mirror system? - will they want the additional overhead brought by all other ASF projects? My own feeling is that the ASF infra team would not really be interesting in changing the mirror system in any way, however I am *not* member of the infra team and cannot speak for them. Joe, of course is. If the PPMC sees the need to explore SF hosting then I suggest someone picks this up and liaises between ASF Infra, AOO and SF. IF the PPMC is confident that the existing mirror system is sufficient then no need to revisit. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
