Thanks for clarifying that the reciprocation was on the security @tdf list, and not securityteam@ OO.o.
It was not easy to discern that from your preceding statements or any others on this thread. I certainly agree that the security @tdf can be as exclusive as it chooses. Now I think it remains to see how some functioning [email protected] can be constituted, at that list or elsewhere. Also, thank you for asserting that [email protected] is "a cross-vendor, cross-project, place to exchange such information." I don't recall seeing that statement made so clearly, and it is valuable to know that is the mission. I'm afraid that got lost in the to-and-fro here on ooo-dev. - Dennis PS: I don't think there was any AOOo decision to exclude "TDF guys." There was a roadblock to entry that applied to anyone not an Apache committer. I find it odd that Malte, an innocent and honorable contributor, became the sacrificial proxy of the Apache OOo podling, but it is not, of course, any of my business. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Meeks [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 08:37 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Vulnerability fixed in LibreOffice Hi Dennis, On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 08:03 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > How is it that this "reciprocal action" occurred and was made known to > the Apache OOo podling ? Oh - it's quite simple, you ASF/OOo made your decision to not include TDF guys, and we (without an endless mail thread) made the quiet decision to drop Malte from our LibreOffice specific mailing list: [email protected] in response; turning it into a TDF-ony list. That seems reasonable presumably. > And how is it that it was performed on [email protected] ? > When did that become a TDF property? Who is the "our" in whose name a > reciprocal action was taken? Gosh :-) The [email protected] list stayed exactly as it has always done - as a cross-vendor, cross-project, place to exchange such information. No-one was removed from it, Malte is still on it, and Rob was added. This is where the details were discussed, and the patches posted. That list is certainly not a TDF property. The tdf-security list on the other hand is. > If this was a race to demonstrate who is the least trustworthy in > these matters, I concede that you won. Feel better now? Thank you for your vote of confidence. The more I hear nonsense talked about what goes on on private security lists, the more I hate them. If only they were not necessary. All the best, Michael. -- [email protected] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
