I am from Symphony team. I am the architect of IBM Symphony. It would back to end of 2002 when we started to work on a project called OpenStorm which was based on OpenOffice.org 1.4. Almost ten years from today.
OpenStorm was embedded into Lotus Notes after that. In 2008, Symphony 1.0 was released as an independent application. Now the latest release of it is Symphony 3.0.1. I ever worked on Infobox(It is replaced by property sidebar), stability, integration (C++ part of Symphony integrated with Eclipse) and Mac porting project (Since OO.o updated the license, the Auqua port in Symphony was made independently before Symphony 3.0). I also leading the effort of Symphony 3.0. OpenOffice.org 3.1 was taken as the base of Symphony 3.0. Then Symphony features/improvements were reimplemented on it piece by piece from 2009. On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Kevin Sisco <kevinsisco61...@gmail.com> wrote: > I do feel that we need to continue to focus on the issues at hand. We > wouldn't want this project to fall into extinction after all these > years now would we? > > > On 3/12/12, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On 03/12/12 13:42, Rob Weir wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not suggesting we argue with anyone. I'm suggesting we make >>>> truthful positive statements about this project and the experience >>>> level of its participants. >>>> >>> >>> FWIW, and just my humble opinion ... >>> >>> I don't think we should spend time discussing such arguments >>> when we have the one instrument that defines the true >>> continuation of the project, namely www.openoffice.org . >>> >> >> Oh, I'm sure we all have our own preferred ways of doing this. The >> nice thing is that they are not mutually exclusive. We only need to >> agree to be accurate and positive. We don't need to agree on a >> narrow set of specific communications. Some volunteers might work >> better with HTML, others with YouTube videos, others with graphics. >> Let's find more ways of saying "yes and" instead of "no, but". >> >> -Rob >>
