Hi, On 2012-10-11, at 20:52 , Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
> Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: >> On 2012-10-11, at 24:24 , Rob Weir wrote: >>> OK. So we've said that we're happy to share a devroom. This is >>> good. Are we still waiting to hear from LO? > > Yes; apparently LibreOffice had not thought about this, even though it > was clearly written in the guidelines that organizers would have asked > to merge similar devrooms. So we'll need to wait. The organizers set Saturday > as a deadline. > I spoke with Michael Meeks (hi michael) about sharing and he suggested that it may be best to have separate rooms and if it does seem logical and politically feasible to consider sharing on one or some subjects. No one likes politics but reality is what it is. >> I'm in Paris now and will likely be either meeting with or dodging >> (or both) LO entities. >> I can ask. They may now know, however, as I would guess the relevant >> LO person is Meeks? or Thorsten? > > Actually, at the moment we are waiting for a "yes" or "no" from LibreOffice, > and I don't know how many people are involved in the decision and who (I > didn't see anything on the LibreOffice developers list, but it could be the > wrong place). If it's a "yes", then we will definitely have to talk, and your > availability is very welcome. I think we ought to propose our room directly NOW. And if LO wants to share later, then we can conceivably work with Tias and others to arrange that. Fosdem is fairly plastic. I do think it reasonable to consider this occasion as an opportunity to come to a détente or understanding. AFAICT, the issues that could be resolved by some public collaboration could have more impact in their effect on the market--in that it would demonstrate to users that regardless of the flavour, the substance is, well, solid. So, let's propose now, independent of LO and if they want then later to join up with us, fine--unless you end up with more current information than I--? Louis
