Re: [PROPOSAL] move repo to Git.
Why not move web development as well as the code development into Git? +1 any Git. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 1, 2015, at 6:59 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > wrote: > > I'm going to add my +1 to this proposal. > > It occurred to me, when looking into the "old OOo SVN dumps" that Rob has, > that there may be many more downstream users that are on Git and that our > being on Git would facilitate accepting appropriately-offered pull requests > to the AOO repository. It seems this is a lower-friction way of sending > fixes upstream than going the patch creation and submission route. > > - Dennis > > -Original Message- > From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischm...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 04:01 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] move repo to Git. > > [ ... ] > > If possible to get a git repo only it make sense. That means we don't > have to move any webpage related stuff into git. Just the pure code is > relevant her. > > +1 for a git repo > > Juergen > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Aranese spell checker
Hi, My name is Javier Torres and I am working in a spell aranese spell checker http://www.occitans.com/archivos/programas/aranes_v1.0.0_alfa.oxtbut I have a litle problem the language "Aranese" is not included in the language list. Can anybody help me? Thanks
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
Simon Phipps wrote: > On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > wrote: > >> I'll ask one more time. What action is expected here on dev@ to impact >> how the PMC uses private@ ? >> > > I don't think there is any action that can be taken on dev@ beyond pointing > out to others here that, when one does not have access to the privileged > conversations of the PMC, actions that use those conversations as > justification appear hostile, as do dismissive PMC member reactions when > simple and reasonable questions are asked about them. > > Hopefully, recognising how much harm the resulting atmosphere of mistrust > does to the project will be remembered. Then PMC members will be heard in > the future when they ask that private@ conversations be reiterated or > summarised and then continued on dev@. Note that just continuing > converstaion is not enough; all dev@ members need to understand the full > context rather than being belittled for not knowing it. > > S. +100% Thank you Simon. Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I'll ask one more time. What action is expected here on dev@ to impact > how the PMC uses private@ ? > I don't think there is any action that can be taken on dev@ beyond pointing out to others here that, when one does not have access to the privileged conversations of the PMC, actions that use those conversations as justification appear hostile, as do dismissive PMC member reactions when simple and reasonable questions are asked about them. Hopefully, recognising how much harm the resulting atmosphere of mistrust does to the project will be remembered. Then PMC members will be heard in the future when they ask that private@ conversations be reiterated or summarised and then continued on dev@. Note that just continuing converstaion is not enough; all dev@ members need to understand the full context rather than being belittled for not knowing it. S.
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
jan i wrote: On Saturday, March 7, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: If you mean the over-use of private@ by the PMC, is there an issue to discuss? Those of us on the PMC need to be attentive to minimizing private@ Well look at the numbers, I did not publish the numbers for 2014, but you will see a high number of mails on private@ so it seems that not all agree to keep private@ low. The sample is skewed due to some recent long conversations that we were explicitly asked to hold on private@ by a third party that was involved in these conversations. If you take them out, numbers are much more normal. That said, yes, at times discussions on private@ should be moved to dev@; very often they are, as soon as someone points it out; the solution is simply to patrol private@ for conversations that mistakenly start there, ask if it has to be private, and move to dev@ otherwise. Exactly, the 2 examples you mention are good examples of something that should have been publicbut did it happen not really, look at the number of mails on the 2 issues that alone tell a story. If a conversation starts on private@ because an ASF officer sends a message there as he is unaware that an articulated discussion about the subject is ongoing at dev@ there's little we can do unless we really enforce moderation of all traffic to private@ (overkill; I prefer that, like now, we move conversations when suitable; just with a more active monitoring). All that considered, remember that private@ is readable to 400+ people, many of which work for companies that may have different interests than OpenOffice has; so private@ is not really the small secretive group of friends that people like to believe it is (and the PMC is not secretive or a group of friends either, for that matter!) Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
I'll ask one more time. What action is expected here on dev@ to impact how the PMC uses private@ ? I can't speak to what the volumes of private@ messages are without knowing what those discussions were. In the cases I have seen since I joined the PMC in February, discussions that should be here have ended up here. It is not unusual for something that starts legitimately on private@ to advance to something that should be brought to dev@. It perhaps could have started on dev@ but didn't. Once it starts on private@ it sometimes takes a little thrashing around before we catch ourselves and the topic is reframed in a form for dev@ (i.e., without breaking confidences). There is no way for dev@ subscribers who are not on the PMC to know there are discussions that should be on dev@ yet remain on private@. The PMC has to police itself. Any one of us can declare here that inappropriate use of private@ is happening, but anyone not on private@ has no means to assess the facts and determine how serious it might be in any particular case. - Dennis -Original Message- From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2015 10:03 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org Subject: Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update On Saturday, March 7, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I am not certain exactly what issue is proposed to be discussed here. > > If you mean the over-use of private@ by the PMC, is there an issue to > discuss? Those of us on the PMC need to be attentive to minimizing private@ > discussions and bring to dev@ every discussion that is not one of the > special cases requiring discreet usage of private@. > > Talking about it here doesn't seem necessary. Who would disagree? Those > of us with PMC accountability need to make it so. It is expected of all > PMCs. Well look at the numbers, I did not publish the numbers for 2014, but you will see a high number of mails on private@ so it seems that not all agree to keep private@ low. [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
On 07/03/2015 jan i wrote: On 7 March 2015 at 01:55, Simon Phipps wrote: On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: answer to your question on who is moderating the API list can readily be found at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6095 and needed no further discussion. ... which is of course the first place anyone would think to look! Well, I simply opened the list archives at http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.ooo-dev then searched for "api list moderators" and clicked on the first (oldest) result. This is very easy. apparently harmless updates Kay proposed -- and was already implementing -- had been vetoed for undocumented reasons by unknown voices in a secret venue. Doesn't sound like the Apache Way. Very exaggerated tones. Just go back to see that Kay posted the first message (and this was a mistake, promptly rectified) to both the dev and private list. People answered where they happened to read the message first. By the way, I had suggested on this list to remove the names (for no other reasons that the list is simply unmaintainable as it is now, and an outdated list serves no purpose). There were no vetoes or any other bad or secret behavior. Simply, the issue is very minor, regarded by almost everybody as minor and it's better to go for the most maintainable solution. I proposed an approach that still allows to see the moderators' names in real time, while not imposing to us the burden to update a static web page every time a change is done. The Apache Way is always honored at OpenOffice. It begs the question why that reaction happened. I for sure would have dismissed the issue saying that it is useless work to maintain a separate list. And nothing else. long discussions which could just as well be public. I am convinced that the PMC is NOT doing this on purpose, but simply because they forget. That is a sane approach to the issue. Yes, I will answer to the thread wherever it is. This particular discussion was for no reason sent to both dev and private and I replied to it here and there. Without disclosing content here are some interesting numbers: private@aoo compared to dev@aoo March: 53 on private@, 93 on dev@ Feb: 347 on private@, 400 on dev@ Jan: 111 on private@, 542 on dev@ I'll answer this in the new thread, but people who are always assuming we have fantastic secrets to discuss on the private list would be very amused (except conspiracy theorists, who would be disappointed) if they saw the real messages! Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
On Saturday, March 7, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I am not certain exactly what issue is proposed to be discussed here. > > If you mean the over-use of private@ by the PMC, is there an issue to > discuss? Those of us on the PMC need to be attentive to minimizing private@ > discussions and bring to dev@ every discussion that is not one of the > special cases requiring discreet usage of private@. > > Talking about it here doesn't seem necessary. Who would disagree? Those > of us with PMC accountability need to make it so. It is expected of all > PMCs. Well look at the numbers, I did not publish the numbers for 2014, but you will see a high number of mails on private@ so it seems that not all agree to keep private@ low. > > - Dennis > > More background, since volumes of private@ usage have been presented. > > There are two matters that have been brought here recently although they > had wandered in and out of private@: > >1. The changes to the PMC FAQ, involving a small comedy of errors (my > synopsis) >2. The concerns about the openoffice.org/why page on the cost of > compliance > which also involved the Legal list and some private@ chiding by ASF > officials > > The other major sources of recent volume on private@ involved private > matters. Sometimes these are resolved entirely without any public > discussion (e.g., handling a request for or dealing with an issue about > trademark usage, votes to add new committers and/or PMC members). If you say so, I will not comment on the content on private@ but merely say I highly disagree with you...or you have quite a different level of what is private than I have. > > Generally, sometimes there is a privately-raised concern that is discussed > until it is noticed that it has turned into a discussion that belongs on > dev@ and not private@. It would be good to catch those earlier. It is > up to the PMC to be vigilant and execute on those. Exactly, the 2 examples you mention are good examples of something that should have been publicbut did it happen not really, look at the number of mails on the 2 issues that alone tell a story. > > Anything that involves policies impacting the project itself clearly must > come to dev@ if there is ever any sort of proposition that involves > conduct of the project and alignment of the community. A variety of > privately-raised concerns simply come and go, however, even if there is a > significant flurry of discussion at first. > > There are some routine items that arise from time to time on private@ but > do not seem to introduce any major spurt in volume. > > With regard to the relative silence of other PMCs, I suggest that Apache > OpenOffice has much greater reach into diverse communities and > corresponding areas of concern compared to many Apache projects. We are > not homogenous and we deal with many levels of participation and direction, > much simply on account of the magnitude of the software, the sites, the > intended users, and the history. We could be not so driven although I > expect that would not resonate on dev@, user@, or the forums. I did not talk about relative silence of PMC, but of committer and contributors. rgds jan i > > -Original Message- > From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org ] > Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2015 01:11 > To: jan i > Cc: dev > Subject: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: > PMC FAQ update > > Just realized, that many might jump over the old subject. > > This issue is an important issue and should not be hidden behind another > subject. > > rgds > jan i. > > [ ... ] > > You are opening a very important issue here. This moderator subject was, > > but should never have been discussed in private. > > > > During my first round as PMC, and now in my second round, I can see the > > private@ is being wrongly used (in my opinion, with my PMC hat on) to > > have long discussions which could just as well be public. I am convinced > > that the PMC is NOT doing this on purpose, but simply because they > forget. > > > > Without disclosing content here are some interesting numbers: > > private@aoo compared to dev@aoo > > March: 53 on private@, 93 on dev@ > > Feb: 347 on private@, 400 on dev@ > > Jan: 111 on private@, 542 on dev@ > > > > Numbers are taken from the mail archives, and might be off by a couple. > > > > I am a member of several projects and it is fair to say that none of the > > other private lists I follow have a similar relationship. Typically > private@ > > in the projects I follow count for 5-10% of the mails. > > > > I agree with Simon that we have a community issue here (thanks Simon for > > pointing it out, I had not made the connection between moderators and the > > use of private@) > > > > Some of the PMC are trying to stop the mail flood and remind the PMC > group > > to make the thread publicly, but it seems to be something that takes > time. > > I for one will do, as I did in the beginning of this thread
RE: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
I am not certain exactly what issue is proposed to be discussed here. If you mean the over-use of private@ by the PMC, is there an issue to discuss? Those of us on the PMC need to be attentive to minimizing private@ discussions and bring to dev@ every discussion that is not one of the special cases requiring discreet usage of private@. Talking about it here doesn't seem necessary. Who would disagree? Those of us with PMC accountability need to make it so. It is expected of all PMCs. - Dennis More background, since volumes of private@ usage have been presented. There are two matters that have been brought here recently although they had wandered in and out of private@: 1. The changes to the PMC FAQ, involving a small comedy of errors (my synopsis) 2. The concerns about the openoffice.org/why page on the cost of compliance which also involved the Legal list and some private@ chiding by ASF officials The other major sources of recent volume on private@ involved private matters. Sometimes these are resolved entirely without any public discussion (e.g., handling a request for or dealing with an issue about trademark usage, votes to add new committers and/or PMC members). Generally, sometimes there is a privately-raised concern that is discussed until it is noticed that it has turned into a discussion that belongs on dev@ and not private@. It would be good to catch those earlier. It is up to the PMC to be vigilant and execute on those. Anything that involves policies impacting the project itself clearly must come to dev@ if there is ever any sort of proposition that involves conduct of the project and alignment of the community. A variety of privately-raised concerns simply come and go, however, even if there is a significant flurry of discussion at first. There are some routine items that arise from time to time on private@ but do not seem to introduce any major spurt in volume. With regard to the relative silence of other PMCs, I suggest that Apache OpenOffice has much greater reach into diverse communities and corresponding areas of concern compared to many Apache projects. We are not homogenous and we deal with many levels of participation and direction, much simply on account of the magnitude of the software, the sites, the intended users, and the history. We could be not so driven although I expect that would not resonate on dev@, user@, or the forums. -Original Message- From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2015 01:11 To: jan i Cc: dev Subject: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update Just realized, that many might jump over the old subject. This issue is an important issue and should not be hidden behind another subject. rgds jan i. [ ... ] > You are opening a very important issue here. This moderator subject was, > but should never have been discussed in private. > > During my first round as PMC, and now in my second round, I can see the > private@ is being wrongly used (in my opinion, with my PMC hat on) to > have long discussions which could just as well be public. I am convinced > that the PMC is NOT doing this on purpose, but simply because they forget. > > Without disclosing content here are some interesting numbers: > private@aoo compared to dev@aoo > March: 53 on private@, 93 on dev@ > Feb: 347 on private@, 400 on dev@ > Jan: 111 on private@, 542 on dev@ > > Numbers are taken from the mail archives, and might be off by a couple. > > I am a member of several projects and it is fair to say that none of the > other private lists I follow have a similar relationship. Typically private@ > in the projects I follow count for 5-10% of the mails. > > I agree with Simon that we have a community issue here (thanks Simon for > pointing it out, I had not made the connection between moderators and the > use of private@) > > Some of the PMC are trying to stop the mail flood and remind the PMC group > to make the thread publicly, but it seems to be something that takes time. > I for one will do, as I did in the beginning of this thread (and got quite > flamed for it) disclose my own opinion and as much as I can from private@ > without breaking the rules. > > I believe it is high time to discuss this issue openly...and hopefully not > only contributors but also comitters will raise their voice. > > rgds > jan I. > > > S. >> > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Open Office Writer Problems
Hi, I have used Open Office 4.1.1 for a long time without any problems. However it is misbehaving on two fronts. 1. The spell check is not checking misspelled words but is checking every word and not suggesting any solutions. 2. When I type the word th e the auto correct changes the word to to. Any suggestions. Joe Stewart
community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
Just realized, that many might jump over the old subject. This issue is an important issue and should not be hidden behind another subject. rgds jan i. On 7 March 2015 at 10:03, jan i wrote: > > > On 7 March 2015 at 01:55, Simon Phipps wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Andrea Pescetti >> wrote: >> >> > On 06/03/2015 Dave Barton wrote: >> > >> >> OK! One last attempt to clarify and resolve a trivial issue, that has >> >> become clouded in misunderstanding and mistranslated into some kind of >> >> "bike-shedding" subject. >> >> >> > >> > ...and misunderstood (or portrayed) as a transparency issue, when the >> > answer to your question on who is moderating the API list can readily be >> > found at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6095 and needed no >> > further discussion. >> >> >> ... which is of course the first place anyone would think to look! Just >> needs a "beware of the leopard" sign :-) >> >> Seriously, there's a community issue here. Those of us not on the PMC >> discovered accidentally that apparently harmless updates Kay proposed -- >> and was already implementing -- had been vetoed for undocumented reasons >> by >> unknown voices in a secret venue. Doesn't sound like the Apache Way. >> >> I believe the continued discussion is because of that and the strong >> reaction to asking about it, rather than the details of how and why to >> list >> the moderators (which to me still seems obvious, uncontroversial, modestly >> beneficial and best done simply). It begs the question why that reaction >> happened. >> > > You are opening a very important issue here. This moderator subject was, > but should never have been discussed in private. > > During my first round as PMC, and now in my second round, I can see the > private@ is being wrongly used (in my opinion, with my PMC hat on) to > have long discussions which could just as well be public. I am convinced > that the PMC is NOT doing this on purpose, but simply because they forget. > > Without disclosing content here are some interesting numbers: > private@aoo compared to dev@aoo > March: 53 on private@, 93 on dev@ > Feb: 347 on private@, 400 on dev@ > Jan: 111 on private@, 542 on dev@ > > Numbers are taken from the mail archives, and might be off by a couple. > > I am a member of several projects and it is fair to say that none of the > other private lists I follow have a similar relationship. Typically private@ > in the projects I follow count for 5-10% of the mails. > > I agree with Simon that we have a community issue here (thanks Simon for > pointing it out, I had not made the connection between moderators and the > use of private@) > > Some of the PMC are trying to stop the mail flood and remind the PMC group > to make the thread publicly, but it seems to be something that takes time. > I for one will do, as I did in the beginning of this thread (and got quite > flamed for it) disclose my own opinion and as much as I can from private@ > without breaking the rules. > > I believe it is high time to discuss this issue openly...and hopefully not > only contributors but also comitters will raise their voice. > > rgds > jan I. > > > S. >> > >
Re: PMC FAQ update
On 7 March 2015 at 01:55, Simon Phipps wrote: > On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Andrea Pescetti > wrote: > > > On 06/03/2015 Dave Barton wrote: > > > >> OK! One last attempt to clarify and resolve a trivial issue, that has > >> become clouded in misunderstanding and mistranslated into some kind of > >> "bike-shedding" subject. > >> > > > > ...and misunderstood (or portrayed) as a transparency issue, when the > > answer to your question on who is moderating the API list can readily be > > found at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6095 and needed no > > further discussion. > > > ... which is of course the first place anyone would think to look! Just > needs a "beware of the leopard" sign :-) > > Seriously, there's a community issue here. Those of us not on the PMC > discovered accidentally that apparently harmless updates Kay proposed -- > and was already implementing -- had been vetoed for undocumented reasons by > unknown voices in a secret venue. Doesn't sound like the Apache Way. > > I believe the continued discussion is because of that and the strong > reaction to asking about it, rather than the details of how and why to list > the moderators (which to me still seems obvious, uncontroversial, modestly > beneficial and best done simply). It begs the question why that reaction > happened. > You are opening a very important issue here. This moderator subject was, but should never have been discussed in private. During my first round as PMC, and now in my second round, I can see the private@ is being wrongly used (in my opinion, with my PMC hat on) to have long discussions which could just as well be public. I am convinced that the PMC is NOT doing this on purpose, but simply because they forget. Without disclosing content here are some interesting numbers: private@aoo compared to dev@aoo March: 53 on private@, 93 on dev@ Feb: 347 on private@, 400 on dev@ Jan: 111 on private@, 542 on dev@ Numbers are taken from the mail archives, and might be off by a couple. I am a member of several projects and it is fair to say that none of the other private lists I follow have a similar relationship. Typically private@ in the projects I follow count for 5-10% of the mails. I agree with Simon that we have a community issue here (thanks Simon for pointing it out, I had not made the connection between moderators and the use of private@) Some of the PMC are trying to stop the mail flood and remind the PMC group to make the thread publicly, but it seems to be something that takes time. I for one will do, as I did in the beginning of this thread (and got quite flamed for it) disclose my own opinion and as much as I can from private@ without breaking the rules. I believe it is high time to discuss this issue openly...and hopefully not only contributors but also comitters will raise their voice. rgds jan I. S. >
