Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
Thanks for both of your suggestions. The time table will be provided later. On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.comwrote: On 11/26/12 6:59 AM, Steve Yin wrote: Hi, I propose to integrate IAccessible2 as an accessibility feature for AOO 4.0. A wiki for the effort estimation can be found here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+IAccessible2 Here is my question. Should I create a feature in AOO Bugzilla and a branch for development? Hi Steve, this is good news. I would suggest that you give some details what do you expect to implement when. The integration of IAccessible2 is a bigger task and I don't see it all integrated in the next 4 month or so. Creating a new feature task in bugzilla would be the normal procedure and a new branch is a must from my perspective for this huge piece of work. Good to see progress on this important integration. Juergen -- Best Regards, Steve Yin
RE: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
Is this to be based on the Symphony code? - Dennis -Original Message- From: Steve Yin [mailto:steve.yin@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 01:07 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 Thanks for both of your suggestions. The time table will be provided later. On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.comwrote: On 11/26/12 6:59 AM, Steve Yin wrote: Hi, I propose to integrate IAccessible2 as an accessibility feature for AOO 4.0. A wiki for the effort estimation can be found here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+IAccessible2 Here is my question. Should I create a feature in AOO Bugzilla and a branch for development? Hi Steve, this is good news. I would suggest that you give some details what do you expect to implement when. The integration of IAccessible2 is a bigger task and I don't see it all integrated in the next 4 month or so. Creating a new feature task in bugzilla would be the normal procedure and a new branch is a must from my perspective for this huge piece of work. Good to see progress on this important integration. Juergen -- Best Regards, Steve Yin
Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Is this to be based on the Symphony code? Dennis, we have Symphony code within IBM. Remember, we wrote it. Whatever code we check in is covered by signed ICLA's and CCLA's. That should address all reasonable concerns with regards to the provenance of the code. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Steve Yin [mailto:steve.yin@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 01:07 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 Thanks for both of your suggestions. The time table will be provided later. On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.comwrote: On 11/26/12 6:59 AM, Steve Yin wrote: Hi, I propose to integrate IAccessible2 as an accessibility feature for AOO 4.0. A wiki for the effort estimation can be found here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+IAccessible2 Here is my question. Should I create a feature in AOO Bugzilla and a branch for development? Hi Steve, this is good news. I would suggest that you give some details what do you expect to implement when. The integration of IAccessible2 is a bigger task and I don't see it all integrated in the next 4 month or so. Creating a new feature task in bugzilla would be the normal procedure and a new branch is a must from my perspective for this huge piece of work. Good to see progress on this important integration. Juergen -- Best Regards, Steve Yin
Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
On 11/26/2012 13:40, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Is this to be based on the Symphony code? Dennis, we have Symphony code within IBM. Remember, we wrote it. Whatever code we check in is covered by signed ICLA's and CCLA's. That should address all reasonable concerns with regards to the provenance of the code. -Rob Rob, Cover concerns in the larger sense, yes: nobody should be worried that we or our downline customers will be jumping on anyone's copyright, by using the material in accordance with ALv2. But, in the smaller sense, maybe no. If the themes contain license information (presumably IBM's), then IIUC this /SHALL/ be changed by a duly authorized IBM employee before the code is added to AOO. (This is the same dull, demanding, and absolutely necessary job that Andrew Rist did for us, as authorized by Oracle.) A simple statement by Armand that no such license data exists, or by an IBM'er that the data will be changed, should allay any concerns; and we should feel confident of passing the RAT scan. /tj/ - Dennis -Original Message- From: Steve Yin [mailto:steve.yin@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 01:07 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 Thanks for both of your suggestions. The time table will be provided later. On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.comwrote: On 11/26/12 6:59 AM, Steve Yin wrote: Hi, I propose to integrate IAccessible2 as an accessibility feature for AOO 4.0. A wiki for the effort estimation can be found here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+IAccessible2 Here is my question. Should I create a feature in AOO Bugzilla and a branch for development? Hi Steve, this is good news. I would suggest that you give some details what do you expect to implement when. The integration of IAccessible2 is a bigger task and I don't see it all integrated in the next 4 month or so. Creating a new feature task in bugzilla would be the normal procedure and a new branch is a must from my perspective for this huge piece of work. Good to see progress on this important integration. Juergen -- Best Regards, Steve Yin
Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
Am 11/26/2012 06:59 AM, schrieb Steve Yin: Hi, I propose to integrate IAccessible2 as an accessibility feature for AOO 4.0. A wiki for the effort estimation can be found here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+IAccessible2 Here is my question. Should I create a feature in AOO Bugzilla and a branch for development? Thats good news. I'm looking forward to this really long-wanted improvement. Marcus
Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Remember, we wrote it. Well, I suppose the notion of work for hire might provide some nuance to we. And the CCLA covers that side of it. I gather this means that IBM-associated contributors will make ALv2-covered contributions directly to the SVN and/or via patches and that is the provenance there is. That should safeguard the interests of the ASF. So what is the point of there being a Symphony portion of the SVN tree? Go back to the discussion on this list when we initially checked it in. We had a long discussion about what to do with that code, with the two main options being: 1) Make /symphony be the new trunk and merge the delta from AOO 3.4 into Symphony, or 2) Keep the current AOO trunk and merge selected features from Symphony into the AOO trunk. The decision ultimately was to do 2), what we refer to as the slow merge. Since we took that direction the /symphony tree has not undergone development. Its main value (in retrospect) was to support that decision making process. Of course, if we had decided to take the other approach then /symphony would become the new trunk and the usual clean up activities would have occurred on the way to releasing that trunk. Remember, IP Cleanup is not just about changing the headers. It is a longer process, culminating in a vote to accept the code base. Once a code base is accepted, we should be releasing it and doing the other kinds of maintenance functions -- security patches, etc. -- that a responsible PMC does for its releases. But I see zero volunteers stepping forward to maintain a second office suite in this project. So it makes no sense to me to spend time on a tree that we're never going to release. I now agree with a comment that you made in a previous discussion about this. I think it should be removed if it is never going to be IP-scrubbed. We have another direction in Subversion that is also odd. It has an eclectic set of licenses on its files. In some cases it includes files where we cannot clearly identify the license. Instead of hypotheticals we have actual examples of real 3rd parties wanting to reuse the files, but we're not always able to clearly point them to the license terms. We don't even have an SGA for these files. So should we delete this directory as well? Of course, I speak of our website in /ooo-site. IMHO, it is not a problem so long as we don't include it in a release. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:41 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Is this to be based on the Symphony code? Dennis, we have Symphony code within IBM. Remember, we wrote it. Whatever code we check in is covered by signed ICLA's and CCLA's. That should address all reasonable concerns with regards to the provenance of the code. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Steve Yin [mailto:steve.yin@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 01:07 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 Thanks for both of your suggestions. The time table will be provided later. On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.comwrote: On 11/26/12 6:59 AM, Steve Yin wrote: Hi, I propose to integrate IAccessible2 as an accessibility feature for AOO 4.0. A wiki for the effort estimation can be found here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+IAccessible2 Here is my question. Should I create a feature in AOO Bugzilla and a branch for development? Hi Steve, this is good news. I would suggest that you give some details what do you expect to implement when. The integration of IAccessible2 is a bigger task and I don't see it all integrated in the next 4 month or so. Creating a new feature task in bugzilla would be the normal procedure and a new branch is a must from my perspective for this huge piece of work. Good to see progress on this important integration. Juergen -- Best Regards, Steve Yin
RE: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
I don't think the web site situation is an equivalent. I also don't think the choice of base for integration of Symphony features is relevant. I am concerned about the Symphony tree being in the public SVN and being an attractive nuisance. If it is not going to be morphed into something that can be worked with and integrated by the community of contributors, I recommend that it be gone. (Of course, I can remove it from any working copy that I possess, and I shall do that in switching to the new repository location.) - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 14:25 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Remember, we wrote it. Well, I suppose the notion of work for hire might provide some nuance to we. And the CCLA covers that side of it. I gather this means that IBM-associated contributors will make ALv2-covered contributions directly to the SVN and/or via patches and that is the provenance there is. That should safeguard the interests of the ASF. So what is the point of there being a Symphony portion of the SVN tree? Go back to the discussion on this list when we initially checked it in. We had a long discussion about what to do with that code, with the two main options being: 1) Make /symphony be the new trunk and merge the delta from AOO 3.4 into Symphony, or 2) Keep the current AOO trunk and merge selected features from Symphony into the AOO trunk. The decision ultimately was to do 2), what we refer to as the slow merge. Since we took that direction the /symphony tree has not undergone development. Its main value (in retrospect) was to support that decision making process. Of course, if we had decided to take the other approach then /symphony would become the new trunk and the usual clean up activities would have occurred on the way to releasing that trunk. Remember, IP Cleanup is not just about changing the headers. It is a longer process, culminating in a vote to accept the code base. Once a code base is accepted, we should be releasing it and doing the other kinds of maintenance functions -- security patches, etc. -- that a responsible PMC does for its releases. But I see zero volunteers stepping forward to maintain a second office suite in this project. So it makes no sense to me to spend time on a tree that we're never going to release. I now agree with a comment that you made in a previous discussion about this. I think it should be removed if it is never going to be IP-scrubbed. We have another direction in Subversion that is also odd. It has an eclectic set of licenses on its files. In some cases it includes files where we cannot clearly identify the license. Instead of hypotheticals we have actual examples of real 3rd parties wanting to reuse the files, but we're not always able to clearly point them to the license terms. We don't even have an SGA for these files. So should we delete this directory as well? Of course, I speak of our website in /ooo-site. IMHO, it is not a problem so long as we don't include it in a release. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:41 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Is this to be based on the Symphony code? Dennis, we have Symphony code within IBM. Remember, we wrote it. Whatever code we check in is covered by signed ICLA's and CCLA's. That should address all reasonable concerns with regards to the provenance of the code. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Steve Yin [mailto:steve.yin@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 01:07 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 Thanks for both of your suggestions. The time table will be provided later. On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.comwrote: On 11/26/12 6:59 AM, Steve Yin wrote: Hi, I propose to integrate IAccessible2 as an accessibility feature for AOO 4.0. A wiki for the effort estimation can be found here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+IAccessible2 Here is my question. Should I create a feature in AOO Bugzilla and a branch for development? Hi Steve, this is good news. I would suggest that you give some details what do you expect to implement when. The integration of IAccessible2 is a bigger task and I don't see it all integrated in the next 4 month or so. Creating a new feature task in bugzilla would be the normal procedure and a new branch is a must from my perspective for this huge piece of work. Good to see progress on this important integration. Juergen
RE: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
I think I've expressed my concerns. I have nothing to add. One follow-up question though: Previously you had offered to see if it was possible to get a permission letter from IBM to ASF allowing the project to adjust headers and notices to have them be under ALv2. Is that not going to happen? - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 14:57 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: RE: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 I don't think the web site situation is an equivalent. I also don't think the choice of base for integration of Symphony features is relevant. I am concerned about the Symphony tree being in the public SVN and being an attractive nuisance. If it is not going to be morphed into something that can be worked with and integrated by the community of contributors, I recommend that it be gone. (Of course, I can remove it from any working copy that I possess, and I shall do that in switching to the new repository location.) - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 14:25 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Remember, we wrote it. Well, I suppose the notion of work for hire might provide some nuance to we. And the CCLA covers that side of it. I gather this means that IBM-associated contributors will make ALv2-covered contributions directly to the SVN and/or via patches and that is the provenance there is. That should safeguard the interests of the ASF. So what is the point of there being a Symphony portion of the SVN tree? Go back to the discussion on this list when we initially checked it in. We had a long discussion about what to do with that code, with the two main options being: 1) Make /symphony be the new trunk and merge the delta from AOO 3.4 into Symphony, or 2) Keep the current AOO trunk and merge selected features from Symphony into the AOO trunk. The decision ultimately was to do 2), what we refer to as the slow merge. Since we took that direction the /symphony tree has not undergone development. Its main value (in retrospect) was to support that decision making process. Of course, if we had decided to take the other approach then /symphony would become the new trunk and the usual clean up activities would have occurred on the way to releasing that trunk. Remember, IP Cleanup is not just about changing the headers. It is a longer process, culminating in a vote to accept the code base. Once a code base is accepted, we should be releasing it and doing the other kinds of maintenance functions -- security patches, etc. -- that a responsible PMC does for its releases. But I see zero volunteers stepping forward to maintain a second office suite in this project. So it makes no sense to me to spend time on a tree that we're never going to release. I now agree with a comment that you made in a previous discussion about this. I think it should be removed if it is never going to be IP-scrubbed. We have another direction in Subversion that is also odd. It has an eclectic set of licenses on its files. In some cases it includes files where we cannot clearly identify the license. Instead of hypotheticals we have actual examples of real 3rd parties wanting to reuse the files, but we're not always able to clearly point them to the license terms. We don't even have an SGA for these files. So should we delete this directory as well? Of course, I speak of our website in /ooo-site. IMHO, it is not a problem so long as we don't include it in a release. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:41 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Is this to be based on the Symphony code? Dennis, we have Symphony code within IBM. Remember, we wrote it. Whatever code we check in is covered by signed ICLA's and CCLA's. That should address all reasonable concerns with regards to the provenance of the code. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Steve Yin [mailto:steve.yin@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 01:07 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 Thanks for both of your suggestions. The time table will be provided later. On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.comwrote: On 11/26/12 6:59 AM, Steve Yin wrote: Hi, I propose to integrate IAccessible2 as an accessibility feature for AOO 4.0. A wiki for the effort estimation can be found here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+IAccessible2 Here is my question
Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: I don't think the web site situation is an equivalent. I also don't think the choice of base for integration of Symphony features is relevant. I am concerned about the Symphony tree being in the public SVN and being an attractive nuisance. If it is not going to be morphed into something that can be worked with and integrated by the community of contributors, I recommend that it be gone. Feel free to make a proposal in a new thread, seek lazy consensus and act on it after 72 hours. You have karma. -Rob (Of course, I can remove it from any working copy that I possess, and I shall do that in switching to the new repository location.) - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 14:25 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Remember, we wrote it. Well, I suppose the notion of work for hire might provide some nuance to we. And the CCLA covers that side of it. I gather this means that IBM-associated contributors will make ALv2-covered contributions directly to the SVN and/or via patches and that is the provenance there is. That should safeguard the interests of the ASF. So what is the point of there being a Symphony portion of the SVN tree? Go back to the discussion on this list when we initially checked it in. We had a long discussion about what to do with that code, with the two main options being: 1) Make /symphony be the new trunk and merge the delta from AOO 3.4 into Symphony, or 2) Keep the current AOO trunk and merge selected features from Symphony into the AOO trunk. The decision ultimately was to do 2), what we refer to as the slow merge. Since we took that direction the /symphony tree has not undergone development. Its main value (in retrospect) was to support that decision making process. Of course, if we had decided to take the other approach then /symphony would become the new trunk and the usual clean up activities would have occurred on the way to releasing that trunk. Remember, IP Cleanup is not just about changing the headers. It is a longer process, culminating in a vote to accept the code base. Once a code base is accepted, we should be releasing it and doing the other kinds of maintenance functions -- security patches, etc. -- that a responsible PMC does for its releases. But I see zero volunteers stepping forward to maintain a second office suite in this project. So it makes no sense to me to spend time on a tree that we're never going to release. I now agree with a comment that you made in a previous discussion about this. I think it should be removed if it is never going to be IP-scrubbed. We have another direction in Subversion that is also odd. It has an eclectic set of licenses on its files. In some cases it includes files where we cannot clearly identify the license. Instead of hypotheticals we have actual examples of real 3rd parties wanting to reuse the files, but we're not always able to clearly point them to the license terms. We don't even have an SGA for these files. So should we delete this directory as well? Of course, I speak of our website in /ooo-site. IMHO, it is not a problem so long as we don't include it in a release. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:41 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Is this to be based on the Symphony code? Dennis, we have Symphony code within IBM. Remember, we wrote it. Whatever code we check in is covered by signed ICLA's and CCLA's. That should address all reasonable concerns with regards to the provenance of the code. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Steve Yin [mailto:steve.yin@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 01:07 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 Thanks for both of your suggestions. The time table will be provided later. On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.comwrote: On 11/26/12 6:59 AM, Steve Yin wrote: Hi, I propose to integrate IAccessible2 as an accessibility feature for AOO 4.0. A wiki for the effort estimation can be found here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+IAccessible2 Here is my question. Should I create a feature in AOO Bugzilla and a branch for development? Hi Steve, this is good news. I would suggest that you give some details what do you expect to implement when. The integration of IAccessible2 is a bigger task and I don't see it all
Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I think I've expressed my concerns. I have nothing to add. One follow-up question though: Previously you had offered to see if it was possible to get a permission letter from IBM to ASF allowing the project to adjust headers and notices to have them be under ALv2. Is that not going to happen? The headers are red herring. Remind yourself of how long it took to remove the Oracle copyright and the LGPL headers from /trunk. The SGA was submitted in June (or was it May?) 2011. But we didn't get code checked in until 2011-08-29, right? And the license header updates were done over a longer period of time, not completed until 2012-04-30. Did this prevent anyone from working with the code before 2012-04-30? Of course not. Did anyone raise any concerns? No. In fact we did almost the *entire AOO 3.4.0 work* in that time period. The headers had to be updated before we could release the code. But it did not prevent anyone from working with the code before the release. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 14:57 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: RE: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 I don't think the web site situation is an equivalent. I also don't think the choice of base for integration of Symphony features is relevant. I am concerned about the Symphony tree being in the public SVN and being an attractive nuisance. If it is not going to be morphed into something that can be worked with and integrated by the community of contributors, I recommend that it be gone. (Of course, I can remove it from any working copy that I possess, and I shall do that in switching to the new repository location.) - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 14:25 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Remember, we wrote it. Well, I suppose the notion of work for hire might provide some nuance to we. And the CCLA covers that side of it. I gather this means that IBM-associated contributors will make ALv2-covered contributions directly to the SVN and/or via patches and that is the provenance there is. That should safeguard the interests of the ASF. So what is the point of there being a Symphony portion of the SVN tree? Go back to the discussion on this list when we initially checked it in. We had a long discussion about what to do with that code, with the two main options being: 1) Make /symphony be the new trunk and merge the delta from AOO 3.4 into Symphony, or 2) Keep the current AOO trunk and merge selected features from Symphony into the AOO trunk. The decision ultimately was to do 2), what we refer to as the slow merge. Since we took that direction the /symphony tree has not undergone development. Its main value (in retrospect) was to support that decision making process. Of course, if we had decided to take the other approach then /symphony would become the new trunk and the usual clean up activities would have occurred on the way to releasing that trunk. Remember, IP Cleanup is not just about changing the headers. It is a longer process, culminating in a vote to accept the code base. Once a code base is accepted, we should be releasing it and doing the other kinds of maintenance functions -- security patches, etc. -- that a responsible PMC does for its releases. But I see zero volunteers stepping forward to maintain a second office suite in this project. So it makes no sense to me to spend time on a tree that we're never going to release. I now agree with a comment that you made in a previous discussion about this. I think it should be removed if it is never going to be IP-scrubbed. We have another direction in Subversion that is also odd. It has an eclectic set of licenses on its files. In some cases it includes files where we cannot clearly identify the license. Instead of hypotheticals we have actual examples of real 3rd parties wanting to reuse the files, but we're not always able to clearly point them to the license terms. We don't even have an SGA for these files. So should we delete this directory as well? Of course, I speak of our website in /ooo-site. IMHO, it is not a problem so long as we don't include it in a release. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:41 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Is this to be based on the Symphony code? Dennis, we have Symphony code within IBM
RE: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
I was only talking about cleaning up my working copies from the SVN. I have no desire to touch Symphony on the SVN (and I believe the incubator SVN copy is now read-only). - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 15:18 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: I don't think the web site situation is an equivalent. I also don't think the choice of base for integration of Symphony features is relevant. I am concerned about the Symphony tree being in the public SVN and being an attractive nuisance. If it is not going to be morphed into something that can be worked with and integrated by the community of contributors, I recommend that it be gone. Feel free to make a proposal in a new thread, seek lazy consensus and act on it after 72 hours. You have karma. -Rob (Of course, I can remove it from any working copy that I possess, and I shall do that in switching to the new repository location.) - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 14:25 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Remember, we wrote it. Well, I suppose the notion of work for hire might provide some nuance to we. And the CCLA covers that side of it. I gather this means that IBM-associated contributors will make ALv2-covered contributions directly to the SVN and/or via patches and that is the provenance there is. That should safeguard the interests of the ASF. So what is the point of there being a Symphony portion of the SVN tree? Go back to the discussion on this list when we initially checked it in. We had a long discussion about what to do with that code, with the two main options being: 1) Make /symphony be the new trunk and merge the delta from AOO 3.4 into Symphony, or 2) Keep the current AOO trunk and merge selected features from Symphony into the AOO trunk. The decision ultimately was to do 2), what we refer to as the slow merge. Since we took that direction the /symphony tree has not undergone development. Its main value (in retrospect) was to support that decision making process. Of course, if we had decided to take the other approach then /symphony would become the new trunk and the usual clean up activities would have occurred on the way to releasing that trunk. Remember, IP Cleanup is not just about changing the headers. It is a longer process, culminating in a vote to accept the code base. Once a code base is accepted, we should be releasing it and doing the other kinds of maintenance functions -- security patches, etc. -- that a responsible PMC does for its releases. But I see zero volunteers stepping forward to maintain a second office suite in this project. So it makes no sense to me to spend time on a tree that we're never going to release. I now agree with a comment that you made in a previous discussion about this. I think it should be removed if it is never going to be IP-scrubbed. We have another direction in Subversion that is also odd. It has an eclectic set of licenses on its files. In some cases it includes files where we cannot clearly identify the license. Instead of hypotheticals we have actual examples of real 3rd parties wanting to reuse the files, but we're not always able to clearly point them to the license terms. We don't even have an SGA for these files. So should we delete this directory as well? Of course, I speak of our website in /ooo-site. IMHO, it is not a problem so long as we don't include it in a release. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:41 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Is this to be based on the Symphony code? Dennis, we have Symphony code within IBM. Remember, we wrote it. Whatever code we check in is covered by signed ICLA's and CCLA's. That should address all reasonable concerns with regards to the provenance of the code. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Steve Yin [mailto:steve.yin@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 01:07 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 Thanks for both of your suggestions. The time table will be provided later. On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.comwrote: On 11/26/12 6:59 AM, Steve Yin wrote: Hi, I propose to integrate IAccessible2 as an accessibility feature for AOO 4.0. A wiki for the effort estimation can
Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Remember, we wrote it. Well, I suppose the notion of work for hire might provide some nuance to we. I gather this means that IBM-associated contributors will make ALv2-covered contributions directly to the SVN and/or via patches and that is the provenance there is. That should safeguard the interests of the ASF. So what is the point of there being a Symphony portion of the SVN tree? The Symphony portion is a good reference if a contributor want to fix a defect already been fixed in Symphony. The gallery, art works are also valuable and can be integrated into AOO. It save contributors from IBM a lot of effort on additional legal process. Back to a couple of years ago, we need went through internal legal process every time we want to contributed something to OpenOffice.org. I now agree with a comment that you made in a previous discussion about this. I think it should be removed if it is never going to be IP-scrubbed. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:41 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Is this to be based on the Symphony code? Dennis, we have Symphony code within IBM. Remember, we wrote it. Whatever code we check in is covered by signed ICLA's and CCLA's. That should address all reasonable concerns with regards to the provenance of the code. -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Steve Yin [mailto:steve.yin@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 01:07 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 Thanks for both of your suggestions. The time table will be provided later. On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/26/12 6:59 AM, Steve Yin wrote: Hi, I propose to integrate IAccessible2 as an accessibility feature for AOO 4.0. A wiki for the effort estimation can be found here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+IAccessible2 Here is my question. Should I create a feature in AOO Bugzilla and a branch for development? Hi Steve, this is good news. I would suggest that you give some details what do you expect to implement when. The integration of IAccessible2 is a bigger task and I don't see it all integrated in the next 4 month or so. Creating a new feature task in bugzilla would be the normal procedure and a new branch is a must from my perspective for this huge piece of work. Good to see progress on this important integration. Juergen -- Best Regards, Steve Yin -- Regards Yong Lin Ma
Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
On 11/27/12 4:12 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I was only talking about cleaning up my working copies from the SVN. I have no desire to touch Symphony on the SVN (and I believe the incubator SVN copy is now read-only). perfect, means you are save now. For all other people who are interested in improving the code or want to help merging fixes/features from the Symphony code into trunk. Feel free to analyze the code to understand it, extract a patch or whatever and when you run into a problem with a license header come back on the dev list and we will help you to solve this problem. The license header shouldn't prevent anybody from doing some real work. As we have pointed out now several times we have no plans to release this code and it is only for reference and to cherry pick specific features, fixes etc. from the code and merge it into trunk. The reason is quite simple, we don't want to waste our time with stupid editing work that is completely useless. We have really enough other things to do. When we think that there is nothing more in the Symphony tree that is worth to merge we can and will remove the code. We can do that immediately when people believe it is a real problem. But please let us move forward with useful and important work to improve our product. And please stop this fruitless discussion. If there are real concerns about the code in SVN start a new thread as Rob mentioned and seek lazy consensus for the removal. Just my personal opinion Juergen - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 15:18 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: I don't think the web site situation is an equivalent. I also don't think the choice of base for integration of Symphony features is relevant. I am concerned about the Symphony tree being in the public SVN and being an attractive nuisance. If it is not going to be morphed into something that can be worked with and integrated by the community of contributors, I recommend that it be gone. Feel free to make a proposal in a new thread, seek lazy consensus and act on it after 72 hours. You have karma. -Rob (Of course, I can remove it from any working copy that I possess, and I shall do that in switching to the new repository location.) - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 14:25 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Remember, we wrote it. Well, I suppose the notion of work for hire might provide some nuance to we. And the CCLA covers that side of it. I gather this means that IBM-associated contributors will make ALv2-covered contributions directly to the SVN and/or via patches and that is the provenance there is. That should safeguard the interests of the ASF. So what is the point of there being a Symphony portion of the SVN tree? Go back to the discussion on this list when we initially checked it in. We had a long discussion about what to do with that code, with the two main options being: 1) Make /symphony be the new trunk and merge the delta from AOO 3.4 into Symphony, or 2) Keep the current AOO trunk and merge selected features from Symphony into the AOO trunk. The decision ultimately was to do 2), what we refer to as the slow merge. Since we took that direction the /symphony tree has not undergone development. Its main value (in retrospect) was to support that decision making process. Of course, if we had decided to take the other approach then /symphony would become the new trunk and the usual clean up activities would have occurred on the way to releasing that trunk. Remember, IP Cleanup is not just about changing the headers. It is a longer process, culminating in a vote to accept the code base. Once a code base is accepted, we should be releasing it and doing the other kinds of maintenance functions -- security patches, etc. -- that a responsible PMC does for its releases. But I see zero volunteers stepping forward to maintain a second office suite in this project. So it makes no sense to me to spend time on a tree that we're never going to release. I now agree with a comment that you made in a previous discussion about this. I think it should be removed if it is never going to be IP-scrubbed. We have another direction in Subversion that is also odd. It has an eclectic set of licenses on its files. In some cases it includes files where we cannot clearly identify the license. Instead of hypotheticals we have actual examples of real 3rd parties wanting to reuse the files, but we're not always able to clearly point them to the license terms. We
IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
Hi, I propose to integrate IAccessible2 as an accessibility feature for AOO 4.0. A wiki for the effort estimation can be found here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+IAccessible2 Here is my question. Should I create a feature in AOO Bugzilla and a branch for development? -- Best Regards, Steve Yin
