date:20110929

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> It has been the practice, thus far, that all newly-invited committers are 
> invited to also be on the Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC). Some 
> decline being on the PPMC, some accept, some accept but don't actually show 
> up at the PPMC, etc.
>
> A question was raised at the PPMC whether that practice should be continued.
>
> One alternative would be to invite people to be committers and to invite 
> committers to become PPMC members separately.
>
> Another alternative would be to decide on each individual consideration, 
> whether to invite as committer or as committer plus PPMC.
>
> This discussion is to find out what the sentiments in the ooo-dev community 
> are on this subject.  It is also a way to learn what your questions are and 
> endeavor to answer them.
>

Committer and PMC member are two different roles.  As part of the
podling bootstrapping process all initial committers were also made
PMC members.

You can see the roles defined on the "How the ASF works page" [1]:

"A committer is a developer that was given write access to the code
repository and has a signed Contributor License Agreement (CLA) on
file. They have an apache.org mail address. Not needing to depend on
other people for the patches, they are actually making short-term
decisions for the project. The PMC can (even tacitly) agree and
approve it into permanency, or they can reject it. Remember that the
PMC makes the decisions, not the individual people."

A PMC member is a developer or a committer that was elected due to
merit for the evolution of the project and demonstration of
commitment. They have write access to the code repository, an
apache.org mail address, the right to vote for the community-related
decisions and the right to propose an active user for committership.
The PMC as a whole is the entity that controls the project, nobody
else."

Note specifically that a committer can have a narrow focus.   But a
PMC member has broader responsibilities.  I'd expect a committer to
have demonstrated competence in some area of the project that requires
committer access, such as coding, testing, doc, or admin work.  I'd
expect a PMC member to additionally have a strong interest in the
overall direction of the project, and to have exhibited insight and
judgment that would be an asset to the oversight of the overall
project .

The Podling Guide [2] also supports this view, when it says:  "The
PPMC should take an active role in watching committers develop into
community participants, identify those who are participating at a
community level, not just a technical one, and approach them with an
offer of PPMC membership."

So PPMC membership is seen as an additional step, after a committer
starts showing community contributions, not merely technical ones.
The Guide also says, "It should be a goal of a podling to have all
committers participate in the PPMC".  I agree with that as goal, just
as I agree that it should be a goal for contributors to eventually
become committers.  That is part of community development.  But this
occurs as a process.  We should not conflate the roles beyond what was
necessary when the project was bootstrapped.

[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles
[2] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html

-Rob

>  - Dennis
>
> SOME CONTEXT
>
> The initial committers, those who were signed up on the original podling 
> proposal, are automatically grandfathered into the project as committers and 
> PPMC members.  There are still some of those who have not shown up, some have 
> submitted iCLAs but not gone farther, some do not respond to follow-up 
> e-mails etc.  Although there was discussion here on ooo-dev about having an 
> use-by date on the Initial Committer invitations, action has not been taken 
> to offer a last-chance and a deadline at this point.  (I think that has been 
> my action; I have not given it any priority.)
>
> MY PREFERENCE
>
> Since, I am speaking first, here's my view.
>
> My preference is to continue the current practice of inviting contributors to 
> be both committers and members of the PPMC.  I have seen it recommended for 
> Podlings and I see no reason to suddenly change.  Also, I expect there will 
> be some culling of the PPMC on graduation to a top-level project and a PMC.
>

I believe you have misread the recommendation in the Podling Guide.
If you read the complete paragraph, it is clearer.

> I have seen no harm in the practice whatsoever.  There has been no injury or 
> damage no matter what apprehensions there are about having a wide membership 
> in the PPMC.
>
> The current practice exposes more contributors to the workings of the PPMC, 
> and it also provides a way for contributors who are not exclusively focused 
> on development to offer their contributions in yet another way.  Part of the 
> challenge of the incubator is to develop a sustainable activity for 
> continuing renewal of

RE: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog

Thanks Dave,

That clears up a lot.  I see no reason to have the limited rights case.  The 
practice is to post-date the blog entry and allow it to be reviewed before it 
surfaces, so that should work fine for all authors.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 18:07
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog


On Sep 29, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> A small number of us agreed to be editors for the blog.  Now I wonder if that 
> is an empty occupation, no different from being an author?

Editor/author same thing. You have your id and are permissioned in Roller with 
"Author" rights. When we solicited the list it was called an "Editor".

We could offer "Limited" rights which let's someone write a blog but not post 
it.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> - Dennis
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 17:03
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog
> 
> OK, I'll put a request in to Infrastructure. But first let's see if we have a 
> batch of accounts to create.
> 
> Do any other committers or PPMC members request an Apache Blog account?
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> 
 
 perhaps i am blind but is it possible that we need a JIRA ticket to
>>> request
 the account for blogs.apache.org and then you can grant us authors
>>> rights on
 the AOO blog.
>>> 
>>> Possibly. What happens when you go to
>>> https://blogs.apache.org/roller-ui/login.rol and enter your apache login
>>> credentials?
>>> 
>> 
>> i used "jsc" and my pw and got a "Wrong username and password combination"
>> error. The username and password work well in other places, for example the
>> wiki
>> 
>> Juergen
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>

[DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

It has been the practice, thus far, that all newly-invited committers are 
invited to also be on the Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC). Some 
decline being on the PPMC, some accept, some accept but don't actually show up 
at the PPMC, etc.

A question was raised at the PPMC whether that practice should be continued. 

One alternative would be to invite people to be committers and to invite 
committers to become PPMC members separately.

Another alternative would be to decide on each individual consideration, 
whether to invite as committer or as committer plus PPMC.

This discussion is to find out what the sentiments in the ooo-dev community are 
on this subject.  It is also a way to learn what your questions are and 
endeavor to answer them.

 - Dennis

SOME CONTEXT

The initial committers, those who were signed up on the original podling 
proposal, are automatically grandfathered into the project as committers and 
PPMC members.  There are still some of those who have not shown up, some have 
submitted iCLAs but not gone farther, some do not respond to follow-up e-mails 
etc.  Although there was discussion here on ooo-dev about having an use-by date 
on the Initial Committer invitations, action has not been taken to offer a 
last-chance and a deadline at this point.  (I think that has been my action; I 
have not given it any priority.)

MY PREFERENCE

Since, I am speaking first, here's my view.

My preference is to continue the current practice of inviting contributors to 
be both committers and members of the PPMC.  I have seen it recommended for 
Podlings and I see no reason to suddenly change.  Also, I expect there will be 
some culling of the PPMC on graduation to a top-level project and a PMC.

I have seen no harm in the practice whatsoever.  There has been no injury or 
damage no matter what apprehensions there are about having a wide membership in 
the PPMC.

The current practice exposes more contributors to the workings of the PPMC, and 
it also provides a way for contributors who are not exclusively focused on 
development to offer their contributions in yet another way.  Part of the 
challenge of the incubator is to develop a sustainable activity for continuing 
renewal of participation in the face of contributor, committer, and PPMC member 
turnover.  It is the initial PPMCs challenge to foster that and live it.  

The way to develop a resilient, sustainable project, is to keep PPMC membership 
open to new committers for now.

That's one view.  There are many more.  What are they?

Re: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog


On Sep 29, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> A small number of us agreed to be editors for the blog.  Now I wonder if that 
> is an empty occupation, no different from being an author?

Editor/author same thing. You have your id and are permissioned in Roller with 
"Author" rights. When we solicited the list it was called an "Editor".

We could offer "Limited" rights which let's someone write a blog but not post 
it.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> - Dennis
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 17:03
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog
> 
> OK, I'll put a request in to Infrastructure. But first let's see if we have a 
> batch of accounts to create.
> 
> Do any other committers or PPMC members request an Apache Blog account?
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> 
 
 perhaps i am blind but is it possible that we need a JIRA ticket to
>>> request
 the account for blogs.apache.org and then you can grant us authors
>>> rights on
 the AOO blog.
>>> 
>>> Possibly. What happens when you go to
>>> https://blogs.apache.org/roller-ui/login.rol and enter your apache login
>>> credentials?
>>> 
>> 
>> i used "jsc" and my pw and got a "Wrong username and password combination"
>> error. The username and password work well in other places, for example the
>> wiki
>> 
>> Juergen
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>

RE: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog

A small number of us agreed to be editors for the blog.  Now I wonder if that 
is an empty occupation, no different from being an author?

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 17:03
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog

OK, I'll put a request in to Infrastructure. But first let's see if we have a 
batch of accounts to create.

Do any other committers or PPMC members request an Apache Blog account?

Regards,
Dave

On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> perhaps i am blind but is it possible that we need a JIRA ticket to
>> request
>>> the account for blogs.apache.org and then you can grant us authors
>> rights on
>>> the AOO blog.
>> 
>> Possibly. What happens when you go to
>> https://blogs.apache.org/roller-ui/login.rol and enter your apache login
>> credentials?
>> 
> 
> i used "jsc" and my pw and got a "Wrong username and password combination"
> error. The username and password work well in other places, for example the
> wiki
> 
> Juergen
> 
> 
>> 
>>

Re: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog

OK, I'll put a request in to Infrastructure. But first let's see if we have a 
batch of accounts to create.

Do any other committers or PPMC members request an Apache Blog account?

Regards,
Dave

On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> perhaps i am blind but is it possible that we need a JIRA ticket to
>> request
>>> the account for blogs.apache.org and then you can grant us authors
>> rights on
>>> the AOO blog.
>> 
>> Possibly. What happens when you go to
>> https://blogs.apache.org/roller-ui/login.rol and enter your apache login
>> credentials?
>> 
> 
> i used "jsc" and my pw and got a "Wrong username and password combination"
> error. The username and password work well in other places, for example the
> wiki
> 
> Juergen
> 
> 
>> 
>>

Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

On 29 September 2011 21:15, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> But, evidently, not all of the mentors appear on the ooo committers list.  (I 
> found two absent immediately.)  That has to be researched further.

Mentors are not necessarily committers. Committership needs to be
earned in the community, this goes for mentors as well. All we bring
with us is an understanding of the Apache Way and the ASF. We do not
have merit within the OOo project community and thus are not really
committers.

Ross

>
>  - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:grobme...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:55
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members
>
>>> The entries in bold identify some who might (also) be
>>> mentors/ASF Members.
>>
>> Bold identifies ASF members. Not every member listed is a Mentor. I think 
>> though you have to be a Member to be a Mentor although I could be wrong 
>> about that.
>
> You don't need to be a Member to become a Mentor - the restriciton is
> you are an IPMC member.
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#mentors-ipmc
>
> It is easy to become an IPMC member when you are an ASF member,
> because you simply need to ask for addition.
>
> To my knowledge all Mentors of the OOO podling are ASF members.
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> PS: This index finds all committers and what projects they are authorized
>>> to commit on: .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhyt...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:58
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members
>>>
>>> Looking at the AOO "people" page
>>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html) I see "some of
>>> our contributors".  Is this a list of committers?  If so, perhaps new
>>> committers can be announced along the lines of, "The OpenOffice list
>>> of Committers at  has updated with the addition of ."  Less
>>> laudatory, more PSA.
>>>
>>> If that list on the site isn't of committers, should it be?  Or should
>>> there be one, with "other contributors" mentioned?
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
 A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new
 committers since the project started.  This is false. But it would be
 hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website.

 So far we've been quiet about new committers.  We have the votes,
 process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list.

 Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
 list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.

 IMHO, we want to avoid two errors, at the extremes:

 1) A public announcement note for new committers that is read as being
 too congratulatory, one that makes those who are not committers (or
 not yet committers) feel less appreciated.

 2) Total lack of any acknowledgement of new committers/PPMC that leads
 observers to believe that new committers are chosen in a secret
 ceremony involving ceremonial robes, oaths, and animal sacrifices.

 An announcement of a new committer should not be surprising.  It
 should confirm what any regular observer of the mailing list already
 knows, namely that person X is actively involved in the project and is
 making high quality contributions. So on one hand, acknowledging a new
 committer should not tell you anything that you don't already know.

 On the other hand, there is reinforcement value to stating what we
 know, especially for newer members of the project, i.e., the project's
 future committers.

 By analogy, I've worked in situations where job promotions were given
 secretly, and people were shy to ever speak of them.  It suggested
 that the company could not bear the scrutiny of seeing the inequity of
 hoiw promotions were given out.  And I've worked places where
 promotions were announced widely, with a summary of the person's
 recent contributions, reinforcing to the entire team the kinds of
 contributions that could get them -- some day -- a similar promotion.

 If we believe that we're doing a good job at selecting new committers
 then we should want this to be known.  Transparency shows the fairness
 of the process.

 Obviously the context here at Apache is not the same.  But I think the
 choices are analogous.

 Personally, I'm in favor of a modest announcement to the ooo-dev list
 after a new committer has been elected and have submitted the iCLA.

 What do you think?

 -Rob

>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>
>

-- 
Ross Gardler (@r

Re: Wiki status and freeze date?

2011-09-29 Thread Alexandro Colorado

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

> Alexandro--
>
> The initial load was sometime in Aug -- I just looked this up but now don't
> remember the EXACT date, no one has access (old accounts do not work and new
> ones can't be created as near as I can tell). We are now, with Terry's
> leaving, JUST now getting back to the wiki discussion...see the "Wiki in
> productive use?" thread.
>
> I did indeed notice lots of activity on the current wiki for the "es" area.
> My advice is to just keep doing what you're doing there and at some point we
> will of course need to "catch up".
>
>
Ok good to know, will keep do so.


>
>
>
> On 09/28/2011 05:34 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
>
>> I want to know since when is the wiki in the apache server been on the
>> server. Is there any plans to sync it with the one on the
>> wiki.services.openoffice.org.
>>
>> I got some ongoing work and would need to sync it down to the apache
>> location at ooo-wiki.apache.org.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
> --
> 
> MzK
>
> "There is no such thing as coincidence."
>   -- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39
>



-- 
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6

Re: [users] Unable to add comment on OpenOffice.org Bugzilla

2011-09-29 Thread Raphael Bircher


Am 30.09.11 00:57, schrieb Dave Fisher:

Raphael,

I think you will need to reply to the OP on us...@openoffice.org as he is not 
subscribed to ooo-dev and his original email was bounced.

I added the users, the mail is in Moderation.


Regards,
Dave

On Sep 29, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Raphael Bircher wrote:


Am 29.09.11 22:32, schrieb TJ Frazier:

On 9/29/2011 15:51, Raphael Bircher wrote:

Am 29.09.11 21:01, schrieb Dave Fisher:

Hi Mark,

I suspect that the copy of this email to ooo-dev is caught in
moderation. Since I am subscribed I'll forward this.

FWIW - the BZ instance at issues.apache.org/ooo is an upgraded and
migrated version of the bugzilla that Oracle hosts (which should now
be read-only.) It is not surprising that there are bugs.

Hopefully, Raphael or someone with deeper knowledge of BZ can solve
this issue, or provide a workaround. All I can do is help by routing
your issue.

Regards,
Dave

On Sep 28, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Mark Bourne wrote:


After reactivating my account for the OpenOffice.org Bugzilla, I just
tried adding a comment to an issue I raised on the OpenOffice.org
Bugzilla:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=112686
However, it gives an error:
"You tried to change the Ever confirmed field from 1 to 0 , but only
a user with the required permissions may change that field. Please
press Back and try again."

I am only entering text in the "Additional Comments" box before
clicking "Save Changes". I am not changing any other fields, so no
idea why it is claiming I am trying to change the "Ever confirmed"
field. I cannot even see where that field is. Pressing Back and
trying again does not help - it does the same thing. I also tried
reloading the page in case I had changed something which wasn't reset
just by going back.

Any ideas what might be going wrong? Do I need to do anything else
after reactivating my account, before I can actually add to reports?

This is maybe a problem from the migration IssuZilla to Kenai Bugzilla,
and not from Kenai BZ to Apache BZ. Did, you have had CANCONFIRM-rights
at the old Issuezilla?

Anyway, it seems to be a permission problem. This can only solve a BZ
Admin. I heve no BZ Admin rights. And bevor we change this rights, we
schould discuss, how we will handle the BZ rights at Apache.

Greetings Raphael



Raphael,

Generally speaking, BZ shows you what you can and can't modify; if you see the 
"Additional comments" box, you should have the right to use it. In short, this 
sounds to me like a bug.

You are right. But the strange thing is, I'm still able to edit this field.


--
My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/





--
My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/

Re: [users] Unable to add comment on OpenOffice.org Bugzilla

Raphael,

I think you will need to reply to the OP on us...@openoffice.org as he is not 
subscribed to ooo-dev and his original email was bounced.

Regards,
Dave

On Sep 29, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Raphael Bircher wrote:

> Am 29.09.11 22:32, schrieb TJ Frazier:
>> On 9/29/2011 15:51, Raphael Bircher wrote:
>>> Am 29.09.11 21:01, schrieb Dave Fisher:
 Hi Mark,
 
 I suspect that the copy of this email to ooo-dev is caught in
 moderation. Since I am subscribed I'll forward this.
 
 FWIW - the BZ instance at issues.apache.org/ooo is an upgraded and
 migrated version of the bugzilla that Oracle hosts (which should now
 be read-only.) It is not surprising that there are bugs.
 
 Hopefully, Raphael or someone with deeper knowledge of BZ can solve
 this issue, or provide a workaround. All I can do is help by routing
 your issue.
 
 Regards,
 Dave
 
 On Sep 28, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Mark Bourne wrote:
 
> After reactivating my account for the OpenOffice.org Bugzilla, I just
> tried adding a comment to an issue I raised on the OpenOffice.org
> Bugzilla:
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=112686
> However, it gives an error:
> "You tried to change the Ever confirmed field from 1 to 0 , but only
> a user with the required permissions may change that field. Please
> press Back and try again."
> 
> I am only entering text in the "Additional Comments" box before
> clicking "Save Changes". I am not changing any other fields, so no
> idea why it is claiming I am trying to change the "Ever confirmed"
> field. I cannot even see where that field is. Pressing Back and
> trying again does not help - it does the same thing. I also tried
> reloading the page in case I had changed something which wasn't reset
> just by going back.
> 
> Any ideas what might be going wrong? Do I need to do anything else
> after reactivating my account, before I can actually add to reports?
>>> This is maybe a problem from the migration IssuZilla to Kenai Bugzilla,
>>> and not from Kenai BZ to Apache BZ. Did, you have had CANCONFIRM-rights
>>> at the old Issuezilla?
>>> 
>>> Anyway, it seems to be a permission problem. This can only solve a BZ
>>> Admin. I heve no BZ Admin rights. And bevor we change this rights, we
>>> schould discuss, how we will handle the BZ rights at Apache.
>>> 
>>> Greetings Raphael
>>> 
>>> 
>> Raphael,
>> 
>> Generally speaking, BZ shows you what you can and can't modify; if you see 
>> the "Additional comments" box, you should have the right to use it. In 
>> short, this sounds to me like a bug.
> You are right. But the strange thing is, I'm still able to edit this field.
> 
> 
> -- 
> My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/

Re: Wiki status and freeze date?

2011-09-29 Thread Kay Schenk


Alexandro--

The initial load was sometime in Aug -- I just looked this up but now 
don't remember the EXACT date, no one has access (old accounts do not 
work and new ones can't be created as near as I can tell). We are now, 
with Terry's leaving, JUST now getting back to the wiki discussion...see 
the "Wiki in productive use?" thread.


I did indeed notice lots of activity on the current wiki for the "es" 
area. My advice is to just keep doing what you're doing there and at 
some point we will of course need to "catch up".




On 09/28/2011 05:34 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:

I want to know since when is the wiki in the apache server been on the
server. Is there any plans to sync it with the one on the
wiki.services.openoffice.org.

I got some ongoing work and would need to sync it down to the apache
location at ooo-wiki.apache.org.

Regards



--

MzK

"There is no such thing as coincidence."
   -- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39

RE: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

Well, the committer intake process has changed and now the checkpoint where I 
provide follow-up about them now being activated for the podling (and PPMC if 
applicable) has sort of disappeared.  I will have to figure out how to 
reconstitute the welcome-wagon process.  It won't happen overnight.

If you want this, please provide a suggested wording.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 13:31
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members


On Sep 29, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> I don't believe there is anything in the information provided to new 
> committers that they should do such a thing.

I think it was discussed, but then it wasn't mentioned in your docs. I think It 
would be good to start suggesting it...

Regards,
Dave

> 
> - Dennis
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:50
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members
> 
> 
> On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 
>> +1 
>> 
>> but with reference to the list that indicates a committer who
>> has been authorized for this project.  That is the one Christian 
>> provided,
>> .  
> 
> I have added this link the podling's people.mdtext page.
> 
> Updating people.mdtext is considered to be a first step for a new committer, 
> but clearly not everyone has cared to do that update.
> 
> One advantage of doing so is that it provides each committer experience in 
> using the Apache CMS.
> 
> 
>> 
>> This list is useful to verify that committers are established and
>> authorized in the system to be a committer for ooo.
>> 
>> The entries in bold identify some who might (also) be 
>> mentors/ASF Members.
> 
> Bold identifies ASF members. Not every member listed is a Mentor. I think 
> though you have to be a Member to be a Mentor although I could be wrong about 
> that.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
>> 
>> - Dennis
>> 
>> PS: This index finds all committers and what projects they are authorized
>> to commit on: .  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhyt...@gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:58
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members
>> 
>> Looking at the AOO "people" page
>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html) I see "some of
>> our contributors".  Is this a list of committers?  If so, perhaps new
>> committers can be announced along the lines of, "The OpenOffice list
>> of Committers at  has updated with the addition of ."  Less
>> laudatory, more PSA.
>> 
>> If that list on the site isn't of committers, should it be?  Or should
>> there be one, with "other contributors" mentioned?
>> 
>> Don
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new
>>> committers since the project started.  This is false. But it would be
>>> hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website.
>>> 
>>> So far we've been quiet about new committers.  We have the votes,
>>> process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list.
>>> 
>>> Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
>>> list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.
>>> 
>>> IMHO, we want to avoid two errors, at the extremes:
>>> 
>>> 1) A public announcement note for new committers that is read as being
>>> too congratulatory, one that makes those who are not committers (or
>>> not yet committers) feel less appreciated.
>>> 
>>> 2) Total lack of any acknowledgement of new committers/PPMC that leads
>>> observers to believe that new committers are chosen in a secret
>>> ceremony involving ceremonial robes, oaths, and animal sacrifices.
>>> 
>>> An announcement of a new committer should not be surprising.  It
>>> should confirm what any regular observer of the mailing list already
>>> knows, namely that person X is actively involved in the project and is
>>> making high quality contributions. So on one hand, acknowledging a new
>>> committer should not tell you anything that you don't already know.
>>> 
>>> On the other hand, there is reinforcement value to stating what we
>>> know, especially for newer members of the project, i.e., the project's
>>> future committers.
>>> 
>>> By analogy, I've worked in situations where job promotions were given
>>> secretly, and people were shy to ever speak of them.  It suggested
>>> that the company could not bear the scrutiny of seeing the inequity of
>>> hoiw promotions were given out.  And I've worked places where
>>> promotions were announced widely, with a summary of the person's

Re: [users] Unable to add comment on OpenOffice.org Bugzilla

2011-09-29 Thread Raphael Bircher


Am 29.09.11 22:32, schrieb TJ Frazier:

On 9/29/2011 15:51, Raphael Bircher wrote:

Am 29.09.11 21:01, schrieb Dave Fisher:

Hi Mark,

I suspect that the copy of this email to ooo-dev is caught in
moderation. Since I am subscribed I'll forward this.

FWIW - the BZ instance at issues.apache.org/ooo is an upgraded and
migrated version of the bugzilla that Oracle hosts (which should now
be read-only.) It is not surprising that there are bugs.

Hopefully, Raphael or someone with deeper knowledge of BZ can solve
this issue, or provide a workaround. All I can do is help by routing
your issue.

Regards,
Dave

On Sep 28, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Mark Bourne wrote:


After reactivating my account for the OpenOffice.org Bugzilla, I just
tried adding a comment to an issue I raised on the OpenOffice.org
Bugzilla:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=112686
However, it gives an error:
"You tried to change the Ever confirmed field from 1 to 0 , but only
a user with the required permissions may change that field. Please
press Back and try again."

I am only entering text in the "Additional Comments" box before
clicking "Save Changes". I am not changing any other fields, so no
idea why it is claiming I am trying to change the "Ever confirmed"
field. I cannot even see where that field is. Pressing Back and
trying again does not help - it does the same thing. I also tried
reloading the page in case I had changed something which wasn't reset
just by going back.

Any ideas what might be going wrong? Do I need to do anything else
after reactivating my account, before I can actually add to reports?

This is maybe a problem from the migration IssuZilla to Kenai Bugzilla,
and not from Kenai BZ to Apache BZ. Did, you have had CANCONFIRM-rights
at the old Issuezilla?

Anyway, it seems to be a permission problem. This can only solve a BZ
Admin. I heve no BZ Admin rights. And bevor we change this rights, we
schould discuss, how we will handle the BZ rights at Apache.

Greetings Raphael



Raphael,

Generally speaking, BZ shows you what you can and can't modify; if you 
see the "Additional comments" box, you should have the right to use 
it. In short, this sounds to me like a bug.

You are right. But the strange thing is, I'm still able to edit this field.


--
My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/

Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652

2011-09-29 Thread Marcus (OOo)


Am 09/29/2011 09:16 PM, schrieb Mathias Bauer:

Am 29.09.2011 20:17, schrieb Mathias Bauer:


On 28.09.2011 00:49, Michael Stahl wrote:

On 27.09.2011 22:22, Rob Weir wrote:

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
   wrote:

What is the oldest Windows OS version that Apache OOo 3.4(-dev) will
be supported on?  How does that compare with the oldest Windows OS
version that the last stable release (3.3.0?) of OpenOffice.org is
supported on?  (If there is a JRE dependency, that is another variant
to consider.)


AFAIK OOo 3.x Windows baseline is NT 5.0 (Windows 2000);
AFAIK this OS version is no longer supported by the vendor.


And AFAIR Win 2000 was already dropped as a supported platform in OOo
3.3. All Win 9x Platforms already are not supported anymore since OOo 3.0.


Correction: for 3.3 we decided not to drop Win 200o officially, but in
case problems should appear only on that platform we wouldn't fix them.
That's kind of "possible, but unsupported - do it at your own risk".


OK, good to know. Then I would say lets keep it for 3.4 with the same 
"do it on your own risk" statement and for the future we have to discuss 
if there is a technical reason to drop the support (as you wrote in 
another mail, Mathias).


Marcus

Re: [users] Unable to add comment on OpenOffice.org Bugzilla

2011-09-29 Thread Raphael Bircher

Am 29.09.11 21:01, schrieb Dave Fisher:

Hi Mark,

I suspect that the copy of this email to ooo-dev is caught in moderation. Since
I am subscribed I'll forward this.

FWIW - the BZ instance at issues.apache.org/ooo is an upgraded and migrated
version of the bugzilla that Oracle hosts (which should now be read-only.) It
is not surprising that there are bugs.

Hopefully, Raphael or someone with deeper knowledge of BZ can solve this issue,
or provide a workaround. All I can do is help by routing your issue.

Regards,
Dave

On Sep 28, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Mark Bourne wrote:

After reactivating my account for the OpenOffice.org Bugzilla, I just tried
adding a comment to an issue I raised on the OpenOffice.org Bugzilla:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=112686
However, it gives an error:
"You tried to change the Ever confirmed field from 1 to 0 , but only a user with
the required permissions may change that field. Please press Back and try again."

I am only entering text in the "Additional Comments" box before clicking "Save Changes".
I am not changing any other fields, so no idea why it is claiming I am trying to change the "Ever
confirmed" field. I cannot even see where that field is. Pressing Back and trying again does not help -
it does the same thing. I also tried reloading the page in case I had changed something which wasn't reset
just by going back.

Any ideas what might be going wrong? Do I need to do anything else after
reactivating my account, before I can actually add to reports?
This is maybe a problem from the migration IssuZilla to Kenai Bugzilla,
and not from Kenai BZ to Apache BZ. Did, you have had CANCONFIRM-rights
at the old Issuezilla?

Anyway, it seems to be a permission problem. This can only solve a BZ
Admin. I heve no BZ Admin rights. And bevor we change this rights, we
schould discuss, how we will handle the BZ rights at Apache.

Greetings Raphael

--
My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/

Re: [users] Unable to add comment on OpenOffice.org Bugzilla


On 9/29/2011 15:51, Raphael Bircher wrote:

Am 29.09.11 21:01, schrieb Dave Fisher:

Hi Mark,

I suspect that the copy of this email to ooo-dev is caught in
moderation. Since I am subscribed I'll forward this.

FWIW - the BZ instance at issues.apache.org/ooo is an upgraded and
migrated version of the bugzilla that Oracle hosts (which should now
be read-only.) It is not surprising that there are bugs.

Hopefully, Raphael or someone with deeper knowledge of BZ can solve
this issue, or provide a workaround. All I can do is help by routing
your issue.

Regards,
Dave

On Sep 28, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Mark Bourne wrote:


After reactivating my account for the OpenOffice.org Bugzilla, I just
tried adding a comment to an issue I raised on the OpenOffice.org
Bugzilla:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=112686
However, it gives an error:
"You tried to change the Ever confirmed field from 1 to 0 , but only
a user with the required permissions may change that field. Please
press Back and try again."

I am only entering text in the "Additional Comments" box before
clicking "Save Changes". I am not changing any other fields, so no
idea why it is claiming I am trying to change the "Ever confirmed"
field. I cannot even see where that field is. Pressing Back and
trying again does not help - it does the same thing. I also tried
reloading the page in case I had changed something which wasn't reset
just by going back.

Any ideas what might be going wrong? Do I need to do anything else
after reactivating my account, before I can actually add to reports?

This is maybe a problem from the migration IssuZilla to Kenai Bugzilla,
and not from Kenai BZ to Apache BZ. Did, you have had CANCONFIRM-rights
at the old Issuezilla?

Anyway, it seems to be a permission problem. This can only solve a BZ
Admin. I heve no BZ Admin rights. And bevor we change this rights, we
schould discuss, how we will handle the BZ rights at Apache.

Greetings Raphael



Raphael,

Generally speaking, BZ shows you what you can and can't modify; if you 
see the "Additional comments" box, you should have the right to use it. 
In short, this sounds to me like a bug.


--
/tj/

Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members


On Sep 29, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> I don't believe there is anything in the information provided to new 
> committers that they should do such a thing.

I think it was discussed, but then it wasn't mentioned in your docs. I think It 
would be good to start suggesting it...

Regards,
Dave

> 
> - Dennis
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:50
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members
> 
> 
> On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 
>> +1 
>> 
>> but with reference to the list that indicates a committer who
>> has been authorized for this project.  That is the one Christian 
>> provided,
>> .  
> 
> I have added this link the podling's people.mdtext page.
> 
> Updating people.mdtext is considered to be a first step for a new committer, 
> but clearly not everyone has cared to do that update.
> 
> One advantage of doing so is that it provides each committer experience in 
> using the Apache CMS.
> 
> 
>> 
>> This list is useful to verify that committers are established and
>> authorized in the system to be a committer for ooo.
>> 
>> The entries in bold identify some who might (also) be 
>> mentors/ASF Members.
> 
> Bold identifies ASF members. Not every member listed is a Mentor. I think 
> though you have to be a Member to be a Mentor although I could be wrong about 
> that.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
>> 
>> - Dennis
>> 
>> PS: This index finds all committers and what projects they are authorized
>> to commit on: .  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhyt...@gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:58
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members
>> 
>> Looking at the AOO "people" page
>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html) I see "some of
>> our contributors".  Is this a list of committers?  If so, perhaps new
>> committers can be announced along the lines of, "The OpenOffice list
>> of Committers at  has updated with the addition of ."  Less
>> laudatory, more PSA.
>> 
>> If that list on the site isn't of committers, should it be?  Or should
>> there be one, with "other contributors" mentioned?
>> 
>> Don
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new
>>> committers since the project started.  This is false. But it would be
>>> hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website.
>>> 
>>> So far we've been quiet about new committers.  We have the votes,
>>> process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list.
>>> 
>>> Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
>>> list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.
>>> 
>>> IMHO, we want to avoid two errors, at the extremes:
>>> 
>>> 1) A public announcement note for new committers that is read as being
>>> too congratulatory, one that makes those who are not committers (or
>>> not yet committers) feel less appreciated.
>>> 
>>> 2) Total lack of any acknowledgement of new committers/PPMC that leads
>>> observers to believe that new committers are chosen in a secret
>>> ceremony involving ceremonial robes, oaths, and animal sacrifices.
>>> 
>>> An announcement of a new committer should not be surprising.  It
>>> should confirm what any regular observer of the mailing list already
>>> knows, namely that person X is actively involved in the project and is
>>> making high quality contributions. So on one hand, acknowledging a new
>>> committer should not tell you anything that you don't already know.
>>> 
>>> On the other hand, there is reinforcement value to stating what we
>>> know, especially for newer members of the project, i.e., the project's
>>> future committers.
>>> 
>>> By analogy, I've worked in situations where job promotions were given
>>> secretly, and people were shy to ever speak of them.  It suggested
>>> that the company could not bear the scrutiny of seeing the inequity of
>>> hoiw promotions were given out.  And I've worked places where
>>> promotions were announced widely, with a summary of the person's
>>> recent contributions, reinforcing to the entire team the kinds of
>>> contributions that could get them -- some day -- a similar promotion.
>>> 
>>> If we believe that we're doing a good job at selecting new committers
>>> then we should want this to be known.  Transparency shows the fairness
>>> of the process.
>>> 
>>> Obviously the context here at Apache is not the same.  But I think the
>>> choices are analogous.
>>> 
>>> Personally, I'm in favor of a modest announcement to the ooo-dev list
>>> after a new committer has been elected and have submitted the iCLA.
>>> 
>>>

Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

>> The entries in bold identify some who might (also) be
>> mentors/ASF Members.
>
> Bold identifies ASF members. Not every member listed is a Mentor. I think 
> though you have to be a Member to be a Mentor although I could be wrong about 
> that.

You don't need to be a Member to become a Mentor - the restriciton is
you are an IPMC member.
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#mentors-ipmc

It is easy to become an IPMC member when you are an ASF member,
because you simply need to ask for addition.

To my knowledge all Mentors of the OOO podling are ASF members.

Cheers
Christian


>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> PS: This index finds all committers and what projects they are authorized
>> to commit on: .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhyt...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:58
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members
>>
>> Looking at the AOO "people" page
>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html) I see "some of
>> our contributors".  Is this a list of committers?  If so, perhaps new
>> committers can be announced along the lines of, "The OpenOffice list
>> of Committers at  has updated with the addition of ."  Less
>> laudatory, more PSA.
>>
>> If that list on the site isn't of committers, should it be?  Or should
>> there be one, with "other contributors" mentioned?
>>
>> Don
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new
>>> committers since the project started.  This is false. But it would be
>>> hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website.
>>>
>>> So far we've been quiet about new committers.  We have the votes,
>>> process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list.
>>>
>>> Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
>>> list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.
>>>
>>> IMHO, we want to avoid two errors, at the extremes:
>>>
>>> 1) A public announcement note for new committers that is read as being
>>> too congratulatory, one that makes those who are not committers (or
>>> not yet committers) feel less appreciated.
>>>
>>> 2) Total lack of any acknowledgement of new committers/PPMC that leads
>>> observers to believe that new committers are chosen in a secret
>>> ceremony involving ceremonial robes, oaths, and animal sacrifices.
>>>
>>> An announcement of a new committer should not be surprising.  It
>>> should confirm what any regular observer of the mailing list already
>>> knows, namely that person X is actively involved in the project and is
>>> making high quality contributions. So on one hand, acknowledging a new
>>> committer should not tell you anything that you don't already know.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, there is reinforcement value to stating what we
>>> know, especially for newer members of the project, i.e., the project's
>>> future committers.
>>>
>>> By analogy, I've worked in situations where job promotions were given
>>> secretly, and people were shy to ever speak of them.  It suggested
>>> that the company could not bear the scrutiny of seeing the inequity of
>>> hoiw promotions were given out.  And I've worked places where
>>> promotions were announced widely, with a summary of the person's
>>> recent contributions, reinforcing to the entire team the kinds of
>>> contributions that could get them -- some day -- a similar promotion.
>>>
>>> If we believe that we're doing a good job at selecting new committers
>>> then we should want this to be known.  Transparency shows the fairness
>>> of the process.
>>>
>>> Obviously the context here at Apache is not the same.  But I think the
>>> choices are analogous.
>>>
>>> Personally, I'm in favor of a modest announcement to the ooo-dev list
>>> after a new committer has been elected and have submitted the iCLA.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>
>
>



-- 
http://www.grobmeier.de

RE: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

I don't believe there is anything in the information provided to new committers 
that they should do such a thing.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:50
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members


On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> +1 
> 
> but with reference to the list that indicates a committer who
> has been authorized for this project.  That is the one Christian 
> provided,
> .  

I have added this link the podling's people.mdtext page.

Updating people.mdtext is considered to be a first step for a new committer, 
but clearly not everyone has cared to do that update.

One advantage of doing so is that it provides each committer experience in 
using the Apache CMS.


> 
> This list is useful to verify that committers are established and
> authorized in the system to be a committer for ooo.
> 
> The entries in bold identify some who might (also) be 
> mentors/ASF Members.

Bold identifies ASF members. Not every member listed is a Mentor. I think 
though you have to be a Member to be a Mentor although I could be wrong about 
that.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> - Dennis
> 
> PS: This index finds all committers and what projects they are authorized
> to commit on: .  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhyt...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:58
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members
> 
> Looking at the AOO "people" page
> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html) I see "some of
> our contributors".  Is this a list of committers?  If so, perhaps new
> committers can be announced along the lines of, "The OpenOffice list
> of Committers at  has updated with the addition of ."  Less
> laudatory, more PSA.
> 
> If that list on the site isn't of committers, should it be?  Or should
> there be one, with "other contributors" mentioned?
> 
> Don
> 
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new
>> committers since the project started.  This is false. But it would be
>> hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website.
>> 
>> So far we've been quiet about new committers.  We have the votes,
>> process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list.
>> 
>> Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
>> list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.
>> 
>> IMHO, we want to avoid two errors, at the extremes:
>> 
>> 1) A public announcement note for new committers that is read as being
>> too congratulatory, one that makes those who are not committers (or
>> not yet committers) feel less appreciated.
>> 
>> 2) Total lack of any acknowledgement of new committers/PPMC that leads
>> observers to believe that new committers are chosen in a secret
>> ceremony involving ceremonial robes, oaths, and animal sacrifices.
>> 
>> An announcement of a new committer should not be surprising.  It
>> should confirm what any regular observer of the mailing list already
>> knows, namely that person X is actively involved in the project and is
>> making high quality contributions. So on one hand, acknowledging a new
>> committer should not tell you anything that you don't already know.
>> 
>> On the other hand, there is reinforcement value to stating what we
>> know, especially for newer members of the project, i.e., the project's
>> future committers.
>> 
>> By analogy, I've worked in situations where job promotions were given
>> secretly, and people were shy to ever speak of them.  It suggested
>> that the company could not bear the scrutiny of seeing the inequity of
>> hoiw promotions were given out.  And I've worked places where
>> promotions were announced widely, with a summary of the person's
>> recent contributions, reinforcing to the entire team the kinds of
>> contributions that could get them -- some day -- a similar promotion.
>> 
>> If we believe that we're doing a good job at selecting new committers
>> then we should want this to be known.  Transparency shows the fairness
>> of the process.
>> 
>> Obviously the context here at Apache is not the same.  But I think the
>> choices are analogous.
>> 
>> Personally, I'm in favor of a modest announcement to the ooo-dev list
>> after a new committer has been elected and have submitted the iCLA.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> -Rob
>> 
>

RE: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

But, evidently, not all of the mentors appear on the ooo committers list.  (I 
found two absent immediately.)  That has to be researched further.  

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:grobme...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:55
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

>> The entries in bold identify some who might (also) be
>> mentors/ASF Members.
>
> Bold identifies ASF members. Not every member listed is a Mentor. I think 
> though you have to be a Member to be a Mentor although I could be wrong about 
> that.

You don't need to be a Member to become a Mentor - the restriciton is
you are an IPMC member.
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#mentors-ipmc

It is easy to become an IPMC member when you are an ASF member,
because you simply need to ask for addition.

To my knowledge all Mentors of the OOO podling are ASF members.

Cheers
Christian


>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> PS: This index finds all committers and what projects they are authorized
>> to commit on: .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhyt...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:58
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members
>>
>> Looking at the AOO "people" page
>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html) I see "some of
>> our contributors".  Is this a list of committers?  If so, perhaps new
>> committers can be announced along the lines of, "The OpenOffice list
>> of Committers at  has updated with the addition of ."  Less
>> laudatory, more PSA.
>>
>> If that list on the site isn't of committers, should it be?  Or should
>> there be one, with "other contributors" mentioned?
>>
>> Don
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new
>>> committers since the project started.  This is false. But it would be
>>> hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website.
>>>
>>> So far we've been quiet about new committers.  We have the votes,
>>> process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list.
>>>
>>> Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
>>> list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.
>>>
>>> IMHO, we want to avoid two errors, at the extremes:
>>>
>>> 1) A public announcement note for new committers that is read as being
>>> too congratulatory, one that makes those who are not committers (or
>>> not yet committers) feel less appreciated.
>>>
>>> 2) Total lack of any acknowledgement of new committers/PPMC that leads
>>> observers to believe that new committers are chosen in a secret
>>> ceremony involving ceremonial robes, oaths, and animal sacrifices.
>>>
>>> An announcement of a new committer should not be surprising.  It
>>> should confirm what any regular observer of the mailing list already
>>> knows, namely that person X is actively involved in the project and is
>>> making high quality contributions. So on one hand, acknowledging a new
>>> committer should not tell you anything that you don't already know.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, there is reinforcement value to stating what we
>>> know, especially for newer members of the project, i.e., the project's
>>> future committers.
>>>
>>> By analogy, I've worked in situations where job promotions were given
>>> secretly, and people were shy to ever speak of them.  It suggested
>>> that the company could not bear the scrutiny of seeing the inequity of
>>> hoiw promotions were given out.  And I've worked places where
>>> promotions were announced widely, with a summary of the person's
>>> recent contributions, reinforcing to the entire team the kinds of
>>> contributions that could get them -- some day -- a similar promotion.
>>>
>>> If we believe that we're doing a good job at selecting new committers
>>> then we should want this to be known.  Transparency shows the fairness
>>> of the process.
>>>
>>> Obviously the context here at Apache is not the same.  But I think the
>>> choices are analogous.
>>>
>>> Personally, I'm in favor of a modest announcement to the ooo-dev list
>>> after a new committer has been elected and have submitted the iCLA.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>
>
>



-- 
http://www.grobmeier.de

RE: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

Yes, that might work ... [;<).

-Original Message-
From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] 
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:49
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
Subject: RE: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

Well ...

Maybe committers can discretely start using their
@Apache email addresses without making huge
announcements. ;)

Pedro.  

--- On Thu, 9/29/11, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> -1 
> 
> Not all committers make contributions to the code base. 
> it is emphasized here in other discussions that committers
> need not 
> be developers but contributors in some other way.  See
> the discussion 
> about Forums administration, for example.  Commit
> messages are an 
> unreliable indicator as Ross points out and it becomes a
> heavyweight
> task to track them.  
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> (In addition, not all commit messages are actions by
> committers)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@opendirective.com]
> 
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:03
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC
> members
> 
> On 29 September 2011 19:00, Tor Lillqvist  wrote:
> > Perhaps instead of announcements of new committers,
> announcements of
> > actual commits (more than just one) from somebody who
> hasn't committed
> > earlier would be interesting...
> 
> -0
> 
> When a patch is committed the commit message should contain
> "(issue
> xyz - thanks to Jane Blogs)" The commit mail gets sent to a
> commit
> list and thus there is already a process for this in place.
> No harm in
> someone doing a separate thank you but if someone gets
> missed or the
> volunteer is busy it can leave people feeling left out.
> 
> Ross
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
> 
>

Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members


On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> +1 
> 
> but with reference to the list that indicates a committer who
> has been authorized for this project.  That is the one Christian 
> provided,
> .  

I have added this link the podling's people.mdtext page.

Updating people.mdtext is considered to be a first step for a new committer, 
but clearly not everyone has cared to do that update.

One advantage of doing so is that it provides each committer experience in 
using the Apache CMS.


> 
> This list is useful to verify that committers are established and
> authorized in the system to be a committer for ooo.
> 
> The entries in bold identify some who might (also) be 
> mentors/ASF Members.

Bold identifies ASF members. Not every member listed is a Mentor. I think 
though you have to be a Member to be a Mentor although I could be wrong about 
that.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> - Dennis
> 
> PS: This index finds all committers and what projects they are authorized
> to commit on: .  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhyt...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:58
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members
> 
> Looking at the AOO "people" page
> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html) I see "some of
> our contributors".  Is this a list of committers?  If so, perhaps new
> committers can be announced along the lines of, "The OpenOffice list
> of Committers at  has updated with the addition of ."  Less
> laudatory, more PSA.
> 
> If that list on the site isn't of committers, should it be?  Or should
> there be one, with "other contributors" mentioned?
> 
> Don
> 
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new
>> committers since the project started.  This is false. But it would be
>> hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website.
>> 
>> So far we've been quiet about new committers.  We have the votes,
>> process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list.
>> 
>> Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
>> list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.
>> 
>> IMHO, we want to avoid two errors, at the extremes:
>> 
>> 1) A public announcement note for new committers that is read as being
>> too congratulatory, one that makes those who are not committers (or
>> not yet committers) feel less appreciated.
>> 
>> 2) Total lack of any acknowledgement of new committers/PPMC that leads
>> observers to believe that new committers are chosen in a secret
>> ceremony involving ceremonial robes, oaths, and animal sacrifices.
>> 
>> An announcement of a new committer should not be surprising.  It
>> should confirm what any regular observer of the mailing list already
>> knows, namely that person X is actively involved in the project and is
>> making high quality contributions. So on one hand, acknowledging a new
>> committer should not tell you anything that you don't already know.
>> 
>> On the other hand, there is reinforcement value to stating what we
>> know, especially for newer members of the project, i.e., the project's
>> future committers.
>> 
>> By analogy, I've worked in situations where job promotions were given
>> secretly, and people were shy to ever speak of them.  It suggested
>> that the company could not bear the scrutiny of seeing the inequity of
>> hoiw promotions were given out.  And I've worked places where
>> promotions were announced widely, with a summary of the person's
>> recent contributions, reinforcing to the entire team the kinds of
>> contributions that could get them -- some day -- a similar promotion.
>> 
>> If we believe that we're doing a good job at selecting new committers
>> then we should want this to be known.  Transparency shows the fairness
>> of the process.
>> 
>> Obviously the context here at Apache is not the same.  But I think the
>> choices are analogous.
>> 
>> Personally, I'm in favor of a modest announcement to the ooo-dev list
>> after a new committer has been elected and have submitted the iCLA.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> -Rob
>> 
>

RE: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

2011-09-29 Thread Pedro Giffuni

Well ...

Maybe committers can discretely start using their
@Apache email addresses without making huge
announcements. ;)

Pedro.  

--- On Thu, 9/29/11, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> -1 
> 
> Not all committers make contributions to the code base. 
> it is emphasized here in other discussions that committers
> need not 
> be developers but contributors in some other way.  See
> the discussion 
> about Forums administration, for example.  Commit
> messages are an 
> unreliable indicator as Ross points out and it becomes a
> heavyweight
> task to track them.  
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> (In addition, not all commit messages are actions by
> committers)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@opendirective.com]
> 
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:03
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC
> members
> 
> On 29 September 2011 19:00, Tor Lillqvist  wrote:
> > Perhaps instead of announcements of new committers,
> announcements of
> > actual commits (more than just one) from somebody who
> hasn't committed
> > earlier would be interesting...
> 
> -0
> 
> When a patch is committed the commit message should contain
> "(issue
> xyz - thanks to Jane Blogs)" The commit mail gets sent to a
> commit
> list and thus there is already a process for this in place.
> No harm in
> someone doing a separate thank you but if someone gets
> missed or the
> volunteer is busy it can leave people feeling left out.
> 
> Ross
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
> 
>

RE: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

-1 

Not all committers make contributions to the code base. 
it is emphasized here in other discussions that committers need not 
be developers but contributors in some other way.  See the discussion 
about Forums administration, for example.  Commit messages are an 
unreliable indicator as Ross points out and it becomes a heavyweight
task to track them.  

 - Dennis

(In addition, not all commit messages are actions by committers)

-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@opendirective.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:03
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

On 29 September 2011 19:00, Tor Lillqvist  wrote:
> Perhaps instead of announcements of new committers, announcements of
> actual commits (more than just one) from somebody who hasn't committed
> earlier would be interesting...

-0

When a patch is committed the commit message should contain "(issue
xyz - thanks to Jane Blogs)" The commit mail gets sent to a commit
list and thus there is already a process for this in place. No harm in
someone doing a separate thank you but if someone gets missed or the
volunteer is busy it can leave people feeling left out.

Ross

-- 
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

On 29 September 2011 20:16, Ross Gardler  wrote:
> On 29 September 2011 19:03, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Ross Gardler
>>  wrote:
>>> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
>>> On Sep 29, 2011 6:01 PM, "Rob Weir"  wrote:

 A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new
 committers since the project started.  This is false. But it would be
 hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website.

 So far we've been quiet about new committers.  We have the votes,
 process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list.

 Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
 list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.
>>>
>>> Really? I've not seen anyone say don't announce committers. The ASF is all
>>> about merit, why would one not give credit where credit is due?
>>>
>>
>> Check your archives for ooo-private, July 8th.
>
> [ooo-dev readers should note that this thread occured on ooo-private
> at a time when mentors were still having to say "this should not be on
> the private list", in fact I say it myself in the above thread. The
> topic is do we announce new committers, no decision was made and Rob
> has now done a great job of bringing it to the public list for a
> decision]
>
> OK, so in that thread one mentor said their project does not do public
> welcome messages for new committers.
>
> My own contribution to that thread was:
>
> See "Committer Announce Template" at
> http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html for a suggested
> template.
>
> If you do a search of Apache mailing lists in general you will find
> that the majoirty do (I was unaware that even a single project does
> not, but the ASF is a big place).

Sorry, I meant to include a link to such a search:
http://markmail.org/search/?q=new+committer+list%3Aapache

>
> I do agree with the word of caution in that thread, which you capture
> well in your opening mail (i.e. it's a welcome not a congratulations).
>
> Ross
>



-- 
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

On 29 September 2011 19:03, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Ross Gardler
>  wrote:
>> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
>> On Sep 29, 2011 6:01 PM, "Rob Weir"  wrote:
>>>
>>> A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new
>>> committers since the project started.  This is false. But it would be
>>> hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website.
>>>
>>> So far we've been quiet about new committers.  We have the votes,
>>> process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list.
>>>
>>> Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
>>> list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.
>>
>> Really? I've not seen anyone say don't announce committers. The ASF is all
>> about merit, why would one not give credit where credit is due?
>>
>
> Check your archives for ooo-private, July 8th.

[ooo-dev readers should note that this thread occured on ooo-private
at a time when mentors were still having to say "this should not be on
the private list", in fact I say it myself in the above thread. The
topic is do we announce new committers, no decision was made and Rob
has now done a great job of bringing it to the public list for a
decision]

OK, so in that thread one mentor said their project does not do public
welcome messages for new committers.

My own contribution to that thread was:

See "Committer Announce Template" at
http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html for a suggested
template.

If you do a search of Apache mailing lists in general you will find
that the majoirty do (I was unaware that even a single project does
not, but the ASF is a big place).

I do agree with the word of caution in that thread, which you capture
well in your opening mail (i.e. it's a welcome not a congratulations).

Ross

Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652

Am 29.09.2011 20:17, schrieb Mathias Bauer:

> On 28.09.2011 00:49, Michael Stahl wrote:
>> On 27.09.2011 22:22, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>>   wrote:
 What is the oldest Windows OS version that Apache OOo 3.4(-dev) will
 be supported on?  How does that compare with the oldest Windows OS
 version that the last stable release (3.3.0?) of OpenOffice.org is
 supported on?  (If there is a JRE dependency, that is another variant
 to consider.)
>>
>> AFAIK OOo 3.x Windows baseline is NT 5.0 (Windows 2000);
>> AFAIK this OS version is no longer supported by the vendor.
> 
> And AFAIR Win 2000 was already dropped as a supported platform in OOo 
> 3.3. All Win 9x Platforms already are not supported anymore since OOo 3.0.

Correction: for 3.3 we decided not to drop Win 200o officially, but in
case problems should appear only on that platform we wouldn't fix them.
That's kind of "possible, but unsupported - do it at your own risk".

Regards,
Mathias

Re: odma.h [was: Re: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license]

Am 29.09.2011 11:28, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann:

> Hi,
> 
> thanks for details on ODMA and the made research on the current
> source code.
> 
> I have figured out that the complete ODMA stuff in our source code is
>  not part of the build and thus, not part of an installation set -
> the source folder /ucb/source/ucp/odma is not built. I did some
> research in OOo's hg repository to find out when the build of this
> folder has been removed. Surprisingly, it does not seem that it has 
> been ever built, because I did not find a revision of
> /ucb/prj/build.lst which contains /ucb/source/ucp/odma - may be I
> overlooked something.

Indeed the ODMA content provider was never built in a regular build. The
project could be built manually, in case someone wanted to test or use
it. In fact it never was more than a "nice try".

Regards,
Mathias

RE: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

+1 

but with reference to the list that indicates a committer who
has been authorized for this project.  That is the one Christian 
provided,
.  

This list is useful to verify that committers are established and
authorized in the system to be a committer for ooo.

The entries in bold identify some who might (also) be 
mentors/ASF Members.

 - Dennis

PS: This index finds all committers and what projects they are authorized
to commit on: .  





-Original Message-
From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhyt...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:58
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

Looking at the AOO "people" page
(http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html) I see "some of
our contributors".  Is this a list of committers?  If so, perhaps new
committers can be announced along the lines of, "The OpenOffice list
of Committers at  has updated with the addition of ."  Less
laudatory, more PSA.

If that list on the site isn't of committers, should it be?  Or should
there be one, with "other contributors" mentioned?

Don

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new
> committers since the project started.  This is false. But it would be
> hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website.
>
> So far we've been quiet about new committers.  We have the votes,
> process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list.
>
> Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
> list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.
>
> IMHO, we want to avoid two errors, at the extremes:
>
> 1) A public announcement note for new committers that is read as being
> too congratulatory, one that makes those who are not committers (or
> not yet committers) feel less appreciated.
>
> 2) Total lack of any acknowledgement of new committers/PPMC that leads
> observers to believe that new committers are chosen in a secret
> ceremony involving ceremonial robes, oaths, and animal sacrifices.
>
> An announcement of a new committer should not be surprising.  It
> should confirm what any regular observer of the mailing list already
> knows, namely that person X is actively involved in the project and is
> making high quality contributions. So on one hand, acknowledging a new
> committer should not tell you anything that you don't already know.
>
> On the other hand, there is reinforcement value to stating what we
> know, especially for newer members of the project, i.e., the project's
> future committers.
>
> By analogy, I've worked in situations where job promotions were given
> secretly, and people were shy to ever speak of them.  It suggested
> that the company could not bear the scrutiny of seeing the inequity of
> hoiw promotions were given out.  And I've worked places where
> promotions were announced widely, with a summary of the person's
> recent contributions, reinforcing to the entire team the kinds of
> contributions that could get them -- some day -- a similar promotion.
>
> If we believe that we're doing a good job at selecting new committers
> then we should want this to be known.  Transparency shows the fairness
> of the process.
>
> Obviously the context here at Apache is not the same.  But I think the
> choices are analogous.
>
> Personally, I'm in favor of a modest announcement to the ooo-dev list
> after a new committer has been elected and have submitted the iCLA.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -Rob
>

Re: [users] Unable to add comment on OpenOffice.org Bugzilla

Hi Mark,

I suspect that the copy of this email to ooo-dev is caught in moderation. Since 
I am subscribed I'll forward this.

FWIW - the BZ instance at issues.apache.org/ooo is an upgraded and migrated 
version of the bugzilla that Oracle hosts (which should now be read-only.)  It 
is not surprising that there are bugs.

Hopefully, Raphael or someone with deeper knowledge of BZ can solve this issue, 
or provide a workaround. All I can do is help by routing your issue.

Regards,
Dave

On Sep 28, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Mark Bourne wrote:

> After reactivating my account for the OpenOffice.org Bugzilla, I just tried 
> adding a comment to an issue I raised on the OpenOffice.org Bugzilla:
>  https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=112686
> However, it gives an error:
>  "You tried to change the Ever confirmed field from 1  to 0  , but only a 
> user with the required permissions may change that field. Please press Back 
> and try again."
> 
> I am only entering text in the "Additional Comments" box before clicking 
> "Save Changes". I am not changing any other fields, so no idea why it is 
> claiming I am trying to change the "Ever confirmed" field. I cannot even see 
> where that field is. Pressing Back and trying again does not help - it does 
> the same thing. I also tried reloading the page in case I had changed 
> something which wasn't reset just by going back.
> 
> Any ideas what might be going wrong? Do I need to do anything else after 
> reactivating my account, before I can actually add to reports?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.
> -- 
> -
> To unsubscribe send email to users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org
> For additional commands send email to sy...@openoffice.org
> with Subject: help

Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

On 29 September 2011 19:00, Tor Lillqvist  wrote:
> Perhaps instead of announcements of new committers, announcements of
> actual commits (more than just one) from somebody who hasn't committed
> earlier would be interesting...

-0

When a patch is committed the commit message should contain "(issue
xyz - thanks to Jane Blogs)" The commit mail gets sent to a commit
list and thus there is already a process for this in place. No harm in
someone doing a separate thank you but if someone gets missed or the
volunteer is busy it can leave people feeling left out.

Ross

-- 
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Ross Gardler
 wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Sep 29, 2011 6:01 PM, "Rob Weir"  wrote:
>> Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
>> list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.
>
> Really? I've not seen anyone say don't announce committers. The ASF is all
> about merit, why would one not give credit where credit is due?
>
> I know of no projects that do not announce new commiters.

Mei either.

>>
>> Personally, I'm in favor of a modest announcement to the ooo-dev list
>> after a new committer has been elected and have submitted the iCLA.
>>
>> What do you think?

A huge +1.

When I was a non-committer, I found it very motivating that actually
people managed to get svn access. Projects, you are working for, and
which seem never to include new people are very frustrating.

Christian

>
> Ross
>
>>
>> -Rob
>  On Sep 29, 2011 6:01 PM, "Rob Weir"  wrote:
>



-- 
http://www.grobmeier.de

Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> The authoritative list of committers is here:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html
> That has been silently updated as new committers have been elected.

It is always good to know this page:
http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#ooo

Mentors are included in this. This list reflects all people with svn access.

Christian



>
> As for the other page [2], it has many committers, but also some
> mentors, and other contributors.  It is not maintained by the PPMC.
> People are free to add themselves.
>
> Apache makes a distinction between  "contributor" (synonymous with
> "developer") and "committer".   A "contributor" is as "a user who
> contributes to a project in the form of code or documentation. They
> take extra steps to participate in a project, are active on the
> developer mailing list, participate in discussions, provide patches,
> documentation, suggestions, and criticism." [1]
>
> So all committers are contributors, but not all contributors are (yet)
> committers.
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles
>
> [2] http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html
>
>> Don
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new
>>> committers since the project started.  This is false. But it would be
>>> hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website.
>>>
>>> So far we've been quiet about new committers.  We have the votes,
>>> process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list.
>>>
>>> Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
>>> list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.
>>>
>>> IMHO, we want to avoid two errors, at the extremes:
>>>
>>> 1) A public announcement note for new committers that is read as being
>>> too congratulatory, one that makes those who are not committers (or
>>> not yet committers) feel less appreciated.
>>>
>>> 2) Total lack of any acknowledgement of new committers/PPMC that leads
>>> observers to believe that new committers are chosen in a secret
>>> ceremony involving ceremonial robes, oaths, and animal sacrifices.
>>>
>>> An announcement of a new committer should not be surprising.  It
>>> should confirm what any regular observer of the mailing list already
>>> knows, namely that person X is actively involved in the project and is
>>> making high quality contributions. So on one hand, acknowledging a new
>>> committer should not tell you anything that you don't already know.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, there is reinforcement value to stating what we
>>> know, especially for newer members of the project, i.e., the project's
>>> future committers.
>>>
>>> By analogy, I've worked in situations where job promotions were given
>>> secretly, and people were shy to ever speak of them.  It suggested
>>> that the company could not bear the scrutiny of seeing the inequity of
>>> hoiw promotions were given out.  And I've worked places where
>>> promotions were announced widely, with a summary of the person's
>>> recent contributions, reinforcing to the entire team the kinds of
>>> contributions that could get them -- some day -- a similar promotion.
>>>
>>> If we believe that we're doing a good job at selecting new committers
>>> then we should want this to be known.  Transparency shows the fairness
>>> of the process.
>>>
>>> Obviously the context here at Apache is not the same.  But I think the
>>> choices are analogous.
>>>
>>> Personally, I'm in favor of a modest announcement to the ooo-dev list
>>> after a new committer has been elected and have submitted the iCLA.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>
>



-- 
http://www.grobmeier.de

Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652


On 28.09.2011 21:03, Marcus (OOo) wrote:


Yes, and as long as there are no real technical problems I don't see a
need to drop the support.


Indeed, and AFAIR dropping the support for any OS versions always was 
technically motivated at OOo. Of course "technical motivations" are 
debatable. Maintaining compatibility layers for OS versions that are as 
old as the hills IMHO *is* a technical problem. If the maintenance or 
the presence of the library has a negative impact on build system or 
code quality, the motivation to remove it grows with the age of the OS 
version and the shrinking user base.


Regards,
Mathias

Re: [patch] Removal of Windows build requirement on unicows.dll - issue 88652


On 28.09.2011 00:49, Michael Stahl wrote:

On 27.09.2011 22:22, Rob Weir wrote:

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
  wrote:

What is the oldest Windows OS version that Apache OOo 3.4(-dev) will
be supported on?  How does that compare with the oldest Windows OS
version that the last stable release (3.3.0?) of OpenOffice.org is
supported on?  (If there is a JRE dependency, that is another variant
to consider.)


AFAIK OOo 3.x Windows baseline is NT 5.0 (Windows 2000);
AFAIK this OS version is no longer supported by the vendor.


And AFAIR Win 2000 was already dropped as a supported platform in OOo 
3.3. All Win 9x Platforms already are not supported anymore since OOo 3.0.


Besides that I still don't get why Windows versions are always discussed 
in the context of removing unicows.dll.


I already wrote it, but again: this library was needed only in Win9x and 
this platform in no longer supported by OOo since 3.0. So unicows.dll 
can and should be removed.


Whether or not AOOo will support WinXP SP2 or only SP3 is totally 
irrelevant in the discussion about unicows.dll. It might become more 
interesting when uwinapi.dll gets the focus. Getting rid of that library 
also would be highly desirable.


Regards,
Mathias

Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Donald Whytock  wrote:
> Looking at the AOO "people" page
> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html) I see "some of
> our contributors".  Is this a list of committers?  If so, perhaps new
> committers can be announced along the lines of, "The OpenOffice list
> of Committers at  has updated with the addition of ."  Less
> laudatory, more PSA.
>
> If that list on the site isn't of committers, should it be?  Or should
> there be one, with "other contributors" mentioned?
>

The authoritative list of committers is here:

http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html

That has been silently updated as new committers have been elected.

As for the other page [2], it has many committers, but also some
mentors, and other contributors.  It is not maintained by the PPMC.
People are free to add themselves.

Apache makes a distinction between  "contributor" (synonymous with
"developer") and "committer".   A "contributor" is as "a user who
contributes to a project in the form of code or documentation. They
take extra steps to participate in a project, are active on the
developer mailing list, participate in discussions, provide patches,
documentation, suggestions, and criticism." [1]

So all committers are contributors, but not all contributors are (yet)
committers.

[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles

[2] http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html

> Don
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new
>> committers since the project started.  This is false. But it would be
>> hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website.
>>
>> So far we've been quiet about new committers.  We have the votes,
>> process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list.
>>
>> Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
>> list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.
>>
>> IMHO, we want to avoid two errors, at the extremes:
>>
>> 1) A public announcement note for new committers that is read as being
>> too congratulatory, one that makes those who are not committers (or
>> not yet committers) feel less appreciated.
>>
>> 2) Total lack of any acknowledgement of new committers/PPMC that leads
>> observers to believe that new committers are chosen in a secret
>> ceremony involving ceremonial robes, oaths, and animal sacrifices.
>>
>> An announcement of a new committer should not be surprising.  It
>> should confirm what any regular observer of the mailing list already
>> knows, namely that person X is actively involved in the project and is
>> making high quality contributions. So on one hand, acknowledging a new
>> committer should not tell you anything that you don't already know.
>>
>> On the other hand, there is reinforcement value to stating what we
>> know, especially for newer members of the project, i.e., the project's
>> future committers.
>>
>> By analogy, I've worked in situations where job promotions were given
>> secretly, and people were shy to ever speak of them.  It suggested
>> that the company could not bear the scrutiny of seeing the inequity of
>> hoiw promotions were given out.  And I've worked places where
>> promotions were announced widely, with a summary of the person's
>> recent contributions, reinforcing to the entire team the kinds of
>> contributions that could get them -- some day -- a similar promotion.
>>
>> If we believe that we're doing a good job at selecting new committers
>> then we should want this to be known.  Transparency shows the fairness
>> of the process.
>>
>> Obviously the context here at Apache is not the same.  But I think the
>> choices are analogous.
>>
>> Personally, I'm in favor of a modest announcement to the ooo-dev list
>> after a new committer has been elected and have submitted the iCLA.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>

Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Ross Gardler
 wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Sep 29, 2011 6:01 PM, "Rob Weir"  wrote:
>>
>> A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new
>> committers since the project started.  This is false. But it would be
>> hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website.
>>
>> So far we've been quiet about new committers.  We have the votes,
>> process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list.
>>
>> Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
>> list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.
>
> Really? I've not seen anyone say don't announce committers. The ASF is all
> about merit, why would one not give credit where credit is due?
>

Check your archives for ooo-private, July 8th.

> I know of no projects that do not announce new commiters.
>
> .
>>
>> Personally, I'm in favor of a modest announcement to the ooo-dev list
>> after a new committer has been elected and have submitted the iCLA.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> +1
>
> Ross
>
>>
>> -Rob
>  On Sep 29, 2011 6:01 PM, "Rob Weir"  wrote:
>

Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

2011-09-29 Thread Tor Lillqvist

Perhaps instead of announcements of new committers, announcements of
actual commits (more than just one) from somebody who hasn't committed
earlier would be interesting...

--tml

Re: How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

2011-09-29 Thread Donald Whytock

Looking at the AOO "people" page
(http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html) I see "some of
our contributors".  Is this a list of committers?  If so, perhaps new
committers can be announced along the lines of, "The OpenOffice list
of Committers at  has updated with the addition of ."  Less
laudatory, more PSA.

If that list on the site isn't of committers, should it be?  Or should
there be one, with "other contributors" mentioned?

Don

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new
> committers since the project started.  This is false. But it would be
> hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website.
>
> So far we've been quiet about new committers.  We have the votes,
> process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list.
>
> Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
> list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.
>
> IMHO, we want to avoid two errors, at the extremes:
>
> 1) A public announcement note for new committers that is read as being
> too congratulatory, one that makes those who are not committers (or
> not yet committers) feel less appreciated.
>
> 2) Total lack of any acknowledgement of new committers/PPMC that leads
> observers to believe that new committers are chosen in a secret
> ceremony involving ceremonial robes, oaths, and animal sacrifices.
>
> An announcement of a new committer should not be surprising.  It
> should confirm what any regular observer of the mailing list already
> knows, namely that person X is actively involved in the project and is
> making high quality contributions. So on one hand, acknowledging a new
> committer should not tell you anything that you don't already know.
>
> On the other hand, there is reinforcement value to stating what we
> know, especially for newer members of the project, i.e., the project's
> future committers.
>
> By analogy, I've worked in situations where job promotions were given
> secretly, and people were shy to ever speak of them.  It suggested
> that the company could not bear the scrutiny of seeing the inequity of
> hoiw promotions were given out.  And I've worked places where
> promotions were announced widely, with a summary of the person's
> recent contributions, reinforcing to the entire team the kinds of
> contributions that could get them -- some day -- a similar promotion.
>
> If we believe that we're doing a good job at selecting new committers
> then we should want this to be known.  Transparency shows the fairness
> of the process.
>
> Obviously the context here at Apache is not the same.  But I think the
> choices are analogous.
>
> Personally, I'm in favor of a modest announcement to the ooo-dev list
> after a new committer has been elected and have submitted the iCLA.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -Rob
>

Re:How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Sep 29, 2011 6:01 PM, "Rob Weir"  wrote:
>
> A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new
> committers since the project started.  This is false. But it would be
> hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website.
>
> So far we've been quiet about new committers.  We have the votes,
> process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list.
>
> Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
> list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.

Really? I've not seen anyone say don't announce committers. The ASF is all
about merit, why would one not give credit where credit is due?

I know of no projects that do not announce new commiters.

.
>
> Personally, I'm in favor of a modest announcement to the ooo-dev list
> after a new committer has been elected and have submitted the iCLA.
>
> What do you think?

+1

Ross

>
> -Rob
 On Sep 29, 2011 6:01 PM, "Rob Weir"  wrote:

Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:33 AM, TJ Frazier  wrote:
> On 9/27/2011 20:37, TJ Frazier wrote:
>>
>> On 9/27/2011 17:03, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> I'm assuming this is the link:
>>>
>>> http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/Wiki/statistics
>>>
>> That should be a good assumption, but no. It's busted. I'll fix it.
>> Meanwhile, you can see it on the main page of the live wiki:
>>
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page
>>
>> The problem is complex. Give me a day or so.
>>
>
> OK, try the "statistics" link. Now showing top 100. Page is still messy
> because of difficult working conditions (ATS problem).
>

Thanks. Just looking through the top pages, I'm not seeing very
complex pages.  I know there are highly customized parts, that might
not convert easily to moin moin or CWiki.  But I don't see it in the
top pages.

Or am I missing something?

>>> Do we have any sense of what % of page visits are comprised by the top
>>> pages? The above numbers look impressive, but I have no idea if the
>>> top 10 pages account for 20% of the hits, or 1%.
>
> AFAIK, the wiki is keeping a hit count per page. Someone with SQL karma and
> fu could total the field. It's a big number: the 100th page has 10E5+ hits.
>

It is hard to interpret the absolute number without knowing the time
scale we're measuring.  10,000 hits in 5 years is not so impressive.
In one day, it is.

In any case, we have some very popular pages.  But it drops rather
quickly.  After 25 pages we're down a factor of 10.  This is as you
would expect.

The interesting thing (and something that is hard to look at in detail
without web analytics) is how people are getting to these pages, and
why.

For example, the Dictionaries page is a good compilation of open
source dictionaries for ispell/hunspell.  As such, it is of interest
to several OSS programs.  So that page is linked to from:

PostgresSQL:  
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/textsearch-dictionaries.html

NetBSD:  
ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/pkgsrc/current/pkgsrc/textproc/hunspell-lt_LT/README.html

TortoiseSVN:  https://apps.uillinois.edu/TortoiseSVN-1.6.6-en.pdf

Even commercial products like Altova:  http://www.altova.com/de/dictionaries/

So we have a page here that is important beyond users of OpenOffice.
We should try to preserve both the content and the URL

>>>
>>> I can crunch the numbers if there is some way to derive them. I could
>>> even crunch the http logs directly, if they are saved for a couple of
>>> days.
>>>
>>> In any case, the top pages you've reported are not typical "community"
>>> pages.
>>
>> True.
>>>
>>> They would work well as markdown pages.
>>
>> Only if we ignore the valuable feedback from user changes on the
>> manuals. I find this a significant quality enhancer.
>>
>>> Except maybe the
>>> FAQ's we want to be more dynamic and wiki-enabled. Might even be
>>> something the Forum volunteers would be interested in maintaining
>>> directly, since they would have the best sense of what questions are
>>> "frequent".
>
> I suggest that a lot more info belongs on a wiki, rather than elsewhere.
> Please see my upcoming reply to a commit by Dave Fisher, on a web page.
>
>>>
>>> I think this is encouraging.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>
> --
> /tj/
>
>

Re: Forums not reachable

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 29, 2011, at 1:54 AM, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:00:04 +0200
>>> Christian Grobmeier  wrote:
>>>
>>> 

 It is is still a confusing situation, and we finally started a draft
 of the necessary changes:
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project
 but as you can see, it is incomplete and not yet voteable. Some more
 work is required. The offline time of the boards does not help, of
 course :(

 Hope I have expressed everything very well.
>>>
>>> Very well (and fairly) expressed, Christian.
>>>
>>> The comments by Peter Roelhofsen (floris_v on the forum) on the wiki page 
>>> cited above in general express the overall view of forum volunteers, I 
>>> think; we mostly feel that trying to impose the existing Apache structure 
>>> on the forms is overkill and may stifle it.  I recommend that the comments 
>>> on the wiki page be carefully read;  note that the forum is willing to 
>>> modify its structures to fit in with Apache, but there does not seem to be 
>>> a similar flexibility on the Apache side.
>>
>> We are individuals and volunteers here and some of us were busy with our 
>> paying jobs when this all blew up on the ooo-dev ML a few weeks ago. Some 
>> may appear less flexible than others. We are waiting for an actual proposal.
>>
>
> +1
>
> Also, if those who have been working on a proposal find themselves
> circling around over the same issues and not finding a resolution, I'd
> recommend starting a thread on ooo-dev, summarizing the remaining
> issue, and start a discussion here.  Maybe getting more eyes on the
> remaining issues will bring in some different perspectives, new ideas.

All true, but there are enough comments on the proposal wiki page to
update it. My guess is, after the comments are all build in, the
proposal is near to be voted on. I might find some time to do it the
next days, hopefully. Other volunteers (esp. from the forum) highly
welcome :-)

Re: Forums not reachable

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Sep 29, 2011, at 1:54 AM, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:00:04 +0200
>> Christian Grobmeier  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>>
>>> It is is still a confusing situation, and we finally started a draft
>>> of the necessary changes:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project
>>> but as you can see, it is incomplete and not yet voteable. Some more
>>> work is required. The offline time of the boards does not help, of
>>> course :(
>>>
>>> Hope I have expressed everything very well.
>>
>> Very well (and fairly) expressed, Christian.
>>
>> The comments by Peter Roelhofsen (floris_v on the forum) on the wiki page 
>> cited above in general express the overall view of forum volunteers, I 
>> think; we mostly feel that trying to impose the existing Apache structure on 
>> the forms is overkill and may stifle it.  I recommend that the comments on 
>> the wiki page be carefully read;  note that the forum is willing to modify 
>> its structures to fit in with Apache, but there does not seem to be a 
>> similar flexibility on the Apache side.
>
> We are individuals and volunteers here and some of us were busy with our 
> paying jobs when this all blew up on the ooo-dev ML a few weeks ago. Some may 
> appear less flexible than others. We are waiting for an actual proposal.
>

+1

Also, if those who have been working on a proposal find themselves
circling around over the same issues and not finding a resolution, I'd
recommend starting a thread on ooo-dev, summarizing the remaining
issue, and start a discussion here.  Maybe getting more eyes on the
remaining issues will bring in some different perspectives, new ideas.

-Rob


> Given that http://ooo-forums.apache.org/ exists you can see that Apache 
> Infrastructure has done everything needed. It is up to the project to 
> maintain and administrate the forum VM.
>
> The technical key is the inclusion of someone to manage the instance as 
> hosted by Apache. If the TDF is how the Forums wish to go then it is up to 
> them how, once known AOOo is certainly happy to point to that location.
>
>> The forum downtime (which I hope is being worked upon) does not help us move 
>> towards a decision.
>
> I would hope that the forum downtime will help the forum owners decide to 
> actually do a move until then the "orphaned" machines in Oracle's Hamburg 
> office are subject to whatever events happen without anyone watching. All we 
> can do here is report it to our Oracle contact in California and wait while 
> he finds someone with the spare cycles to go find out what happened and give 
> the forum machine a "kick".
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>> --
>> Rory O'Farrell 
>
>

How do we want to announce new Committers/PPMC members

A recent press article suggested that this project had not had any new
committers since the project started.  This is false. But it would be
hard to tell that, looking at our mailing list or website.

So far we've been quiet about new committers.  We have the votes,
process the paper work, etc., on the ooo-private list.

Some Apache projects announce each new committer to their main mailing
list.  Others don't.   We're received mixed advice from our mentors.

IMHO, we want to avoid two errors, at the extremes:

1) A public announcement note for new committers that is read as being
too congratulatory, one that makes those who are not committers (or
not yet committers) feel less appreciated.

2) Total lack of any acknowledgement of new committers/PPMC that leads
observers to believe that new committers are chosen in a secret
ceremony involving ceremonial robes, oaths, and animal sacrifices.

An announcement of a new committer should not be surprising.  It
should confirm what any regular observer of the mailing list already
knows, namely that person X is actively involved in the project and is
making high quality contributions. So on one hand, acknowledging a new
committer should not tell you anything that you don't already know.

On the other hand, there is reinforcement value to stating what we
know, especially for newer members of the project, i.e., the project's
future committers.

By analogy, I've worked in situations where job promotions were given
secretly, and people were shy to ever speak of them.  It suggested
that the company could not bear the scrutiny of seeing the inequity of
hoiw promotions were given out.  And I've worked places where
promotions were announced widely, with a summary of the person's
recent contributions, reinforcing to the entire team the kinds of
contributions that could get them -- some day -- a similar promotion.

If we believe that we're doing a good job at selecting new committers
then we should want this to be known.  Transparency shows the fairness
of the process.

Obviously the context here at Apache is not the same.  But I think the
choices are analogous.

Personally, I'm in favor of a modest announcement to the ooo-dev list
after a new committer has been elected and have submitted the iCLA.

What do you think?

-Rob

Re: Forums not reachable

On Sep 29, 2011, at 1:54 AM, Rory O'Farrell wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:00:04 +0200
> Christian Grobmeier  wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> It is is still a confusing situation, and we finally started a draft
>> of the necessary changes:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project
>> but as you can see, it is incomplete and not yet voteable. Some more
>> work is required. The offline time of the boards does not help, of
>> course :(
>> 
>> Hope I have expressed everything very well.
> 
> Very well (and fairly) expressed, Christian.  
> 
> The comments by Peter Roelhofsen (floris_v on the forum) on the wiki page 
> cited above in general express the overall view of forum volunteers, I think; 
> we mostly feel that trying to impose the existing Apache structure on the 
> forms is overkill and may stifle it.  I recommend that the comments on the 
> wiki page be carefully read;  note that the forum is willing to modify its 
> structures to fit in with Apache, but there does not seem to be a similar 
> flexibility on the Apache side.

We are individuals and volunteers here and some of us were busy with our paying 
jobs when this all blew up on the ooo-dev ML a few weeks ago. Some may appear 
less flexible than others. We are waiting for an actual proposal.

Given that http://ooo-forums.apache.org/ exists you can see that Apache 
Infrastructure has done everything needed. It is up to the project to maintain 
and administrate the forum VM.

The technical key is the inclusion of someone to manage the instance as hosted 
by Apache. If the TDF is how the Forums wish to go then it is up to them how, 
once known AOOo is certainly happy to point to that location.

> The forum downtime (which I hope is being worked upon) does not help us move 
> towards a decision.

I would hope that the forum downtime will help the forum owners decide to 
actually do a move until then the "orphaned" machines in Oracle's Hamburg 
office are subject to whatever events happen without anyone watching. All we 
can do here is report it to our Oracle contact in California and wait while he 
finds someone with the spare cycles to go find out what happened and give the 
forum machine a "kick".

Regards,
Dave

> -- 
> Rory O'Farrell

Re: hwpfilter/source/ksc5601.h - header from GNU c library

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni  wrote:
> Hi Oliver;
>
> --- On Thu, 9/29/11, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> ...
>>
>> Thanks for the input.
>>
>> Adding the URL for the origin of the copyright and license
>> text is a good idea. I will add it and use it also to point
>> to the origin of  ksc5601.h.
>> As Pedro researched the files are also found at
>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/lib/libX11/tree/src/xlibi18n/lcUniConv
>> I will use this URL as the origin.
>>
>
> I suggest we take the original XFree86 file as this preserves
> better the origin information. At a later time we can update
> it to the X.Org version but XFree86 deserves some form of
> credit for convincing the FSF ;).
>
> (Just for curiosity I will compare the file we have with
> the new header to check if there may be any significant
> difference.)
>

Thanks.  And btw, I like what Oliver did here.  We should do more of
this.  I'd recommend that for every 3rd party component that we're
investigating, that the person who is looking at it should start a new
thread on ooo-dev to discuss.  The collective knowledge and experience
we have on the history of these components, and possible replacements,
is greater than any single one of us has.

> cheers,
>
> Pedro.
>

Re: hwpfilter/source/ksc5601.h - header from GNU c library

2011-09-29 Thread Pedro F. Giffuni

Hi Oliver;

--- On Thu, 9/29/11, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
...
> 
> Thanks for the input.
> 
> Adding the URL for the origin of the copyright and license
> text is a good idea. I will add it and use it also to point
> to the origin of  ksc5601.h.
> As Pedro researched the files are also found at 
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/lib/libX11/tree/src/xlibi18n/lcUniConv
> I will use this URL as the origin.
> 

I suggest we take the original XFree86 file as this preserves
better the origin information. At a later time we can update
it to the X.Org version but XFree86 deserves some form of
credit for convincing the FSF ;).

(Just for curiosity I will compare the file we have with
the new header to check if there may be any significant
difference.)

cheers,

Pedro.

Re: hwpfilter/source/ksc5601.h - header from GNU c library

2011-09-29 Thread Pedro F. Giffuni

--- On Thu, 9/29/11, Rob Weir  wrote:
...
> 
> OK.  So [4] is a permissive license for all files in
> the directory.
> This may seen odd, coming from the FSF, but they encourage
> this is some cases, such as when the code is very small,
> or where the code promotes the use of an open standard
> that competes against a proprietary standard.
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
> 

FWIW, What happened here is that the XFree86 guys
only uses code under MIT/BSD licenses, so they
contacted the FSF and got the permission from them. 

The X.org guys forked from XFree86 and I see they removed
the XFree86 CVS tags. Normal practice is keep the tags,
for origin reference. 

Pedro.

> > [4]
> > http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/*checkout*/xc/lib/X11/lcUniConv/COPYRIGHT?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/plain
> >
> 
>

Re: Forums not reachable

>> Not sure which issue you mean. Are speaking of "4) Work on the
>> rebranding and other content changes to comply with agreed project
>> requirements"
>
> no...Terry filed an actual JIRA issue on setting this up...
>
> see
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-3888
>
> but it is now "closed"

I think this has been done as the setup is running:
ooo-forums.apache.org

But the actual work is still carried out on the other forums which are
currently offline

Cheers


>
>>
>> If yes, this is not solved yet.
>>
>> Basically the forums are property of the forum volunteers (which are
>> the maintainers of the board). They are running the board for years
>> similar to the ASF. Now there was a lots of discussion what they need
>> to change, like for example: who will be a committer, who will be
>> PMCs. On the other hand of course the ooo-pmc would get hands on the
>> forum - it seems forum people are very nervous about this, because
>> they feel treated very badly from ooo-dev.
>>
>> That being said, there was much discussion on the forum itself, and
>> there is still no decision. While the english board is   roundabout
>> 60% are for a move, at the spanish speakers board nobody wants to move
>> to the ASF.
>>
>> It is is still a confusing situation, and we finally started a draft
>> of the necessary changes:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project
>> but as you can see, it is incomplete and not yet voteable. Some more
>> work is required. The offline time of the boards does not help, of
>> course :(
>>
>> Hope I have expressed everything very well.
>
> ok, thanks for this. I obviously did not see this wiki page.
>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Christian
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Christian
>>> Grobmeierwrote:
>>>
> Wasn't there going to be a proposal from the Forum community regarding

 moving the Forums to Apache Infrastructure?
>
> I recall activity on the the CWiki about it, but nothing has happened

 here to move the process forward.

 The proposal is still in progress. There is still no agreement on if
 it actually will happen.

 Cheers,
 Christian


>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Sep 28, 2011, at 3:28 AM, drew wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 12:00 +0200, floris v wrote:
>>>
>>> Op 28-9-2011 8:58, Rory O'Farrell schreef:

 On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:50:41 +0200
 Reizinger Zoltán    wrote:

> The forums not reachable, at least to me,  on address
> http://user.services.openoffice.org
> Somebody knows why?

 Not reachable here either, Zoltan, for at least the last 36 hours.
  A

 posting on oooforum.org notes that the site is down, but gives no reason

 http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=131317

>>> I noticed it too, and I'm an admin at the Dutch nl forum. But I'm as
>>> ignorant about what's going on as everybody else. :=(
>>
>> You are right in that no one knows
>>
>> - you really should be following the user mailing list [the new one
>> not
>> the old one], this was the only topic talked about on the list
>> yesterday ... then again, it's not like the list is actually getting
>> any
>> use otherwise anyway - but still.
>>
>> So, I've been up since 4 AM, my time, hoping to hear something and now
>> it's 11:30 Hamburg time - still nothing - I did just get an email (an
>> hour ago now) from Terry so everyone is waiting to pounce, but as of 5
>> minutes ago still unable to connect to the server in any way at all.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>



 --
 http://www.grobmeier.de

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ---
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "There is no such thing as coincidence."
>>>           -- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> 
> MzK
>
> "There is no such thing as coincidence."
>           -- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39
>



-- 
http://www.grobmeier.de

Re: Forums not reachable

2011-09-29 Thread Kay Schenk

On 09/29/2011 01:00 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:

Kay,

Can you supply an update to whatever is going on on this wiki page?
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Community+Forums

This page looks like an technical overview of running the forum. I am
not sure a status information would fit there. Anyway, here is some
more info, fell free to add it whereever you want it.

The issue Terry refers to has been closed and the response is confusing to
me, but perhaps it makes sense to someone else.

...

I, for one, would really like to get an idea of what's going on with this.

Not sure which issue you mean. Are speaking of "4) Work on the
rebranding and other content changes to comply with agreed project
requirements"

no...Terry filed an actual JIRA issue on setting this up...

see

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-3888

but it is now "closed"

If yes, this is not solved yet.

Basically the forums are property of the forum volunteers (which are
the maintainers of the board). They are running the board for years
similar to the ASF. Now there was a lots of discussion what they need
to change, like for example: who will be a committer, who will be
PMCs. On the other hand of course the ooo-pmc would get hands on the
forum - it seems forum people are very nervous about this, because
they feel treated very badly from ooo-dev.

That being said, there was much discussion on the forum itself, and
there is still no decision. While the english board is roundabout
60% are for a move, at the spanish speakers board nobody wants to move
to the ASF.

It is is still a confusing situation, and we finally started a draft
of the necessary changes:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project
but as you can see, it is incomplete and not yet voteable. Some more
work is required. The offline time of the boards does not help, of
course :(

Hope I have expressed everything very well.

ok, thanks for this. I obviously did not see this wiki page.

Cheers
Christian

Thanks.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Christian Grobmeierwrote:

Wasn't there going to be a proposal from the Forum community regarding

moving the Forums to Apache Infrastructure?

I recall activity on the the CWiki about it, but nothing has happened

here to move the process forward.

The proposal is still in progress. There is still no agreement on if
it actually will happen.

Cheers,
Christian

Regards,
Dave

On Sep 28, 2011, at 3:28 AM, drew wrote:

On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 12:00 +0200, floris v wrote:

Op 28-9-2011 8:58, Rory O'Farrell schreef:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:50:41 +0200
Reizinger Zoltánwrote:

The forums not reachable, at least to me, on address
http://user.services.openoffice.org
Somebody knows why?

Not reachable here either, Zoltan, for at least the last 36 hours. A

posting on oooforum.org notes that the site is down, but gives no reason

http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=131317

I noticed it too, and I'm an admin at the Dutch nl forum. But I'm as
ignorant about what's going on as everybody else. :=(

You are right in that no one knows

- you really should be following the user mailing list [the new one not
the old one], this was the only topic talked about on the list
yesterday ... then again, it's not like the list is actually getting any
use otherwise anyway - but still.

So, I've been up since 4 AM, my time, hoping to hear something and now
it's 11:30 Hamburg time - still nothing - I did just get an email (an
hour ago now) from Terry so everyone is waiting to pounce, but as of 5
minutes ago still unable to connect to the server in any way at all.

--
http://www.grobmeier.de

--
---
MzK

"There is no such thing as coincidence."
-- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39

MzK

"There is no such thing as coincidence."
-- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39

Re: svn commit: r796325 - in /websites/production/openofficeorg: ./ content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html


On Sep 29, 2011, at 6:58 AM, TJ Frazier wrote:

> On 9/29/2011 09:41, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:05 AM, TJ Frazier  wrote:
>>> Dave, several small points:
>>> 
>>> * I have Bureaucrat and Administrator rights on the Mwiki copy. Email me (on
>>> ooo-dev or privately) to activate an existing account, or set up a new one.
>>> Anyone should be able to access the copy in read-only mode.
>>> http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/
>>> 
>> 
>> Thanks, I've added that to the page.
>> 
>>> * "To establish a Roller account contact Infrastructure." Email link?
>>> JIRA link?
>>> 
>> 
>> I added link to Infra JIRA.
>> 
>>> * How should people contact you, as blog administrator?
>>> 
>>> IMHO, all of this relatively new info shouldn't be on that web page at all:
>>> the page should link to a wiki page. The info is too volatile to maintain
>>> easily on a web page, and the wiki is where users will see it.
>>> /tj/
>>> 
>> 
>> Webpages are just as easy to edit as the wiki, if you use the web
>> interface to the CMS.  Of course, if we're changing admins so
>> frequently that the difference between requiring 4 mouse clicks to
>> make a change (CMS) versus 2 mouse clicks (wiki) is a problem, then we
>> have a far more serious problem, one that is not really addressed by
>> merely reducing the number of mouse clicks.
> 
> Judging by the number of niggling little commits to change one page, the 
> preview facility of CMS is considerably less useful than a wiki's (even Cwiki 
> does that right). And, judging by how many Apache-website pages need at least 
> a little cleanup (almost every one!), other users find the CMS too 
> inconvenient to use. --/tj/

Given that the MediaWiki is not completely migrated, I am reluctant to use any 
Wiki for this information. TJ - do you have any further information about MWiki 
migration?

As far as clicks are concerned. I do my Apache CMS updates from the command 
line and terminal anyway. It's a perl / python based system and flexibility is 
possible. All of the source is in the Apache SVN. The process is documented in 
the podling website.

http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/website-local.html

Regards,
Dave

> 
>> 
>> -Rob
>> 
>>> On 9/28/2011 21:53, w...@apache.org wrote:
 
 Author: wave
 Date: Thu Sep 29 01:53:46 2011
 New Revision: 796325
 
 Log:
 Corrected the spelling of my name. Expanded on the Blog and Wiki
 information.
 
 Modified:
 websites/production/openofficeorg/   (props changed)
 websites/production/openofficeorg/content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html
 
 Propchange: websites/production/openofficeorg/
 
 --
 --- svn:mergeinfo (original)
 +++ svn:mergeinfo Thu Sep 29 01:53:46 2011
 @@ -1 +1 @@
 -/websites/staging/openofficeorg/trunk:791146-796312
 +/websites/staging/openofficeorg/trunk:791146-796324
 
 Modified:
 websites/production/openofficeorg/content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html
 
 ==
 --- websites/production/openofficeorg/content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html
 (original)
 +++ websites/production/openofficeorg/content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html
 Thu Sep 29 01:53:46 2011
 @@ -98,15 +98,22 @@ Wolf Halton as members.  New members can
  request to Apache Infra.
  
  Blog
 -Blog authors are Rob Weir and Dennis Hamilton
 -The blog admin is Dave Fischer.  He can authorize new authors once
 they have first
 -established a Roller account.
 +Blog authors include Rob Weir and Dennis Hamilton.
 +The blog admin is Dave Fisher.  He can authorize new authors once they
 have first
 +established a Roller account. To establish a Roller account contact
 Infrastructure.
  Bugzilla
 -?
 +Raphael?
  SVN
  All committers have equal access.
  Wiki
 -?
 +
 +OOOUSERS. This wiki is open to anyone with a CWiki account.
 +OOODEV. This wiki may only be edited by project committers, PPMC, and
 iCLA signers.
 +
 +Dave Fisher has Confluence Admin rights and can authorize new editors
 in the OOODEV Wiki.
 +
 +MediaWiki. TJ?
 +
  How to participate?
  First of all you have to think how you want to participate as we have
 different kind
  of roles like user, developer, committer. The easiest way is to use what
 we build as
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>

Re: svn commit: r796325 - in /websites/production/openofficeorg: ./ content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html


On 9/29/2011 09:41, Rob Weir wrote:

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:05 AM, TJ Frazier  wrote:

Dave, several small points:

* I have Bureaucrat and Administrator rights on the Mwiki copy. Email me (on
ooo-dev or privately) to activate an existing account, or set up a new one.
Anyone should be able to access the copy in read-only mode.
http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/



Thanks, I've added that to the page.


* "To establish a Roller account contact Infrastructure." Email link?
JIRA link?



I added link to Infra JIRA.


* How should people contact you, as blog administrator?

IMHO, all of this relatively new info shouldn't be on that web page at all:
the page should link to a wiki page. The info is too volatile to maintain
easily on a web page, and the wiki is where users will see it.
/tj/



Webpages are just as easy to edit as the wiki, if you use the web
interface to the CMS.  Of course, if we're changing admins so
frequently that the difference between requiring 4 mouse clicks to
make a change (CMS) versus 2 mouse clicks (wiki) is a problem, then we
have a far more serious problem, one that is not really addressed by
merely reducing the number of mouse clicks.


Judging by the number of niggling little commits to change one page, the 
preview facility of CMS is considerably less useful than a wiki's (even 
Cwiki does that right). And, judging by how many Apache-website pages 
need at least a little cleanup (almost every one!), other users find the 
CMS too inconvenient to use. --/tj/




-Rob


On 9/28/2011 21:53, w...@apache.org wrote:


Author: wave
Date: Thu Sep 29 01:53:46 2011
New Revision: 796325

Log:
Corrected the spelling of my name. Expanded on the Blog and Wiki
information.

Modified:
 websites/production/openofficeorg/   (props changed)
 websites/production/openofficeorg/content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html

Propchange: websites/production/openofficeorg/

--
--- svn:mergeinfo (original)
+++ svn:mergeinfo Thu Sep 29 01:53:46 2011
@@ -1 +1 @@
-/websites/staging/openofficeorg/trunk:791146-796312
+/websites/staging/openofficeorg/trunk:791146-796324

Modified:
websites/production/openofficeorg/content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html

==
--- websites/production/openofficeorg/content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html
(original)
+++ websites/production/openofficeorg/content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html
Thu Sep 29 01:53:46 2011
@@ -98,15 +98,22 @@ Wolf Halton as members.  New members can
  request to Apache Infra.
  
  Blog
-Blog authors are Rob Weir and Dennis Hamilton
-The blog admin is Dave Fischer.  He can authorize new authors once
they have first
-established a Roller account.
+Blog authors include Rob Weir and Dennis Hamilton.
+The blog admin is Dave Fisher.  He can authorize new authors once they
have first
+established a Roller account. To establish a Roller account contact
Infrastructure.
  Bugzilla
-?
+Raphael?
  SVN
  All committers have equal access.
  Wiki
-?
+
+OOOUSERS. This wiki is open to anyone with a CWiki account.
+OOODEV. This wiki may only be edited by project committers, PPMC, and
iCLA signers.
+
+Dave Fisher has Confluence Admin rights and can authorize new editors
in the OOODEV Wiki.
+
+MediaWiki. TJ?
+
  How to participate?
  First of all you have to think how you want to participate as we have
different kind
  of roles like user, developer, committer. The easiest way is to use what
we build as

OT: Generated File IP

I WENT TOO FAR.  (I am changing the thread because a lot of this is not 
relevant to IP review. I think the conclusion C is all that matters with regard 
to copyright and copyright-based licenses.)

My comment about binaries is completely off the mark.  Ever since software was 
made copyrightable subject matter by statute (i.e., the 1976 Copyright Act), 
there have been special provisions concerning software with regard to the 
exclusive rights that authors enjoy. First, copyright does extend to 
executables and binaries, even though they are not meant to be readable by 
humans, and some of the provisions limit the exclusive rights.  (E.g., backups 
are permitted, and there is business about the ephemeral copy that exists in 
order to execute software.)  I don't know that this applies to any software for 
which there is no source code, but that need not bother us here.

In the exchange with Norbert, there remains the question of license conditions 
that originate exclusively through the exclusive rights of copyright holders 
and the license conditions that may arise in some other manner.

A.  Exercise and Licensing of Exclusive Rights under Copyright
 1. Let us assume that there is some construction by which a source program, 
which is exclusively my original authorship and bearing my copyright and 
license notice is processed by something that introduces material that is not 
subject to my copyright but is subject to the copyright of some other.  Let us 
also assume, that, somehow, the processor that spits out this derivative 
affixes notices on behalf of *its* authors.  (This would be like a preprocessor 
adding notices and license statements.)  So the intermediate work and any 
further conversion of that into a delivered software program (e.g., directly or 
in binary form) has this mixed licensing situation, and presumably the terms of 
all of those licenses have to be satisfied.  Let's just accept that.

 2. The next question, in the case of my work being open-source, is whether or 
not the various licenses are all qualified and satisfiable in accord with the 
Open Source Definition.  

 3. The next question for us is whether or not the various licenses are 
compatible with the ALv2 (and for the latest releases of OpenOffice.org so far, 
LGPL3).  
Note that for input to Bison, the license is whatever the author of the 
input says it is.
For output from Bison, the potential of additional license conditions and 
possible conflict is determined by notices that are included in the output from 
Bison, the parser implementation file.  
One has to know that by examining the file for notices and "special exception" 
information.
I assume that Berkeley YACC doesn't have these problems, and as long as no 
special features of 
Bison are involved, Berkeley YACC can be substituted.

B. Another wrinkle
I don't think this is applicable to any situation in hand, but one problem with 
(A.1) is that it can't have the effect of achieving a patent by use of 
copyright.  (There are other US-specific pre-emptions too, but I doubt that 
there is a free-speech issue at hand.)

C. What to do if the copyright and license conditions injected into the 
intermediate product are
unacceptable?  Don't worry about it being a valid declaration.  Get rid of the 
dependency.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 05:00
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: A systematic approach to IP review?

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
> Let me recall the bidding a little here.  What I said was
>
> " It is unlikely that machine-generated files of any kind are copyrightable 
> subject matter."
>
> You point out that computer-generated files might incorporate copyrightable 
> subject matter.  I hadn't considered a hybrid case where copyrightable 
> subject matter would subsist in such a work, and I have no idea how and to 
> what extend the output qualifies as a work of authorship, but it is certainly 
> a case to be reckoned with.
>
> Then there is the issue of macro expansion, template parameter substitution, 
> etc., and the cases becomes blurrier and blurrier.  For example, if I wrote a 
> program and then put it through the C Language pre-processor, in how much of 
> the expanded result does the copyright declared on the original subsist?  (I 
> am willing to concede, for purposes of argument, that the second is a 
> derivative work of the former, even though the derivation occurred 
> dynamically.)
>
> I fancy this example because it is commonplace that the pre-processor 
> incorporated files that have their own copyright and license notices too.  
> Also, the original might include macro calls, with
> parameters using macros defined in one or more of those incorporated files.
>

Under US law:  "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this
title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of
e

Re: svn commit: r796325 - in /websites/production/openofficeorg: ./ content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:05 AM, TJ Frazier  wrote:
> Dave, several small points:
>
> * I have Bureaucrat and Administrator rights on the Mwiki copy. Email me (on
> ooo-dev or privately) to activate an existing account, or set up a new one.
> Anyone should be able to access the copy in read-only mode.
> http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/
>

Thanks, I've added that to the page.

> * "To establish a Roller account contact Infrastructure." Email link?
> JIRA link?
>

I added link to Infra JIRA.

> * How should people contact you, as blog administrator?
>
> IMHO, all of this relatively new info shouldn't be on that web page at all:
> the page should link to a wiki page. The info is too volatile to maintain
> easily on a web page, and the wiki is where users will see it.
> /tj/
>

Webpages are just as easy to edit as the wiki, if you use the web
interface to the CMS.  Of course, if we're changing admins so
frequently that the difference between requiring 4 mouse clicks to
make a change (CMS) versus 2 mouse clicks (wiki) is a problem, then we
have a far more serious problem, one that is not really addressed by
merely reducing the number of mouse clicks.

-Rob

> On 9/28/2011 21:53, w...@apache.org wrote:
>>
>> Author: wave
>> Date: Thu Sep 29 01:53:46 2011
>> New Revision: 796325
>>
>> Log:
>> Corrected the spelling of my name. Expanded on the Blog and Wiki
>> information.
>>
>> Modified:
>>     websites/production/openofficeorg/   (props changed)
>>     websites/production/openofficeorg/content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html
>>
>> Propchange: websites/production/openofficeorg/
>>
>> --
>> --- svn:mergeinfo (original)
>> +++ svn:mergeinfo Thu Sep 29 01:53:46 2011
>> @@ -1 +1 @@
>> -/websites/staging/openofficeorg/trunk:791146-796312
>> +/websites/staging/openofficeorg/trunk:791146-796324
>>
>> Modified:
>> websites/production/openofficeorg/content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html
>>
>> ==
>> --- websites/production/openofficeorg/content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html
>> (original)
>> +++ websites/production/openofficeorg/content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html
>> Thu Sep 29 01:53:46 2011
>> @@ -98,15 +98,22 @@ Wolf Halton as members.  New members can
>>  request to Apache Infra.
>>  
>>  Blog
>> -Blog authors are Rob Weir and Dennis Hamilton
>> -The blog admin is Dave Fischer.  He can authorize new authors once
>> they have first
>> -established a Roller account.
>> +Blog authors include Rob Weir and Dennis Hamilton.
>> +The blog admin is Dave Fisher.  He can authorize new authors once they
>> have first
>> +established a Roller account. To establish a Roller account contact
>> Infrastructure.
>>  Bugzilla
>> -?
>> +Raphael?
>>  SVN
>>  All committers have equal access.
>>  Wiki
>> -?
>> +
>> +OOOUSERS. This wiki is open to anyone with a CWiki account.
>> +OOODEV. This wiki may only be edited by project committers, PPMC, and
>> iCLA signers.
>> +
>> +Dave Fisher has Confluence Admin rights and can authorize new editors
>> in the OOODEV Wiki.
>> +
>> +MediaWiki. TJ?
>> +
>>  How to participate?
>>  First of all you have to think how you want to participate as we have
>> different kind
>>  of roles like user, developer, committer. The easiest way is to use what
>> we build as
>>
>
>
>
>

Re: hwpfilter/source/ksc5601.h - header from GNU c library

2011-09-29 Thread Oliver-Rainer Wittmann

On 29.09.2011 15:15, Rob Weir wrote:

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
wrote:

Hi,

the low-hanging fruits are hanging quite high ;-)

Thus, as given at [1], we can get file ksc5601.h from [2] under a Apache
permissive license.
Unfortunately, the provided file [3] does not contain a license or copyright
header. But a copyright file [4] exists at the same location as ksc5601.h
which contains the copyright and license not only for ksc5601.h, but for all
files at [2]

OK. So [4] is a permissive license for all files in the directory.
This may seen odd, coming from the FSF, but they encourage this is
some cases, such as when the code is very small, or where the code
promotes the use of an open standard that competes against a
proprietary standard.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html

My proposal to go ahead is:
- copy the following contents of the copyright file [4] into the downloaded
ksc5601.h file

The Apache practice is documented here. Look under "Treatment of
Third-Party Works".

http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html

One of the steps says, "Do ensure that every third-party work includes
its associated license, even if that requires adding a copy of the
license from the third-party download site into the distribution."

It is not clear to me how we apply that step in this case:

1) Do we copy that license file into the same directory as ksc5601.h?
But the license is written very poorly, "This notice applies to the
files in this directory". We might have it in a directory that has
other files that were not originally in the same directory. This
seems like a bad idea.

2) Do we add the license to the specific files that we've copied?
That is your proposal.

3) Or do we not touch the original file, but simple put the license
text in our NOTICE.txt

Maybe best is #2, but also put a comment in the source code where you
document the provenance of the file, giving the facts you gave above:
that the file is from this URL, that the license is in this other
file, and the text of the license is as follows, etc.

Thanks for the input.

Adding the URL for the origin of the copyright and license text is a
good idea. I will add it and use it also to point to the origin of
ksc5601.h.
As Pedro researched the files are also found at
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/lib/libX11/tree/src/xlibi18n/lcUniConv

I will use this URL as the origin.

Best regards, Oliver.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to
deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the
rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS
IN THE SOFTWARE.

- replace the current ksc5601.h be the one created by the first step.

- adjust dependencies of our source code on ksc5601.h accordingly, if
needed.

- add a corresponding statement in the NOTICE that parts of the source code
are on the copyright from Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Is this ok and conform to Apache regarding 3rd party licenses?

Best regards, Oliver.

[1]
http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/ApacheMigration#A_header_from_GNU_c_library_.28solved.29

[2] http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/lib/X11/lcUniConv/#dirlist

[3]
http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/*checkout*/xc/lib/X11/lcUniConv/ksc5601.h?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/plain

[4]
http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/*checkout*/xc/lib/X11/lcUniConv/COPYRIGHT?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/plain

Re: QUASTE working?

2011-09-29 Thread Kazunari Hirano

Hi Andrea and all,

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> Yes, but recently it had included TCM, the very important tool to track the
> (manual) community testing:
Yes, it is.
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/TCM_Integration_to_QUASTe
and we have its documentation.
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/TCM_Integration_to_QUASTe_Documentation
I translated it into Japanese.
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/JA/QA/TCM_Integration_to_QUASTe_Documentation
We tested the TCM@QUASTE Alpha.
It was about to turn to Beta :)
Thanks,
khirano

Re: hwpfilter/source/ksc5601.h - header from GNU c library

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the low-hanging fruits are hanging quite high ;-)
>
> Thus, as given at [1], we can get file ksc5601.h from [2] under a Apache
> permissive license.
> Unfortunately, the provided file [3] does not contain a license or copyright
> header. But a copyright file [4] exists at the same location as ksc5601.h
> which contains the copyright and license not only for ksc5601.h, but for all
> files at [2]
>

OK.  So [4] is a permissive license for all files in the directory.
This may seen odd, coming from the FSF, but they encourage this is
some cases, such as when the code is very small, or where the code
promotes the use of an open standard that competes against a
proprietary standard.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html


> My proposal to go ahead is:
> - copy the following contents of the copyright file [4] into the downloaded
> ksc5601.h file
> 

The Apache practice is documented here.  Look under "Treatment of
Third-Party Works".

http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html

One of the steps says, "Do ensure that every third-party work includes
its associated license, even if that requires adding a copy of the
license from the third-party download site into the distribution."

It is not clear to me how we apply that step in this case:

1) Do we copy that license file into the same directory as ksc5601.h?
But the license is written very poorly, "This notice applies to the
files in this directory".   We might have it in a directory that has
other files that were not originally in the same directory.  This
seems like a bad idea.

2) Do we add the license to the specific files that we've copied?
That is your proposal.

3) Or do we not touch the original file, but simple put the license
text in our NOTICE.txt

Maybe best is #2, but also put a comment in the source code where you
document the provenance of the file,  giving the facts you gave above:
that the file is from this URL, that the license is in this other
file, and the text of the license is as follows, etc.

-Rob


> Copyright (c) 1999-2000  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
> of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to
> deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the
> rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
> sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
> furnished to do so.
>
> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
> IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
> FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
> LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
> FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS
> IN THE SOFTWARE.
> 
>
> - replace the current ksc5601.h be the one created by the first step.
>
> - adjust dependencies of our source code on ksc5601.h accordingly, if
> needed.
>
> - add a corresponding statement in the NOTICE that parts of the source code
> are on the copyright from Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> Is this ok and conform to Apache regarding 3rd party licenses?
>
> Best regards, Oliver.
>
>
> [1]
> http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/ApacheMigration#A_header_from_GNU_c_library_.28solved.29
>
> [2] http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/lib/X11/lcUniConv/#dirlist
>
> [3]
> http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/*checkout*/xc/lib/X11/lcUniConv/ksc5601.h?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/plain
>
> [4]
> http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/*checkout*/xc/lib/X11/lcUniConv/COPYRIGHT?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/plain
>

Re: A systematic approach to IP review?

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
> Let me recall the bidding a little here.  What I said was
>
> " It is unlikely that machine-generated files of any kind are copyrightable 
> subject matter."
>
> You point out that computer-generated files might incorporate copyrightable 
> subject matter.  I hadn't considered a hybrid case where copyrightable 
> subject matter would subsist in such a work, and I have no idea how and to 
> what extend the output qualifies as a work of authorship, but it is certainly 
> a case to be reckoned with.
>
> Then there is the issue of macro expansion, template parameter substitution, 
> etc., and the cases becomes blurrier and blurrier.  For example, if I wrote a 
> program and then put it through the C Language pre-processor, in how much of 
> the expanded result does the copyright declared on the original subsist?  (I 
> am willing to concede, for purposes of argument, that the second is a 
> derivative work of the former, even though the derivation occurred 
> dynamically.)
>
> I fancy this example because it is commonplace that the pre-processor 
> incorporated files that have their own copyright and license notices too.  
> Also, the original might include macro calls, with
> parameters using macros defined in one or more of those incorporated files.
>

Under US law:  "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this
title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of
expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be
perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or
with the aid of a machine or device"

IANAL, but I believe Dennis is correct that a machine cannot be an
author, in terms of copyright.  But the author of that program might.
It comes down to who exactly put the work into a "fixed in any
tangible medium of expression".

When I used a n ordinary code editor, the machine acts as a tool that
I use to create an original work. It is a tool, like a paintbrush.  In
other cases, a tool can be used to transform a work.

If there is an original work in fixed form that I transform, then I
may have copyright interest in the transformed work. That is how
copyright law protects software binaries as well as source code.

As for the GNU Bison example, if I created the BNF, then I have
copyright interest in the generated code.  That does not mean that I
have exclusive ownership of all the generated code.  It might be a
mashup of original template code from the Bison authors, along with
code that is a transformation of my original grammar definition.  It
isn't an either/or situation.  A work can have mixed authorship.

-Rob


> I concede that copyrightable matter can survive into a machine-generated 
> file.  And I maintain that there can be other conditions on the use of such a 
> file other than by virtue of it containing portions in which copyright 
> subsists.  For example, I don't think the Copyright office is going to accept 
> registration of compiled binaries any time soon, even though there may be 
> conditions on the license of the source code that carries over onto those 
> binaries.
>
> And, yes, it is murky all the way down.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 22:32
> To: 'ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org'
> Subject: RE: A systematic approach to IP review?
>
> Not to put too fine a point on this, but it sounds like you are talking about 
> boilerplate (and authored) template code that Bison incorporates in its 
> output.  It is also tricky because the Bison output is computer source code.  
> That is an interesting case.
>
> In the US, original work of authorship is pretty specific in the case of 
> literary works, which is where software copyright falls the last time I 
> checked (too long ago, though).  I suspect that a license (in the contractual 
> sense) can deal with more than copyright.  And, if Bison spits out copyright 
> notices, they still only apply to that part of the output, if any, that 
> qualifies as copyrightable subject matter.
>
> Has the Bison claim ever been tested in court?  Has anyone been pursued or 
> challenged for infringement? I'm just curious.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Norbert Thiebaud [mailto:nthieb...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 22:11
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
> Subject: Re: A systematic approach to IP review?
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>  wrote:
>> I'll stand by my original statement.
>>
>> I'm not going to get into the Pixar case since it doesn't apply here.
>
> I did not say it applied to the Visual studio generated cruft... I
> merely commented on the blanket assertion that 'computer generated =>
> no copyright'
>>
>> The Bison manual may have license conditions on what can be done with the 
>> generated artifact, but I suggest that is no

Re: Iaccessible2 in OOo

2011-09-29 Thread Christophe Strobbe

Hi,

I would like to add something to what Jean-Philippe Mengual already wrote.
I am involved in the development of a few 
OpenOffice.org extensions that are related to 
accessibility: an extension that exports ODT to 
digital talking books in the DAISY format 
(odt2daisy on SourceForge), an extension that 
exports ODT to Braille (odt2braille, also on 
SourceForge) and a soon-to-be-released 
accessibility checker for ODT files. I have 
presented these extensions at various 
conferences, and the question I invariably get 
when there are people with disabilities in the 
audience (especially blind users) is: "When will 
OpenOffice.org become accessible on Windows?" I 
then explain that OpenOffice.org uses the Java 
Accessibility API on Windows and that this needs 
to be replaced with IAccessible2 code. Until then 
the extensions are not (or very poorly) 
accessible on Windows, the OS used by most people with disabilities.
At the next conference I will be able to say that 
we can expect this to happen after the release of 
A00o 3.4. (After the integration of IAccessible2, 
I will need to check how this impacts UI created 
by the extensions, but that is for later.)

Best regards,

Christophe

At 15:47 28-9-2011, you wrote:

Hi,

Very interesting answer, thanks:

>
> I say 'potentially' as the developers in the community will make it a
> priority if, and only if, it is clear there is a strong demand for IA2
> and someone leads the work and use of it. So I would encourage you to
> continue your work of letting us know of the need and also suggest you
> guide other users and developers who require IA2 support in AOO  to
> join in the discussion here. (...)

I will try doing that. But I'd like to mention 
one problem and several elements which make me 
think I represent an enormous part of users who 
want IA2 to be integrated. The problem is that I 
have feedbacks essentially from France or 
French-speaking people, and they decided me to 
be intermediate between English-speaking 
community and them. So, they have difficulties 
to write here directly. The language is a problem for the major part of them.

However, several things make me think there's a large demand:
- In the public administrations in France, where 
OOo is choosen, we have thousands of people who 
work and who are blind or sight-impaired;
- The workgroup "Accessibilité et logiciel 
libre" (A11y and Free software), from April (the 
main French organization which Promote the Free 
Software in France) asked for this evolution. It 
appeared in our "bug tracker" (used to enable 
not English-speaking users to report problems so 
that we forward, as I do now). 4 bugs appear about this issue.
- The LibreOffice project expressed the desire 
to wait for AOOo integration to integrate itself IA2 in their utility.
- The problems with OOo are very often denounced 
on French mailing list of blind people (for instance, ALLOS mailing list).
- The CFPSAA, an official enormous organization 
which defends the blind people rights, 
published, this June, a newsletter where they 
explained that migrating a desktop to OOo was a 
mistake as it's not accessible (it's a pitty! ). 
I tried answering and communicating about this, 
but of course if such official organization has 
this approach, it proves the need.
- I met 60 people in France IRL a few weeks ago, 
to show them what free software gives to 
accessibility. The cain problem where I had to fight was OOo.

(...)

--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
Twitter: @RabelaisA11y
---
Open source for accessibility: results from the 
AEGIS project www.aegis-project.eu

Re: svn commit: r796325 - in /websites/production/openofficeorg: ./ content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html


Dave, several small points:

* I have Bureaucrat and Administrator rights on the Mwiki copy. Email me 
(on ooo-dev or privately) to activate an existing account, or set up a 
new one. Anyone should be able to access the copy in read-only mode.

http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/

* "To establish a Roller account contact Infrastructure." Email 
link? JIRA link?


* How should people contact you, as blog administrator?

IMHO, all of this relatively new info shouldn't be on that web page at 
all: the page should link to a wiki page. The info is too volatile to 
maintain easily on a web page, and the wiki is where users will see it.

/tj/

On 9/28/2011 21:53, w...@apache.org wrote:

Author: wave
Date: Thu Sep 29 01:53:46 2011
New Revision: 796325

Log:
Corrected the spelling of my name. Expanded on the Blog and Wiki information.

Modified:
 websites/production/openofficeorg/   (props changed)
 websites/production/openofficeorg/content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html

Propchange: websites/production/openofficeorg/
--
--- svn:mergeinfo (original)
+++ svn:mergeinfo Thu Sep 29 01:53:46 2011
@@ -1 +1 @@
-/websites/staging/openofficeorg/trunk:791146-796312
+/websites/staging/openofficeorg/trunk:791146-796324

Modified: websites/production/openofficeorg/content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html
==
--- websites/production/openofficeorg/content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html 
(original)
+++ websites/production/openofficeorg/content/openofficeorg/ppmc-faqs.html Thu 
Sep 29 01:53:46 2011
@@ -98,15 +98,22 @@ Wolf Halton as members.  New members can
  request to Apache Infra.
  
  Blog
-Blog authors are Rob Weir and Dennis Hamilton
-The blog admin is Dave Fischer.  He can authorize new authors once they 
have first
-established a Roller account.
+Blog authors include Rob Weir and Dennis Hamilton.
+The blog admin is Dave Fisher.  He can authorize new authors once they have 
first
+established a Roller account. To establish a Roller account contact 
Infrastructure.
  Bugzilla
-?
+Raphael?
  SVN
  All committers have equal access.
  Wiki
-?
+
+OOOUSERS. This wiki is open to anyone with a CWiki account.
+OOODEV. This wiki may only be edited by project committers, PPMC, and iCLA 
signers.
+
+Dave Fisher has Confluence Admin rights and can authorize new editors in the 
OOODEV Wiki.
+
+MediaWiki. TJ?
+
  How to participate?
  First of all you have to think how you want to participate as we have 
different kind
  of roles like user, developer, committer. The easiest way is to use what we 
build as

hwpfilter/source/ksc5601.h - header from GNU c library

2011-09-29 Thread Oliver-Rainer Wittmann


Hi,

the low-hanging fruits are hanging quite high ;-)

Thus, as given at [1], we can get file ksc5601.h from [2] under a Apache 
permissive license.
Unfortunately, the provided file [3] does not contain a license or 
copyright header. But a copyright file [4] exists at the same location 
as ksc5601.h which contains the copyright and license not only for 
ksc5601.h, but for all files at [2]


My proposal to go ahead is:
- copy the following contents of the copyright file [4] into the 
downloaded ksc5601.h file


Copyright (c) 1999-2000  Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a 
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the 
"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including 
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, 
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to 
permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so.


THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS 
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF 
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. 
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, 
DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR 
OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR 
THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.



- replace the current ksc5601.h be the one created by the first step.

- adjust dependencies of our source code on ksc5601.h accordingly, if 
needed.


- add a corresponding statement in the NOTICE that parts of the source 
code are on the copyright from Free Software Foundation, Inc.


Is this ok and conform to Apache regarding 3rd party licenses?

Best regards, Oliver.


[1] 
http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/ApacheMigration#A_header_from_GNU_c_library_.28solved.29


[2] http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/lib/X11/lcUniConv/#dirlist

[3] 
http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/*checkout*/xc/lib/X11/lcUniConv/ksc5601.h?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/plain


[4] 
http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/*checkout*/xc/lib/X11/lcUniConv/COPYRIGHT?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/plain

Re: [DISCUSS] Is it worth looking at Confluence Wiki Again?


On 9/27/2011 20:37, TJ Frazier wrote:

On 9/27/2011 17:03, Rob Weir wrote:


I'm assuming this is the link:

http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/Wiki/statistics


That should be a good assumption, but no. It's busted. I'll fix it.
Meanwhile, you can see it on the main page of the live wiki:

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page

The problem is complex. Give me a day or so.



OK, try the "statistics" link. Now showing top 100. Page is still messy 
because of difficult working conditions (ATS problem).



Do we have any sense of what % of page visits are comprised by the top
pages? The above numbers look impressive, but I have no idea if the
top 10 pages account for 20% of the hits, or 1%.


AFAIK, the wiki is keeping a hit count per page. Someone with SQL karma 
and fu could total the field. It's a big number: the 100th page has 
10E5+ hits.




I can crunch the numbers if there is some way to derive them. I could
even crunch the http logs directly, if they are saved for a couple of
days.

In any case, the top pages you've reported are not typical "community"
pages.

True.

They would work well as markdown pages.

Only if we ignore the valuable feedback from user changes on the
manuals. I find this a significant quality enhancer.


Except maybe the
FAQ's we want to be more dynamic and wiki-enabled. Might even be
something the Forum volunteers would be interested in maintaining
directly, since they would have the best sense of what questions are
"frequent".


I suggest that a lot more info belongs on a wiki, rather than elsewhere. 
Please see my upcoming reply to a commit by Dave Fisher, on a web page.




I think this is encouraging.

-Rob

--
/tj/

odma.h [was: Re: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license]

2011-09-29 Thread Oliver-Rainer Wittmann


Hi,

thanks for details on ODMA and the made research on the current source code.

I have figured out that the complete ODMA stuff in our source code is 
not part of the build and thus, not part of an installation set - the 
source folder /ucb/source/ucp/odma is not built.
I did some research in OOo's hg repository to find out when the build of 
this folder has been removed. Surprisingly, it does not seem that it has 
been ever built, because I did not find a revision of /ucb/prj/build.lst 
which contains /ucb/source/ucp/odma - may be I overlooked something.


Thus, I will go ahead and create a patch which removes odma.h from the 
source code for now.
If we want to reactivate the ODMA stuff later, then I think Dennis can 
provide us with a odma.h file with a suitable license.


Best regards, Oliver.


On 28.09.2011 21:40, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

If you mean ODMA.h, I don't believe there is any dependency on it and you 
should just get rid of it.

If you need to deal with it as third-party code, I can get you a version with a 
BSD-variant license that applies, although the header itself has not been 
touched.  AIIM approved the license some time ago.

I think the simple solution is to remove the ODMA.h header and delete the dialog 
about offering ODMA selections on Open ... first or not (if that is even present 
in current OpenOffice.org builds).  Post the patch on removing ODMA.h and I'll be 
happy to commit it [;<).

  - Dennis

DETAILS

In fact, ODMA.h is not a file anyone would use to bind to the ODMA32.dll, 
because then ODMA32.dll is required to be on the system.  The whole idea is 
that ODMA32.dll and the present of a DMS that is registered to work with 
OpenOffice.org is done by discovery, and these are the wrong headers and the 
wrong protocol for that.

If someone wants to figure out a decent binding for ODMA32 (there is no ODMA64 at 
this time) in the future, I can help with that.  I even have better headers and 
sample code for going through the discovery process.  I can even Apache License 
those [;<).  (Duhh.  I just realized that.)

However, I suspect that any further efforts at DMS and Content Management 
systems would be by tightening the WebDAV integration and also looking into 
CMIS as the most promising low-hanging fruit for content-management integration.

-Original Message-
From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann [mailto:orwittm...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 06:05
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform 
to the Apache license

Hi,

I will now join the folks who are working on the clean up regarding
non-Apache license conform stuff.

Looking at the wiki - http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/ApacheMigration -
provides some low-hanging fruits for me for a start.
I will create patches for the following Apache license problems:
- UnixODBC
- dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx
- A header from GNU c library
- ODMA

Any objections to execute these already proposed and marked as solved
issues?


Best regards, Oliver.

Re: Forums not reachable

> +1.
> Add that the discussion could continue on
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project
> but it doesn't. Why? Is there something wrong with how I expressed myself
> there?

I had a bunch of stuff on my desk I needed to work on, so I had not
too much time (prime time open sourcer, thats what I am)

Anyway of course everybody can update that proposal - it is not
necessary to wait for me :-)

Cheers

>
>
>
>



-- 
http://www.grobmeier.de

Re: Forums not reachable

2011-09-29 Thread floris v


Op 29-9-2011 10:54, Rory O'Farrell schreef:

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:00:04 +0200
Christian Grobmeier  wrote:



It is is still a confusing situation, and we finally started a draft
of the necessary changes:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project
but as you can see, it is incomplete and not yet voteable. Some more
work is required. The offline time of the boards does not help, of
course :(

Hope I have expressed everything very well.

Very well (and fairly) expressed, Christian.

The comments by Peter Roelhofsen (floris_v on the forum) on the wiki page cited 
above in general express the overall view of forum volunteers, I think; we 
mostly feel that trying to impose the existing Apache structure on the forms is 
overkill and may stifle it.  I recommend that the comments on the wiki page be 
carefully read;  note that the forum is willing to modify its structures to fit 
in with Apache, but there does not seem to be a similar flexibility on the 
Apache side.

The forum downtime (which I hope is being worked upon) does not help us move 
towards a decision.

+1.
Add that the discussion could continue on

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project
 but it doesn't. Why? Is there something wrong with how I expressed myself 
there?

Re: Forums not reachable

2011-09-29 Thread Rory O'Farrell

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:00:04 +0200
Christian Grobmeier  wrote:

>
> It is is still a confusing situation, and we finally started a draft
> of the necessary changes:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project
> but as you can see, it is incomplete and not yet voteable. Some more
> work is required. The offline time of the boards does not help, of
> course :(
> 
> Hope I have expressed everything very well.

Very well (and fairly) expressed, Christian.  

The comments by Peter Roelhofsen (floris_v on the forum) on the wiki page cited 
above in general express the overall view of forum volunteers, I think; we 
mostly feel that trying to impose the existing Apache structure on the forms is 
overkill and may stifle it.  I recommend that the comments on the wiki page be 
carefully read;  note that the forum is willing to modify its structures to fit 
in with Apache, but there does not seem to be a similar flexibility on the 
Apache side.

The forum downtime (which I hope is being worked upon) does not help us move 
towards a decision.
-- 
Rory O'Farrell

Re: Forums not reachable