Re: [LINUX-BUILD] Details of Fedora 14 and 15 x68_64 build

[Carl Marcum]

On 09/30/2011 03:23 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:

On 29.09.2011 01:40, Carl Marcum wrote:


On 09/28/2011 04:41 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:

On 27.09.2011 04:36, Carl Marcum wrote:

As of Repo version 1175305 I can Build on Fedora 14 and 15 x86_64.

Thank you Ariel for helping me get the first one completed.

I found that there is a problem trying to to build hsqldb using java 1.7
due to the build.xml only having targets for java up to 1.6 so I
switched back to 1.6 for the complete build.

Starting with a Fedora "basic desktop" install.

I used yum to install the packages listed on the Fedora build
instructions [1].

I needed to add librsvg2-devel and junit4.


The first problem is a bug, libsvg shouldn't be needed in a non-copyleft
build (as it's LGPL licensed). junit4 indeed is needed, but can be made
obsolete by using --without-junit in configure.


I didn't specify any configure options other than --enable-verbose.

I had configure list them for me but I have to admit I didn't research
them all for what they did.

I was trying to build without skipping anything not knowing yet what's
necessary or not. I can understand non-GPL one.

Are there a recommended combination of configure options we should be
using when testing builds for AOOo?


IMHO the goal should be that a "vanilla" build doesn't require as few
switches as possible (at best none at least on Linux and Mac). This
would set the target for the build prerequisites. So junit4 definitely
is a prerequisite, but librsvg can't be one. AFAIR remember the only
switch that you currently need on Linux is disabling librsvg, but - as I
wrote - I consider this to be a bug.

On Mac I don't know about the switches, but rumors are that it is
possible to build without any switches. Windows builds always require
options, at least those that specify the different paths for the build
tools. oowintool is not able to discover them all under all circumstances.

Regards,
Mathias



Thanks for clearing that up.

Best regards,
Carl

time to stop that and look forward, not backwards (was Re: Not new but under a new hat)

[Ross Gardler]

Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Sep 30, 2011 8:24 PM, "Mathias Bauer"  wrote:

...

> Looking for parts in each others posts that could be *interpreted*
> negatively got more interest than praising the positive statements in
> them. I have a very philantropic attitude, so I still believe that this
> was caused by negative emotions of the past, not by malevolence. But
> IMHO it's time to stop that and look forward, not backwards.
>
> Nobody is perfect - so people make mistakes. Sometimes also people have
> to do things for reasons that are not their own (I know this well
> enough!). If you want cooperation, you have to remember this and focus
> on the positive sides that can help to establish or foster cooperation,
> but not enhance the negative sides and blame people for them.

Well said.

Ross

Re: Not new but under a new hat

[Alexandro Colorado]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:

> Am 30.09.2011 21:36, schrieb Alexandro Colorado:
>
> > I dunno why this is such an issue really, we are both open source
> projects.
> > Cooperating and working together doesnt really needs much, just commit to
> > both projects and move on. I mean, what are we looking for here, do you
> want
> > an explicit thank you note from both projects? Or you only wanting to get
> > commits and contribute to both.
>
> I think that I have clearly stated what I would like to see. Or better,
> what I don't like to see. Sorry, but I don't understand how your comment
> is related to that.
>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>

My comment relates that there are many people expressing opinions, while we
should be focusing more on contributions. If a large population focus on
contributions, then the working together part will just happen.

i.e. If the localization on LibO and OOo is handled by the same group of
people, then, the working together part, wouldn't be that hard to achieve.

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

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

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Rob and I put our heads together and have started announcing the addition of 
new committers to the list of those authorized for the Apache OOo Podling, 
.  That list has the 
benefit of being automatically-created.

The announcement is being tweaked as opportunities arise [;<).

I am not sure where there is a handy roster of the current PPMC.  I'll look 
around.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:14
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: 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: handling of ext_sources - Juergen's suggestion [was: Re: A systematic approach to IP review?]

[Pedro Giffuni]

--- On Fri, 9/30/11, Mathias Bauer  wrote:

> 
> I'm not against unpacking the tarballs and applying the
> patches, but we should keep the patches somewhere so that
> updates could be done with the same effort as today.
> 
This could fly.

I like having the patches around. I would only request
that GNU patch is not a requirement to build the OO.

Just for reference, FreeBSD's base has contrib area
(part of the release)
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/contrib/
and a vendor area which is an intermediate step:
(not part of the release)
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/vendor/


> Another advantage of unpacking the tarballs: the patches
> will become *real* patches that just contain changes of
> the original source code.

I definitely like that, yes.

Another thing is: we have to teach GNU configure to skip
building stuff when an installed binary package of the
same thing is available.

Pedro.

Re: handling of ext_sources - Juergen's suggestion [was: Re: A systematic approach to IP review?]

[Michael Stahl]

On 30.09.2011 21:24, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> On 28.09.2011 17:32, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:

> Another advantage of unpacking the tarballs: the patches will become
> *real* patches that just contain changes of the original source code.
> Often the patches nowadays contain additional files that we just need to
> build the stuff in OOo (e.g. dmake makefiles) - they could be checked in
> as regular files.
> 
> Currently keeping them as regular files is awkward because then they
> need to be copied to the place the tarballs are unpacked to.

but this is just because dmake can only build source files in the same
directory; imagine a more flexible gbuild external build target where the
makefiles are in the source tree while the tarball gets unpacked in the
workdir...

> Regards,
> Mathias
> 

Re: Not new but under a new hat

[Mathias Bauer]

Am 30.09.2011 21:36, schrieb Alexandro Colorado:

> I dunno why this is such an issue really, we are both open source projects.
> Cooperating and working together doesnt really needs much, just commit to
> both projects and move on. I mean, what are we looking for here, do you want
> an explicit thank you note from both projects? Or you only wanting to get
> commits and contribute to both.

I think that I have clearly stated what I would like to see. Or better,
what I don't like to see. Sorry, but I don't understand how your comment
is related to that.

Regards,
Mathias

new committer: Hongyun An

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

The Apache OOo PPMC announces the addition of initial committer 
AN Hongyun: hyan @ apache.org.


The list of all current podling committers is at:
.

Committers have a defined rôle in the workings of the Apache 
Software Foundation: 
.



- the AOOo PPMC

new committer: Pedro Giffuni

[Rob Weir]

The Apache OOo PPMC announces the addition of committer Pedro Giffuni:
pfg @ apache.org.

The list of all current podling committers is at:
http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#ooo

Being a committer enables easier contribution to the project since
there is no need to go via the patch submission process. This should
enable better productivity.

Being a PPMC member enables assistance with the management and to
guide the direction of the project.

- the AOOo PPMC

Re: Not new but under a new hat

[Alexandro Colorado]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:

> On 29.09.2011 09:56, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> > On 28 September 2011 16:51, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >
> >> If everyone agreed that having a single project was best today, then
> >> we would have a single project tomorrow.
> >
> > Point is we have made little real effort to achieve any consensus on
> this.
> > We have done a lot of bitching on both sides and posted stuff like this
> that
> > almost guarantees it will never happen. >
> >>   The question should be what
> >> can you, or I, or anyone else who wants that outcome, do today, to
> >> make it more likely to move closer to that outcome.
> >>
> >
> > I'd say stop posting reactionary and emotive stuff when someone makes a
> > positive suggestion to get people working together.
>
> You've hit the nail on the head!
>
> Since the split of the OOo community we had the strange situation that
> many people on both sides declared an interest to get together (even if
> it is unclear today how that will look like), but when we had
> discussions about that matter, most participants acted like they wanted
> the opposite.
>
> Looking for parts in each others posts that could be *interpreted*
> negatively got more interest than praising the positive statements in
> them. I have a very philantropic attitude, so I still believe that this
> was caused by negative emotions of the past, not by malevolence. But
> IMHO it's time to stop that and look forward, not backwards.
>
> Nobody is perfect - so people make mistakes. Sometimes also people have
> to do things for reasons that are not their own (I know this well
> enough!). If you want cooperation, you have to remember this and focus
> on the positive sides that can help to establish or foster cooperation,
> but not enhance the negative sides and blame people for them.
>
> And nobody should expect that anybody will come up with a plan and -
> whoosh! - both projects will work together. That won't happen. Future
> cooperation will require small steps and the admittance to overcome the
> mostly psychological barriers.
>


I dunno why this is such an issue really, we are both open source projects.
Cooperating and working together doesnt really needs much, just commit to
both projects and move on. I mean, what are we looking for here, do you want
an explicit thank you note from both projects? Or you only wanting to get
commits and contribute to both.

I see many people commenting but also commiting to both projects and working
fine between both. I just wonder why not more people do the same. Bugzilla,
Wiki and others wont bann you from sending your commits and if you are
afraid of a user deleting your contributions, news are they probably got
bigger things to do than police from preventing OOo people to contribute to
LibO wiki pootle git and svn etc and vise-versa.


>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>

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

Re: a question for #i117804# differentiate between ENABLE_CAIRO and ENABLE_CAIRO_CANVA

[Mathias Bauer]

Am 22.09.2011 10:35, schrieb Shao Zhi Zhao:

> hi,
> 
> In the change of vcl340fixes: #i117804# differentiate between ENABLE_CAIRO
> and ENABLE_CAIRO_CANVA…
> in file of set_soenv.in
> 
> there are 4 new lines added
> +ToFile( "DISABLE_SAXON",  "@DISABLE_SAXON@", "e" );
> +ToFile( "DISABLE_HUNSPELL",   "@DISABLE_HUNSPELL@", "e" );
> +ToFile( "DISABLE_HYPHEN", "@DISABLE_HYPHEN@", "e" );
> +ToFile( "DISABLE_LIBWPD", "@DISABLE_LIBWPD@", "e" );
> +
> 
> This changed is aimed to disable these three 3rd party modules?
> And what is the reserve unit for these 3rd party modules or they will be
> removed in AOOo?

We don't have replacements for them yet; we will need replacements for
hunspell and hyphen for sure and that will be one of the hardest part of
the "copyleft replacements". We won't get a replacement for libwpd and
we should look for a replacement for saxon, that shouldn't be so hard.

Regards,
Mathias

Re: handling of ext_sources - Juergen's suggestion [was: Re: A systematic approach to IP review?]

[Mathias Bauer]

On 28.09.2011 17:32, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
> FWIW;
>
> I don't like the patches because I can't really examine well
> the code, besides this is something the VCS handles acceptably:
> commit the original sourcecode and then apply the patches in a
> different commit. If we start with up to date versions there
> would not be much trouble.

I'm not against unpacking the tarballs and applying the patches, but we
should keep the patches somewhere so that updates could be done with the
same effort as today.

Another advantage of unpacking the tarballs: the patches will become
*real* patches that just contain changes of the original source code.
Often the patches nowadays contain additional files that we just need to
build the stuff in OOo (e.g. dmake makefiles) - they could be checked in
as regular files.

Currently keeping them as regular files is awkward because then they
need to be copied to the place the tarballs are unpacked to.

Regards,
Mathias

Re: Not new but under a new hat

[Mathias Bauer]

On 29.09.2011 09:56, Ian Lynch wrote:

> On 28 September 2011 16:51, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
>> If everyone agreed that having a single project was best today, then
>> we would have a single project tomorrow.
>
> Point is we have made little real effort to achieve any consensus on this.
> We have done a lot of bitching on both sides and posted stuff like this that
> almost guarantees it will never happen. >
>>   The question should be what
>> can you, or I, or anyone else who wants that outcome, do today, to
>> make it more likely to move closer to that outcome.
>>
>
> I'd say stop posting reactionary and emotive stuff when someone makes a
> positive suggestion to get people working together.

You've hit the nail on the head!

Since the split of the OOo community we had the strange situation that
many people on both sides declared an interest to get together (even if
it is unclear today how that will look like), but when we had
discussions about that matter, most participants acted like they wanted
the opposite.

Looking for parts in each others posts that could be *interpreted*
negatively got more interest than praising the positive statements in
them. I have a very philantropic attitude, so I still believe that this
was caused by negative emotions of the past, not by malevolence. But
IMHO it's time to stop that and look forward, not backwards.

Nobody is perfect - so people make mistakes. Sometimes also people have
to do things for reasons that are not their own (I know this well
enough!). If you want cooperation, you have to remember this and focus
on the positive sides that can help to establish or foster cooperation,
but not enhance the negative sides and blame people for them.

And nobody should expect that anybody will come up with a plan and -
whoosh! - both projects will work together. That won't happen. Future
cooperation will require small steps and the admittance to overcome the
mostly psychological barriers.

Regards,
Mathias

Re: [LINUX-BUILD] Details of Fedora 14 and 15 x68_64 build

[Mathias Bauer]

On 29.09.2011 01:40, Carl Marcum wrote:
>
> On 09/28/2011 04:41 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>> On 27.09.2011 04:36, Carl Marcum wrote:
>>> As of Repo version 1175305 I can Build on Fedora 14 and 15 x86_64.
>>>
>>> Thank you Ariel for helping me get the first one completed.
>>>
>>> I found that there is a problem trying to to build hsqldb using java 1.7
>>> due to the build.xml only having targets for java up to 1.6 so I
>>> switched back to 1.6 for the complete build.
>>>
>>> Starting with a Fedora "basic desktop" install.
>>>
>>> I used yum to install the packages listed on the Fedora build
>>> instructions [1].
>>>
>>> I needed to add librsvg2-devel and junit4.
>>
>> The first problem is a bug, libsvg shouldn't be needed in a non-copyleft
>> build (as it's LGPL licensed). junit4 indeed is needed, but can be made
>> obsolete by using --without-junit in configure.
>
> I didn't specify any configure options other than --enable-verbose.
>
> I had configure list them for me but I have to admit I didn't research
> them all for what they did.
>
> I was trying to build without skipping anything not knowing yet what's
> necessary or not. I can understand non-GPL one.
>
> Are there a recommended combination of configure options we should be
> using when testing builds for AOOo?

IMHO the goal should be that a "vanilla" build doesn't require as few
switches as possible (at best none at least on Linux and Mac). This
would set the target for the build prerequisites. So junit4 definitely
is a prerequisite, but librsvg can't be one. AFAIR remember the only
switch that you currently need on Linux is disabling librsvg, but - as I
wrote - I consider this to be a bug.

On Mac I don't know about the switches, but rumors are that it is
possible to build without any switches. Windows builds always require
options, at least those that specify the different paths for the build
tools. oowintool is not able to discover them all under all circumstances.

Regards,
Mathias

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Ross Gardler]

Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Sep 30, 2011 7:15 PM, "Rob Weir"  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
> >
> > On 30 Sep 2011, at 18:47, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> I agree let's not make it adversarial.  But I would be interested to
> >> know why Simon speaks up in favor of us have a congress-sized PMC,
> >
> > I said nothing of the kind, please stop putting words in my mouth. I
simply asked why you felt the need for change. You have so far not answered
my questions and each time I have repeated them have evaded them by raising
orthogonal issues.
> >
>
> We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
> committer and PPMC member.  So if we did not change anything, we would
> still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the status quo
> of not having such a policy.
>
> Ross is arguing for adopting such a policy.

That is not an accurate representation of my words. I am arguing for
nothing, I am a mentor only. I am merely providing my point of view so that
the community can evaluate based on experience in the ASF as represented by
myself. I have recommended that the community evaluate further and will
continue to provide my input where I feel it is appropriate.

This is a very important part of building the community. If you want company
X to invest significantly alongside existing committers then that company
needs to believe they will get a hand in project management.

As you say that does not mean there has to be a policy saying always make
people PMC members, but perception is everything. Being clear about
expectations and how decisions are made make the PMC publicly accountable
which can reassure potential contributors.

One extra piece of information is that at least one project had a policy of
voted in as a committer first. Then if they are still active in three months
invite them to the PMC. I've always felt this was a nice solution. It allows
for very low committer and PMC  barriers, but provides a filler for hit and
ruin contributors.

Of course it is hard to define active in this context.

Ross

> I disagree with that
> change.  I think we should continue to take it case-by-case, at the
> PPMC's discretion, assigning roles as we see appropriate. It may
> continue to be the case that it is usually appropriate to have people
> assigned both roles at once.  But I see no reason to introduce a new
> rule to force that decision, when we've never had such a rule before.
>
> -Rob
>
>
> > Given you agree there is no current harm, and given that the problem you
appear to be addressing is arguably not one Apache expects to arise given
The Apache Way, is there really a problem with waiting until graduation (at
the earliest) to adjust this project's governance?
> >
> > S.
> >
> >
> >
 On Sep 30, 2011 7:15 PM, "Rob Weir"  wrote:

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>>
>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
>>> committer and PPMC member.  So if we did not change anything, we would
>>> still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the status quo
>>> of not having such a policy.
>>
>> You appear to be arguing against the status quo of all new committers 
>> joining the PPMC though. So my question remains, is there really a problem 
>> with waiting until graduation to adjust this project's PMC?
>>
>
> That is a counter-factual question. That is not the status quo.  We
> have no such rule.  For example, we already have one committer who is
> not on the PPMC.  I expect we'll have more unless a restrictive rule
> is imposed that requires that both roles be simultaneously assigned.
>
> The status quo is for a PPMC member to nominate a person and to
> specify what they are nominating the for.  There is no further
> restriction.  I'm not in favor of restricting this further.  Are you?
>

Maybe this analogy will help.  Suppose you go to work every day with
an umbrella, but for 40 straight days it doesn't rain.  You never use
your umbrella in that period of time.

If a law was passed that said you could not carry an umbrella, would
that be a change?  Or would you argue that the status quo had not
changed?

I'm not arguing in favor of rain.  I'm just arguing that umbrellas are
sometimes useful, even if it has not rained in a while.

> -Rob
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
>> committer and PPMC member.  So if we did not change anything, we would
>> still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the status quo
>> of not having such a policy.
>
> You appear to be arguing against the status quo of all new committers joining 
> the PPMC though. So my question remains, is there really a problem with 
> waiting until graduation to adjust this project's PMC?
>

That is a counter-factual question. That is not the status quo.  We
have no such rule.  For example, we already have one committer who is
not on the PPMC.  I expect we'll have more unless a restrictive rule
is imposed that requires that both roles be simultaneously assigned.

The status quo is for a PPMC member to nominate a person and to
specify what they are nominating the for.  There is no further
restriction.  I'm not in favor of restricting this further.  Are you?

-Rob

RE: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I'm quite satisfied with myself that I said my piece and stood by to see what 
discussion would unfold.  I should have known it wouldn't have been so easy. 
Still, I promise not to post more than once per day on this thread, with the 
exception of responses to questions I have been asked directly.

One small addition to this diversion from the basic question:

The TDF has Members.  I don't know how many it has, but there are Members.  
They will elect the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors will be 
chosen from them.

Back on topic:

I would like to hear something from others about their sense of what they want 
to see and why.  I want to know what the concerns of others are without them 
being immediately challenged over their wrong-headedness.  

 - Dennis

SOME STATISTICS

There are currently 75 committers on the Apache OOo Podling project.  Two of 
those are also mentors; 55 of the others are on the PPMC.  In the last ballot 
of the PPMC, 24 PPMC members voted.  in the ballot before that, 30 PPMC members 
voted.

The remaining 18 committers are each automatically eligible to be on the PPMC, 
though a few have declined.

There are also 13 initial committers who have not completed their establishment 
as committers for unknown reasons.  These are also eligible to be on the PPMC 
if they show up before the door is closed.

Of the current committers, 7 were invited as the result of ballots on the PPMC 
(i.e., they were not initial committers).  

There is one committer whose establishment is underway.  That is the 8th 
committer invited as the result of PPMC ballot.  That committer is invited to 
be on the PPMC also.

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 10:48
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Ross Gardler
 wrote:
> May I observe that this thread should be about what is right for AOOo. What
> others do and whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant here unless we
> are using it to inform our decision. Lets not have yet another "us" and
> "them" argument.
>

We've talked about other Apache projects, and what they do.  It is a
fair point to talk about what other open source projects do as well.
Finding out what "is right for AOOo" is not something best done with
our eyes shut.

I agree let's not make it adversarial.  But I would be interested to
know why Simon speaks up in favor of us have a congress-sized PMC, but
has not made a similar recommendation for TDF/LO.  If there is a good
answer, I'm sure it would be relevant to our discussions, since the
projects are otherwise very similar.  In other words, is TDF/LO
governance a different solution to the same problem?  Or a different
problem altogether?  If the former, then what went wrong there that
leads Simon to make a different recommendation for AOOo?

-Rob

[ ... ]

Re: i18nregexp replaced with ICU regexp => heads up

[Pedro Giffuni]

--- On Fri, 9/30/11, Herbert Duerr  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> for removing "category X excluded licenses" from Apache
> OpenOffice I replaced the formerly used LGPL licensed module
> i18nregexp with the regular expression engine of module ICU
> which is already widely use in OpenOffice.
> 
> The replacement fixes a lot of problems: e.g. in a text
> "abcabc" trying to "find all backwards" for "b" resulted in
> it only finding the last "b", now it actually finds all of
> them. It also introduces some changes, e.g. i18nregexp had
> two modes "classic" and "extended" regexp whereas the ICU
> based engine treats all patterns as extended-regexp.
>

Well done Herbert!! This is one of those changes where
I can see the IP cleanup also contributes towards making
AOOo a much better product!

Pedro.

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Simon Phipps]

On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote:

> We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
> committer and PPMC member.  So if we did not change anything, we would
> still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the status quo
> of not having such a policy.

You appear to be arguing against the status quo of all new committers joining 
the PPMC though. So my question remains, is there really a problem with waiting 
until graduation to adjust this project's PMC? 

My sense is that the project is still in a formative stage and will need 
significant changes to the PMC before graduation - it has a number of PMC 
members who in a normal Apache project would not even be committers, for 
example. Once the dynamics of a fully functional project are evident I would 
expect to see a more complete rethink. The partial move of restricting 
admission to the PPMC now is counterintuitive if there is no current harm being 
done.

S.

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 18:47, Rob Weir wrote:
>> I agree let's not make it adversarial.  But I would be interested to
>> know why Simon speaks up in favor of us have a congress-sized PMC,
>
> I said nothing of the kind, please stop putting words in my mouth. I simply 
> asked why you felt the need for change. You have so far not answered my 
> questions and each time I have repeated them have evaded them by raising 
> orthogonal issues.
>

We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
committer and PPMC member.  So if we did not change anything, we would
still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the status quo
of not having such a policy.

Ross is arguing for adopting such a policy.  I disagree with that
change.  I think we should continue to take it case-by-case, at the
PPMC's discretion, assigning roles as we see appropriate. It may
continue to be the case that it is usually appropriate to have people
assigned both roles at once.  But I see no reason to introduce a new
rule to force that decision, when we've never had such a rule before.

-Rob


> Given you agree there is no current harm, and given that the problem you 
> appear to be addressing is arguably not one Apache expects to arise given The 
> Apache Way, is there really a problem with waiting until graduation (at the 
> earliest) to adjust this project's governance?
>
> S.
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> I agree let's not make it adversarial.  But I would be interested to
> know why Simon speaks up in favor of us have a congress-sized PMC, but
> has not made a similar recommendation for TDF/LO.

Because there is no such thing as a PCM. The Engineering Steering
Committee has an advisory role.
And most of the time a good half of the dev/qa that join the weekly
call are not 'officially' member of the ESC.
There is no 'binding' vote... in fact there is no vote at all.
Decision are made by those who do, and
so far the role of ESC has more been one of coordination, in the sens
of sharing and communicating
what is happening rather than 'deciding'.
So really, who got what 'title' or what 'distinction' is very far from
the daily concern.
Note that there is not  even the requirement to be a TFD member to be
on the ESC... not for that matter to have commit access.

And you asked: who approve 'release': well roughly the calendar
modulated by Bugzilla and QA volunteers.

Norbert

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Simon Phipps]

On 30 Sep 2011, at 18:47, Rob Weir wrote:
> I agree let's not make it adversarial.  But I would be interested to
> know why Simon speaks up in favor of us have a congress-sized PMC, 

I said nothing of the kind, please stop putting words in my mouth. I simply 
asked why you felt the need for change. You have so far not answered my 
questions and each time I have repeated them have evaded them by raising 
orthogonal issues. 

Given you agree there is no current harm, and given that the problem you appear 
to be addressing is arguably not one Apache expects to arise given The Apache 
Way, is there really a problem with waiting until graduation (at the earliest) 
to adjust this project's governance?

S.

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Ross Gardler
 wrote:
> May I observe that this thread should be about what is right for AOOo. What
> others do and whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant here unless we
> are using it to inform our decision. Lets not have yet another "us" and
> "them" argument.
>

We've talked about other Apache projects, and what they do.  It is a
fair point to talk about what other open source projects do as well.
Finding out what "is right for AOOo" is not something best done with
our eyes shut.

I agree let's not make it adversarial.  But I would be interested to
know why Simon speaks up in favor of us have a congress-sized PMC, but
has not made a similar recommendation for TDF/LO.  If there is a good
answer, I'm sure it would be relevant to our discussions, since the
projects are otherwise very similar.  In other words, is TDF/LO
governance a different solution to the same problem?  Or a different
problem altogether?  If the former, then what went wrong there that
leads Simon to make a different recommendation for AOOo?

-Rob

> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Sep 30, 2011 6:28 PM, "Rob Weir"  wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Norbert Thiebaud 
> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:

 BTW, LO/TDF has a steering committee of what?  13 people total?  Have
 you recommending to them that they put their entire elected membership
 into a "flat" leadership structure?  Or is that wisdom, by your grace,
 reserved for us alone?
>>>
>>> Rob, you are comparing Apple and Oranges. The Steering Committee, soon
>>> to be BoD, is not similar to a  PMC. It is similar, in function, to
>>> the Apache Board.
>>>
>>
>> OK. I'll give you an apple then. Who approves your releases? The
>> Engineering Steering Committee? How many members are there? Who
>> approves Engineering Steering Committee members? Add those two
>> committees together and what do you get? Anything close to 72
>> members?
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Norbert
>>>
>

Re: Top posting is bad

[Donald Whytock]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 17:27, Ian Lynch wrote:
>> It's amazing how such small things can cause such controversy and angst.
>
> It's a sign of culture clash, in my view, rather than an issue in itself. 
> There's probably a Godwin's-Law-type aphorism about it.

Could also be sheer boredom. "Hey, there's something I can be actively
upset about!  I'm in!"

Don

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Ross Gardler]

May I observe that this thread should be about what is right for AOOo. What
others do and whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant here unless we
are using it to inform our decision. Lets not have yet another "us" and
"them" argument.

Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Sep 30, 2011 6:28 PM, "Rob Weir"  wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Norbert Thiebaud 
wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>>
>>> BTW, LO/TDF has a steering committee of what?  13 people total?  Have
>>> you recommending to them that they put their entire elected membership
>>> into a "flat" leadership structure?  Or is that wisdom, by your grace,
>>> reserved for us alone?
>>
>> Rob, you are comparing Apple and Oranges. The Steering Committee, soon
>> to be BoD, is not similar to a  PMC. It is similar, in function, to
>> the Apache Board.
>>
>
> OK. I'll give you an apple then. Who approves your releases? The
> Engineering Steering Committee? How many members are there? Who
> approves Engineering Steering Committee members? Add those two
> committees together and what do you get? Anything close to 72
> members?
>
> -Rob
>
>> Norbert
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Simon Phipps]

On 30 Sep 2011, at 18:28, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Norbert Thiebaud  wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> 
>>> BTW, LO/TDF has a steering committee of what?  13 people total?  Have
>>> you recommending to them that they put their entire elected membership
>>> into a "flat" leadership structure?  Or is that wisdom, by your grace,
>>> reserved for us alone?
>> 
>> Rob, you are comparing Apple and Oranges. The Steering Committee, soon
>> to be BoD, is not similar to a  PMC. It is similar, in function, to
>> the Apache Board.
>> 
> 
> OK.  I'll give you an apple then.  Who approves your releases?  The
> Engineering Steering Committee?  How many members are there?  Who
> approves Engineering Steering Committee members?  Add those two
> committees together and what do you get?  Anything close to 72
> members?

Why is this relevant, Rob?

S.

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Norbert Thiebaud  wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>
>> BTW, LO/TDF has a steering committee of what?  13 people total?  Have
>> you recommending to them that they put their entire elected membership
>> into a "flat" leadership structure?  Or is that wisdom, by your grace,
>> reserved for us alone?
>
> Rob, you are comparing Apple and Oranges. The Steering Committee, soon
> to be BoD, is not similar to a  PMC. It is similar, in function, to
> the Apache Board.
>

OK.  I'll give you an apple then.  Who approves your releases?  The
Engineering Steering Committee?  How many members are there?  Who
approves Engineering Steering Committee members?  Add those two
committees together and what do you get?  Anything close to 72
members?

-Rob

> Norbert
>

Re: Top posting is bad

[Simon Phipps]

On 30 Sep 2011, at 17:27, Ian Lynch wrote:

> It's amazing how such small things can cause such controversy and angst.

It's a sign of culture clash, in my view, rather than an issue in itself. 
There's probably a Godwin's-Law-type aphorism about it. 


S.

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
> BTW, LO/TDF has a steering committee of what?  13 people total?  Have
> you recommending to them that they put their entire elected membership
> into a "flat" leadership structure?  Or is that wisdom, by your grace,
> reserved for us alone?

Rob, you are comparing Apple and Oranges. The Steering Committee, soon
to be BoD, is not similar to a  PMC. It is similar, in function, to
the Apache Board.

Norbert

Re: Top posting is bad

[Ian Lynch]

On 30 September 2011 17:04, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:

--- On Fri, 9/30/11, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
> > Norbert Thiebaud  wrote:
> > > Choosing to use inadequate tools is no excuse to be
> > bad mannered.
> > >
> >
> > The interesting thing is that there may be people who don't
> > know they are using the wrong tools. If someone has not
> > participated in a list like this before, then they the mail
> > client on their desktop may not be configured suitably for
> > participating in this list.  They may need to change the
> > configuration, or even change their application.
> >
>
> Unfortunately you can't always choose: I've been using my
> Yahoo! account practically since I use the Internet: on the latest
> update you can't break the incoming message so you have to top post
> and on an iPad you can't even include the previous message.
>
> Pedro.
>
>
> > Does anyone know a list of what mail apps are known to work
> > well and
> > which ones poorly, and which ones require config changes?
> >
> > For example, Lotus Notes (which I have by default on my
> > desktop) does
> > not collapse quoted sections, so using it for following the
> > list was a
> > nightmare.  Gmail is much better in that regard and is
> > what I use now.
> >
> > Any recommendations (ideally for each platform) for what
> > works well?
> > And what should be avoided?
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >> "bad" may be "unpleasant for you"
> > >
> > > Not just merely 'unpleasant'
> > >
> > >A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to
> > right.
> > >Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted
> > text?
> > >
> > >A: Because it messes up the order in which people
> > normally read text.
> > >Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> > >
> > >A: The lost context.
> > >Q: What makes top-posted replies harder to read
> > than bottom-posted?
> > >
> > >A: Yes.
> > >Q: Should I trim down the quoted part of an email
> > to which I'm replying?
> > >
> > > Norbert
> > >
> >
>

It's amazing how such small things can cause such controversy and angst. I
don't personally care too much. For me I'd just change e-mail client if it
makes it easier to join in. I switched from Evolution to Gmail about a year
ago and I wish I had done it ages ago. Ok, a little pain as my attempt to
copy over my 2 gig of archived mail failed but it really hasn't been that
inconvenient. Far better to just be able to get my mail on my 'phone
whenever I need it. Whatever is decided I'll go along with it, but it seems
to me trying to have some convention at least gives some degree of
operational consistency. I thought Ross was very polite so I don't really
see why anyone would take it as insulting.

-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.

RE: Top posting is bad

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Who says there are "wrong" tools?  Turning this into right and wrong is just 
crazy.

There are different tools.  There are some protocols involved that are mainly 
invisible to us.  The wonder that e-mail works at all is that it works well 
enough despite the fact that no sender can know what the expectations of all of 
the recipients can be, but there are apparently some recipients who insist on 
having it delivered their way (or are puzzled when it isn't and often can't 
explain it to the sender, who has no idea what the problem is).  

If I were using my phone for e-mail, something that some folks think is 
inevitable, it would be impossible to satisfy these receiver-imposed 
requirements.  There are many clients that don't quote at all and it is hard to 
make them do it.

There are also difficulties because the implementers of intermediaries (such as 
list servers and their archives and digest composers and NNTP synthesizers ...) 
have their own ideas about what is "right" and don't always deal with the 
abstractions at the best places.  That makes the folks at the end points even 
more mystified.  

The complexity and the different seams in this situation is worth having a 
powerful understanding of.  I am disappointed that in two settings, now, I am 
running into this yet in 30 years on e-mail, lists, and NNTP I have never 
encountered it before.  That amazes me.  It has never come up on the OASIS 
Technical Committee lists, even though the list-archive presentation of web 
posts is terrible.  (I want to inflict incredible pain on the clown who thinks 
plaintext e-mail should be rendered in  and not  elements, even when it 
is obvious that hard line breaks are not being used.  I guess I could start 
sending my mail in HTML format.  I wonder what that would do to this 
conversation.)

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 08:52
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Top posting is bad

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Norbert Thiebaud  wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>  wrote:
>> The assumption behind this recommendation seems to be that all
>> mail clients are the same and the list is read the same by
>> everyone.
>
> Choosing to use inadequate tools is no excuse to be bad mannered.
>

The interesting thing is that there may be people who don't know they
are using the wrong tools. If someone has not participated in a list
like this before, then they the mail client on their desktop may not
be configured suitably for participating in this list.  They may need
to change the configuration, or even change their application.  I

Does anyone know a list of what mail apps are known to work well and
which ones poorly, and which ones require config changes?

For example, Lotus Notes (which I have by default on my desktop) does
not collapse quoted sections, so using it for following the list was a
nightmare.  Gmail is much better in that regard and is what I use now.

Any recommendations (ideally for each platform) for what works well?
And what should be avoided?

-Rob

[ ... ]

Re: Top posting is bad

[Rory O'Farrell]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 17:17:05 +0100
Ross Gardler  wrote:
> I have no more to say on the matter. People will continue to post in
> the way that they prefer (or must as a result of their chosen
> clients). Those who are undecided and unrestricted will hopefully make
> a more informed decision now (for clarity I say "more informed" which
> does not mean they will necessarily choose what I say is the right
> way).

In general I quote selectively, as my emailing experience dates from the old 
300 baud connection days, where every word cost money; I started with Eudora 
(of glorious memory).  Currently I use Sylpheed on my Ubuntu machines and 
Eudora on my Windows machines.

-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

Re: Top posting is bad

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> For example, Lotus Notes (which I have by default on my desktop) does
> not collapse quoted sections, so using it for following the list was a
> nightmare.  Gmail is much better in that regard and is what I use now.
>

Actually auto-folding is actually a bit evil too... it help hide the
cruft when you read... which is great, but it also make people
'forget' to scrub the unnecessary pieces when they post... because
they don't see/otice them.

Point in case are the 20 lines after your signature in your previous post

Norbert

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Ross Gardler]

On 30 September 2011 16:48, Ross Gardler  wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Sep 30, 2011 4:35 PM, "Dave Fisher"  wrote:
>>
>
> ...
>
>>
>> I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status. If
>> the person chooses not to be on the PPMC that is fine.
>>
>> It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a more
>> important discussion is what parts of the project might require direct PPMC
>> member involvement as opposed to merely questioning and having appropriate
>> transparency into all parts to provide oversight. Do we need a PPMC member
>> directly administrating forums and wikis? Do we need the PPMC to provide a
>> generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of committers and other contributors
>> filling roles within the Forum or Wiki administration? Should the PPMC
>> require certain parts of the community to report status periodically?
>>
>
> From a purely ASF point of view there are very few things that require PMC
> oversight. the following are the only ones that jump to mind:
>
> - release votes (which equates to IP  due diligence)
> - new committers/PMC members

One more:

- board reports

Ross

Re: Top posting is bad

[Ross Gardler]

On 30 September 2011 16:48, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> Who says what the average size is?  Who has measured it.  Where are the 
> numbers?

Common practice is what I refer to. I don;t have numbers but take a
random dip into as many lists as you like on markmail which (at the
time of writing) has 8,393 lists and 60,045,432 messages for you to
sample. Just click http://markmail.org/search/?q=RE and you will get
the most recent mails that are replies on all of those lists. A quick
sampling of the first ten will answer the first of your two questions
above. If you have the time you could also answer the third (but I
doubt any of us have the time for that).

I just did this and got 7 inline response style, two top post and one
combination post (top and inline) - your results will be for a
separate random sample of course.

I realise that my subject line is unnecessarily confrontational, sorry
for that. I could certainly have chosen a different one. Maybe you
would not have felt this was some kind of personal attack on you. It
is not.

I have no more to say on the matter. People will continue to post in
the way that they prefer (or must as a result of their chosen
clients). Those who are undecided and unrestricted will hopefully make
a more informed decision now (for clarity I say "more informed" which
does not mean they will necessarily choose what I say is the right
way).

Ross

>
> I'm really tired of this and I am sorely disappointed that it arose here.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@opendirective.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 05:40
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
> Subject: Re: Top posting is bad
>
> On 30 September 2011 13:18, Dennis E. Hamilton  
> wrote:
>> "bad" may be "unpleasant for you" but how about looking at the
>> interoperability challenges and not encouraging belief that there
>> is a silver-bullet, one-size fits all fiat when the only thing
>> that works is civility.
>
> There is no one-size fits all, this is true. But there is an "average
> size which suits more" (I have no idea why you bring civility into
> this, this was a perfectly reasonable request to improve the quality
> of our online communications based on a great deal of personal and
> collective experience of what works for ASF projects - and non-ASF
> projects alike).
>
> For open source projects the generally accepted "average size" is to
> use inline posting, e.g.
>
> "When quoting someone else's mail, insert your responses where they're
> most appropriate, at several different places if necessary, and trim
> off the parts of their mail you didn't use." from the "bible of open
> source project management" (my opinion) Producing Open Source [1]
>
> or if you want a wider discussion then
>
> "This style makes it easier for readers to identify the points of the
> original message that are being replied to; in particular, whether the
> reply misunderstood or ignored some point of the original text."
> (wikipedia [2])
>
> or perhaps something a little more "official"
>
> "If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
>  summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
>  enough text of the original to give a context.  This will make
>  sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
>  Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
>  postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
>  response to a message before seeing the original.  Giving context
>  helps everyone.  But do not include the entire original!" from
> Netiquette Guidelines (RFC 1855) [3]
>
> and back to an observation in Wikipedia:
>
> "Interleaved reply combined with top-posting combines the advantages
> of both styles. " [2]
>
> Ross
>
> [1] http://producingoss.com/
> [2] 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Choosing_the_proper_posting_style
> [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
>
>



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

Re: Top posting is bad

[Pedro Giffuni]

--- On Fri, 9/30/11, Rob Weir  wrote:

> Norbert Thiebaud  wrote:
> > Choosing to use inadequate tools is no excuse to be
> bad mannered.
> >
> 
> The interesting thing is that there may be people who don't
> know they are using the wrong tools. If someone has not
> participated in a list like this before, then they the mail
> client on their desktop may not be configured suitably for
> participating in this list.  They may need to change the
> configuration, or even change their application.
> 

Unfortunately you can't always choose: I've been using my
Yahoo! account practically since I use the Internet: on the latest
update you can't break the incoming message so you have to top post
and on an iPad you can't even include the previous message.

Pedro.


> Does anyone know a list of what mail apps are known to work
> well and
> which ones poorly, and which ones require config changes?
> 
> For example, Lotus Notes (which I have by default on my
> desktop) does
> not collapse quoted sections, so using it for following the
> list was a
> nightmare.  Gmail is much better in that regard and is
> what I use now.
> 
> Any recommendations (ideally for each platform) for what
> works well?
> And what should be avoided?
> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >> "bad" may be "unpleasant for you"
> >
> > Not just merely 'unpleasant'
> >
> >    A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to
> right.
> >    Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted
> text?
> >
> >    A: Because it messes up the order in which people
> normally read text.
> >    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> >
> >    A: The lost context.
> >    Q: What makes top-posted replies harder to read
> than bottom-posted?
> >
> >    A: Yes.
> >    Q: Should I trim down the quoted part of an email
> to which I'm replying?
> >
> > Norbert
> >
>

Re: Top posting is bad

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> When the questions and answers are deep in the bottom
> and get deeper and deeper then I tend to tune out and move on.

That is because 'bottom post' is not just adding stuff at the end...
it is adding stuff 'after'
the relevant 'quote', eliminating as much of the original message that
is not necessary
to understand the context.
Done properly that lead to short message, to the point.

The poster child example (no pun intended) of the efficiency of this
technique is patch review/comment.

Norbert

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Dave Fisher]

On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:

> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Sep 30, 2011 4:35 PM, "Dave Fisher"  wrote:
>> 
> 
> ...
> 
>> 
>> I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status. If
> the person chooses not to be on the PPMC that is fine.
>> 
>> It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a more
> important discussion is what parts of the project might require direct PPMC
> member involvement as opposed to merely questioning and having appropriate
> transparency into all parts to provide oversight. Do we need a PPMC member
> directly administrating forums and wikis? Do we need the PPMC to provide a
> generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of committers and other contributors
> filling roles within the Forum or Wiki administration? Should the PPMC
> require certain parts of the community to report status periodically?
>> 
> 
> From a purely ASF point of view there are very few things that require PMC
> oversight. the following are the only ones that jump to mind:
> 
> - release votes (which equates to IP  due diligence)

Here is my concern with limiting the PPMC too soon. Having been through a 
release vote it is important to know that the (P)PMC members who vote are 
affirming that they have actually performed the appropriate tests - which means 
checking license headers and packaging. Fortunately RAT is available to help, 
but this is a big lift and I expect that for OOo it will take each PPMC voter 
at least a day to do this properly. Even on PPMCs with 7 or 8 active members 
getting the 3 +1s in a week is difficult.

I see no point limiting PPMC membership until we experience a release vote and 
cycle as a podling.


> - new committers/PMC members
> 
> The project may define a few other areas, but that's up to the project.

Important for us all to keep in mind. Thanks!

Regards,
Dave


> 
> Ross

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Ross Gardler]

Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Sep 30, 2011 4:40 PM, "Rob Weir"  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Dave Fisher 
wrote:
> >

...

> > I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status.
If the person chooses not to be on the PPMC that is fine.
> >
>
> The result of that will be that some PPMC members, like myself, will
> not vote to approve someone unless we believe they fulfill the
> criteria of both Committer and PMC member.  The result will be some
> who might otherwise would have been elected as Committers, based on
> their narrow interest in a specific function, say admin, but who have
> no broader interest, will not be elected at all.

This is only true if consensus is that someone does not full both criteria.
If the consensus is that they do then the vote would pass. That is as it
should be.

Ross

Re: Top posting is bad

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Norbert Thiebaud  wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>  wrote:
>> The assumption behind this recommendation seems to be that all
>> mail clients are the same and the list is read the same by
>> everyone.
>
> Choosing to use inadequate tools is no excuse to be bad mannered.
>

The interesting thing is that there may be people who don't know they
are using the wrong tools. If someone has not participated in a list
like this before, then they the mail client on their desktop may not
be configured suitably for participating in this list.  They may need
to change the configuration, or even change their application.  I

Does anyone know a list of what mail apps are known to work well and
which ones poorly, and which ones require config changes?

For example, Lotus Notes (which I have by default on my desktop) does
not collapse quoted sections, so using it for following the list was a
nightmare.  Gmail is much better in that regard and is what I use now.

Any recommendations (ideally for each platform) for what works well?
And what should be avoided?

-Rob



>>
>> "bad" may be "unpleasant for you"
>
> Not just merely 'unpleasant'
>
>    A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
>    Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text?
>
>    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>
>    A: The lost context.
>    Q: What makes top-posted replies harder to read than bottom-posted?
>
>    A: Yes.
>    Q: Should I trim down the quoted part of an email to which I'm replying?
>
> Norbert
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Simon Phipps]

On 30 Sep 2011, at 16:35, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had 
>> assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the 
>> incubator once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
>> 
> 
> I'd recommend rereading my response to Ross.  Rory seems to get it.
> But I'm not really obligated to argue a point that I am not making,
> namely "actual current harm".  I'm willing to concede that fact, as
> well as the fact that I have fire insurance even though my house is
> not currently on fire, or that I pack a lunch even though I'm not
> currently hungry, or that I try to steer the Podling toward
> reasonable, sustainable long term decision making processes, even
> though we have not graduated.

Given you agree there is no current harm, and given that the problem you appear 
to be addressing is arguably not one Apache expects to arise given The Apache 
Way, is there really a problem with waiting until graduation (at the earliest) 
to adjust the project's governance?


S.

RE: Top posting is bad

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Everyone replies with what works naturally for them and assumes that my world 
is the same.

So, is the idea that all of should live in the one true silo, so long as it is 
not Microsoft.  

I have tools I am happy and effective with, and then I'm insulted for it.

Why would I want to continue keeping such company and suffering the opportunity 
cost of these raggings?  Are there not more important shared interests than 
this?

Is this what mentoring amounts to?

 - Dennis

Tick, tick, tick ...

-Original Message-
From: Ian Lynch [mailto:ianrly...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 05:39
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
Subject: Re: Top posting is bad


From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@opendirective.com]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 01:47
To:�ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Top posting is bad

At the risk of starting a flame-war I am going to state that
top-posting is bad on publicly archived mailing lists. Can we please
stop doing it?


�




�

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




On 30 September 2011 13:18, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:


The assumption behind this recommendation seems to be that all
mail clients are the same and the list is read the same by
everyone. �I already *manually* truncate lines to match the
line-width of the sender.


Hi Dennis, I'm on Gmail and it is quite easy to top post accidentally :-). 
Gmail hides a lot of the quoted text anyway unless you want to see it.�

On the other hand I think having a convention we all try to stick to is a good 
idea simply because it provides consistency and predictability. I'd hate to 
think that this was something that would get to such a point you would leave 
given the amount of hard graft you put in. It's not that important. �Surely it 
isn't too difficult, though, to post sequentially. Took me all of 5 seconds to 
rearrange the order of your post in reply to Ross in this mail and chop out 
most of the text :-). Really this whole issue gets blown out of proportion, but 
I'd say if it's not a big imposition let's just go with the flow.�
-- 
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
www.theINGOTs.org�+44 (0)1827 305940
The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, 
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

RE: Top posting is bad

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Who says what the average size is?  Who has measured it.  Where are the numbers?

I'm really tired of this and I am sorely disappointed that it arose here.

-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@opendirective.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 05:40
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
Subject: Re: Top posting is bad

On 30 September 2011 13:18, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> "bad" may be "unpleasant for you" but how about looking at the
> interoperability challenges and not encouraging belief that there
> is a silver-bullet, one-size fits all fiat when the only thing
> that works is civility.

There is no one-size fits all, this is true. But there is an "average
size which suits more" (I have no idea why you bring civility into
this, this was a perfectly reasonable request to improve the quality
of our online communications based on a great deal of personal and
collective experience of what works for ASF projects - and non-ASF
projects alike).

For open source projects the generally accepted "average size" is to
use inline posting, e.g.

"When quoting someone else's mail, insert your responses where they're
most appropriate, at several different places if necessary, and trim
off the parts of their mail you didn't use." from the "bible of open
source project management" (my opinion) Producing Open Source [1]

or if you want a wider discussion then

"This style makes it easier for readers to identify the points of the
original message that are being replied to; in particular, whether the
reply misunderstood or ignored some point of the original text."
(wikipedia [2])

or perhaps something a little more "official"

"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
 summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
 enough text of the original to give a context.  This will make
 sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
 Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
 postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
 response to a message before seeing the original.  Giving context
 helps everyone.  But do not include the entire original!" from
Netiquette Guidelines (RFC 1855) [3]

and back to an observation in Wikipedia:

"Interleaved reply combined with top-posting combines the advantages
of both styles. " [2]

Ross

[1] http://producingoss.com/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Choosing_the_proper_posting_style
[3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Ross Gardler]

Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Sep 30, 2011 4:35 PM, "Dave Fisher"  wrote:
>

...

>
> I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status. If
the person chooses not to be on the PPMC that is fine.
>
> It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a more
important discussion is what parts of the project might require direct PPMC
member involvement as opposed to merely questioning and having appropriate
transparency into all parts to provide oversight. Do we need a PPMC member
directly administrating forums and wikis? Do we need the PPMC to provide a
generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of committers and other contributors
filling roles within the Forum or Wiki administration? Should the PPMC
require certain parts of the community to report status periodically?
>

>From a purely ASF point of view there are very few things that require PMC
oversight. the following are the only ones that jump to mind:

- release votes (which equates to IP  due diligence)
- new committers/PMC members

The project may define a few other areas, but that's up to the project.

Ross

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

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hi;

--- On Fri, 9/30/11, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:

> 
> Ok, I will reference the original URL [1] in the header
> file.
> 
> Best regards, Oliver.
> 
> [1] http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/lib/X11/lcUniConv/#dirlist
>

I don't like adding URLs to the headers as those can change
or disappear. Just keeping the CVS string is enough: people
can google "XFree86 ksc5601.h" and find it. It can also be
mentioned in the commit.

In general when I do header IP clean up (yes, I've done
it before in FreeBSD audio drivers) I first copy the clean
header untouched, then get the code to build cleanly and
*then* I make local changes which are good to keep in VCS.
It's actually easy to do in SVN.. but I have some problems
in my setup and I can't build/test it yet.

Pedro.

Re: Top posting is bad

[Dave Fisher]

On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:

> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 9/30/11, Ross Gardler  wrote:
> ...
>> At the risk of starting a flame-war I
>> am going to state that
>> top-posting is bad on publicly archived mailing lists. Can
>> we please
>> stop doing it?
>> 
> 
> This was discussed on the early postings in this list
> and a mentor said it was OK to top-post.
> 
> I don't like to top post but some mailers don't leave
> other options :(.

I actually prefer to top post. I've got everything organized by threads and I 
read them. I can generally sort it out. When the questions and answers are deep 
in the bottom and get deeper and deeper then I tend to tune out and move on. 
This tends to happen when some individuals feel that they need to answer 
questions from 5 places in the thread in 5 separate emails. This makes for a 
dense forest of email threads that only a lawyer or scholastic appreciates.

Also, consider that many are not native English language writers and lots of 
words may be discouraging.

I do appreciate the comparison of top posting answers before questions from 
Norbert.

A counter example -

A = B + C

The answer is first or on top. :-)

Regards,
Dave

> 
> Pedro. 

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Ross Gardler]

On 30 September 2011 15:15, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Ross Gardler
>  wrote:
>> On 30 September 2011 03:04, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> 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."
>>
>> This is an area where ASF projects differ from one another. Some
>> projects prefer to have a separation, others prefer not to.
>>
>> In my experience a flatter organisational structure is generally
>> better. However, on a project as large and diverse as OOo this may not
>> be the case.
>>
>
> Do you know offhand what the largest Apache project is that uses such
> a "flat" approach?

I'm afraid I do not. And I confess that whilst typing the original reply I
thought this would be a useful data point. I'll see what I can find out.

I will say, however, that size is not really the issue. THe larger the
community the more effective the Apache Way is - that's the beauty of it.

> By my count we have 72 committers right now, almost all of them also
> PPMC members.  With the new IBMers coming on board, as well as
> possibly forum admins/moderators/volunteers (at least according to one
> draft proposal), we could shortly have 120+ committers/ppmc members.

They are just numbers. Activity is what matters. Now, if you said there were
120 active PMC members then you might have a point. But the vast majority of
those people will not be active in the vast majority of decisions.

However, that is not necessarily a disagreement with your following
paragraph. If we found those 120 people were active then your next paragraph
is very relevant.

> This is not just quantitatively different.  This is qualitatively
> different.  It is no longer a committee.   It doesn't work like a
> committee.  It doesn't think like a committee.  It is not necessarily
> a bad thing, but it is qualitatively a different thing.  It is more
> like a congress, where factions form and individual voices are less
> heard.  The voice of reason is less often heard in a "committee" of
> 120 people.  It doesn't cut through the noise.
>
> Honestly, any sane organization that had a leadership committee of 120
> people would quickly form a system of subcommittees to discuss and
> make proposals, reach initial consensus among those most interested in
> that issue, and then bring the consensus resolution back in plenary
> for ratification.  Is that what we're headed for?

I agree that would be the likely outcome and in this instance the ASF Board
would be saying "OOo is becoming and umbrella project, we need to fix that"
and the OOo PMC would be requested to consider spinning out sub-projects as
defined by the various sub-committees (the ASF has done that on a number of
occasions, most recently with Hadoop and friends, which itself span out of
Lucene).

However, the flip side is that we have a centralised control influence (the
PMC) which is a closed self-selecting group. If this were the case then the
board would be saying "OOo is not a meritocracy we need to fix that". This
has also happened a few times (I won't name names in this case as the issues
are resolved now).

One of the tasks the PPMC needs to tackle is how does OOo find the right
balance to prevent either of these situations occuring. Which is why I
recommend a full and open discussion involving as much of the community as
possible. It would make sense for us all to step back for a while and let
the community explore this.

>> The reason for "flatter is better" is that people tend to be more
>> engaged when they feel more empowered. Once OOo graduates PMC members
>> will have binding votes on everything committers may not have binding
>> votes on everything (this is something that the PPMC needs to resolve
>> nearer the time). By creating the separation of roles you are creating
>> the potential for a hierarchy to emerge.
>>
>
> Who is more empowered, an active participant in a PMC of 25, or a
> pass

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had 
> assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the 
> incubator once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
>

 Simon, I'm a PPMC member.  I try to avoid future harm, not just deal
 with "actual current harm".  It is called oversight.
>>>
>>> My concern was that creating of closed rule-sets before actual problems 
>>> present themselves can also lead to inefficiency. The principle is 
>>> sometimes called "YAGNI". I believe my question was reasonable and polite 
>>> and I would welcome a reply in the same tone.
>>>
>>
>> I am not suggesting a "closed rule set".   I'm suggesting that we take
>> each decision on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the candidate
>> according to the possible roles that they might fit, and vote for the
>> role(s) that are most appropriate.  In some cases someone might become
>> a committer, but not (initially) a PPMC member.  In other cases they
>> might become both at once.  The decision should be made the PPMC, and
>> they should have the discretion to do this.
>>
>> I think anyone who suggests removing this discretion from the PPMC and
>> forcing a stance of "one size fits all" is the one who is arguing for
>> a "closed rule set".
>
> I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status. If 
> the person chooses not to be on the PPMC that is fine.
>

The result of that will be that some PPMC members, like myself, will
not vote to approve someone unless we believe they fulfill the
criteria of both Committer and PMC member.  The result will be some
who might otherwise would have been elected as Committers, based on
their narrow interest in a specific function, say admin, but who have
no broader interest, will not be elected at all.  By requiring that
everyone be elected to both roles, you raise the bar on what is
required for anyone to become a committer.

> It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a more 
> important discussion is what parts of the project might require direct PPMC 
> member involvement as opposed to merely questioning and having appropriate 
> transparency into all parts to provide oversight. Do we need a PPMC member 
> directly administrating forums and wikis? Do we need the PPMC to provide a 
> generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of committers and other contributors 
> filling roles within the Forum or Wiki administration? Should the PPMC 
> require certain parts of the community to report status periodically?
>
> Depending on how these questions are answered may give examples of special 
> cases where Committer status only is appropriate. For example and assuming 
> that the User Forums choose to join this project, should we require that all 
> Admins be made into Committers and PPMC members, or that we only need 3? Or 
> something in between? (Leave aside the iCLA question which could be handled 
> of Terms of Use.)
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> S.
>>>
>>>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Dave Fisher]

On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>> 
>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
 What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had 
 assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the 
 incubator once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
 
>>> 
>>> Simon, I'm a PPMC member.  I try to avoid future harm, not just deal
>>> with "actual current harm".  It is called oversight.
>> 
>> My concern was that creating of closed rule-sets before actual problems 
>> present themselves can also lead to inefficiency. The principle is sometimes 
>> called "YAGNI". I believe my question was reasonable and polite and I would 
>> welcome a reply in the same tone.
>> 
> 
> I am not suggesting a "closed rule set".   I'm suggesting that we take
> each decision on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the candidate
> according to the possible roles that they might fit, and vote for the
> role(s) that are most appropriate.  In some cases someone might become
> a committer, but not (initially) a PPMC member.  In other cases they
> might become both at once.  The decision should be made the PPMC, and
> they should have the discretion to do this.
> 
> I think anyone who suggests removing this discretion from the PPMC and
> forcing a stance of "one size fits all" is the one who is arguing for
> a "closed rule set".

I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status. If the 
person chooses not to be on the PPMC that is fine.

It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a more 
important discussion is what parts of the project might require direct PPMC 
member involvement as opposed to merely questioning and having appropriate 
transparency into all parts to provide oversight. Do we need a PPMC member 
directly administrating forums and wikis? Do we need the PPMC to provide a 
generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of committers and other contributors 
filling roles within the Forum or Wiki administration? Should the PPMC require 
certain parts of the community to report status periodically?

Depending on how these questions are answered may give examples of special 
cases where Committer status only is appropriate. For example and assuming that 
the User Forums choose to join this project, should we require that all Admins 
be made into Committers and PPMC members, or that we only need 3? Or something 
in between? (Leave aside the iCLA question which could be handled of Terms of 
Use.)

Regards,
Dave


> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> S.
>> 
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 16:06, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had 
> assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the 
> incubator once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
>

 Simon, I'm a PPMC member.  I try to avoid future harm, not just deal
 with "actual current harm".  It is called oversight.
>>>
>>> My concern was that creating of closed rule-sets before actual problems 
>>> present themselves can also lead to inefficiency. The principle is 
>>> sometimes called "YAGNI". I believe my question was reasonable and polite 
>>> and I would welcome a reply in the same tone.
>>>
>>
>> I am not suggesting a "closed rule set".   I'm suggesting that we take
>> each decision on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the candidate
>> according to the possible roles that they might fit, and vote for the
>> role(s) that are most appropriate.  In some cases someone might become
>> a committer, but not (initially) a PPMC member.  In other cases they
>> might become both at once.  The decision should be made the PPMC, and
>> they should have the discretion to do this.
>>
>> I think anyone who suggests removing this discretion from the PPMC and
>> forcing a stance of "one size fits all" is the one who is arguing for
>> a "closed rule set".
>
> I was attempting to describe the YAGNI principle for you; that was not the 
> subject of my question, which remains unanswered. I would welcome an answer 
> to my question please.
>

I'd recommend rereading my response to Ross.  Rory seems to get it.
But I'm not really obligated to argue a point that I am not making,
namely "actual current harm".  I'm willing to concede that fact, as
well as the fact that I have fire insurance even though my house is
not currently on fire, or that I pack a lunch even though I'm not
currently hungry, or that I try to steer the Podling toward
reasonable, sustainable long term decision making processes, even
though we have not graduated.

BTW, LO/TDF has a steering committee of what?  13 people total?  Have
you recommending to them that they put their entire elected membership
into a "flat" leadership structure?  Or is that wisdom, by your grace,
reserved for us alone?

-Rob


> Thanks,
>
> S.
>
>

Re: Top posting is bad

[Pedro Giffuni]

--- On Fri, 9/30/11, Ross Gardler  wrote:
...
> At the risk of starting a flame-war I
> am going to state that
> top-posting is bad on publicly archived mailing lists. Can
> we please
> stop doing it?
> 

This was discussed on the early postings in this list
and a mentor said it was OK to top-post.

I don't like to top post but some mailers don't leave
other options :(.

Pedro. 

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Simon Phipps]

On 30 Sep 2011, at 16:06, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>> 
>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
 What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had 
 assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the 
 incubator once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
 
>>> 
>>> Simon, I'm a PPMC member.  I try to avoid future harm, not just deal
>>> with "actual current harm".  It is called oversight.
>> 
>> My concern was that creating of closed rule-sets before actual problems 
>> present themselves can also lead to inefficiency. The principle is sometimes 
>> called "YAGNI". I believe my question was reasonable and polite and I would 
>> welcome a reply in the same tone.
>> 
> 
> I am not suggesting a "closed rule set".   I'm suggesting that we take
> each decision on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the candidate
> according to the possible roles that they might fit, and vote for the
> role(s) that are most appropriate.  In some cases someone might become
> a committer, but not (initially) a PPMC member.  In other cases they
> might become both at once.  The decision should be made the PPMC, and
> they should have the discretion to do this.
> 
> I think anyone who suggests removing this discretion from the PPMC and
> forcing a stance of "one size fits all" is the one who is arguing for
> a "closed rule set".

I was attempting to describe the YAGNI principle for you; that was not the 
subject of my question, which remains unanswered. I would welcome an answer to 
my question please.

Thanks,

S.

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>>> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had 
>>> assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the 
>>> incubator once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
>>>
>>
>> Simon, I'm a PPMC member.  I try to avoid future harm, not just deal
>> with "actual current harm".  It is called oversight.
>
> My concern was that creating of closed rule-sets before actual problems 
> present themselves can also lead to inefficiency. The principle is sometimes 
> called "YAGNI". I believe my question was reasonable and polite and I would 
> welcome a reply in the same tone.
>

I am not suggesting a "closed rule set".   I'm suggesting that we take
each decision on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the candidate
according to the possible roles that they might fit, and vote for the
role(s) that are most appropriate.  In some cases someone might become
a committer, but not (initially) a PPMC member.  In other cases they
might become both at once.  The decision should be made the PPMC, and
they should have the discretion to do this.

I think anyone who suggests removing this discretion from the PPMC and
forcing a stance of "one size fits all" is the one who is arguing for
a "closed rule set".

> Thanks
>
> S.
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Simon Phipps]

On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had 
>> assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the 
>> incubator once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
>> 
> 
> Simon, I'm a PPMC member.  I try to avoid future harm, not just deal
> with "actual current harm".  It is called oversight.

My concern was that creating of closed rule-sets before actual problems present 
themselves can also lead to inefficiency. The principle is sometimes called 
"YAGNI". I believe my question was reasonable and polite and I would welcome a 
reply in the same tone.

Thanks

S.

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had 
> assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the incubator 
> once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
>

Simon, I'm a PPMC member.  I try to avoid future harm, not just deal
with "actual current harm".  It is called oversight.

-Rob

> S.

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Simon Phipps]

What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had assumed 
this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the incubator once it 
was clear what worked and what didn't.

S.

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Rory O'Farrell  wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:15:52 -0400
> Rob Weir  wrote:
>
>>
>
>> By my count we have 72 committers right now, almost all of them also
>> PPMC members.  With the new IBMers coming on board, as well as
>> possibly forum admins/moderators/volunteers (at least according to one
>> draft proposal), we could shortly have 120+ committers/ppmc members.
>>
>> This is not just quantitatively different.  This is qualitatively
>> different.  It is no longer a committee.   It doesn't work like a
>> committee.  It doesn't think like a committee.  It is not necessarily
>> a bad thing, but it is qualitatively a different thing.  It is more
>> like a congress, where factions form and individual voices are less
>> heard.  The voice of reason is less often heard in a "committee" of
>> 120 people.  It doesn't cut through the noise.
>>
>
> Without wishing to engage in this discussion in any depth, I point out that 
> the accepted wisdom is that the optimum size of a decision making body is 
> between 6 and 12; our ancestors felt twelve to be optimum (hence the 
> traditional jury size).  My own experience is that about seven to nine is 
> good, if one accepts a majority vote rather than unanimity.
>

I think the potential problem that Ross points out is that Apache PMCs
select their own members.  They are not representatives in a formal
sense, they are not selected by the broader membership.  So that could
hypothetically encourage stagnation of ideas, etc.  There is a reason
why close inbreeding is discouraged in most cultures.  One way to
avoid that is to increase the gene pool by having everyone be in the
PMC.  But that has the potential to degrade the effectiveness of the
PMC's decision making progress.

The ideal, IMHO, is to have a PMC that is right-sized, and whose
members have the confidence of the overall project.  A size large
enough to fulfill its responsibilities, but small enough so that every
member of the PMC can be fully informed on the issues it is deciding
on.

Gaining the the confidence of the overall project is the tricky part.
One way is to have the PMC be elected by the general project members.
But that isn't how Apache works.  The PMC elects its own members, and
debates these votes in private.  In theory, this is because we're a
meritocracy, not a democracy.  Maybe one way to remedy this is to have
PMC votes and discussions take place on the public list, with prior
permission of the candidate?  You could argue that since it is a
community-wide role, the input of the entire community would be valued
in making that decision.

-Rob

> --
> Rory O'Farrell 
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Rory O'Farrell]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:15:52 -0400
Rob Weir  wrote:

>

> By my count we have 72 committers right now, almost all of them also
> PPMC members.  With the new IBMers coming on board, as well as
> possibly forum admins/moderators/volunteers (at least according to one
> draft proposal), we could shortly have 120+ committers/ppmc members.
> 
> This is not just quantitatively different.  This is qualitatively
> different.  It is no longer a committee.   It doesn't work like a
> committee.  It doesn't think like a committee.  It is not necessarily
> a bad thing, but it is qualitatively a different thing.  It is more
> like a congress, where factions form and individual voices are less
> heard.  The voice of reason is less often heard in a "committee" of
> 120 people.  It doesn't cut through the noise.
>

Without wishing to engage in this discussion in any depth, I point out that the 
accepted wisdom is that the optimum size of a decision making body is between 6 
and 12; our ancestors felt twelve to be optimum (hence the traditional jury 
size).  My own experience is that about seven to nine is good, if one accepts a 
majority vote rather than unanimity.

-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

Re: i18nregexp replaced with ICU regexp => heads up

[tora - Takamichi Akiyama]

Hi Herbert,

Thank you for your efforts.

On 2011/09/30 22:08, Herbert Duerr wrote:

Please make sure to have the "More Options -> Regular Expressions" checkbox 
activated for testing.

I'm afraid the regexp replacement resulted in changes mostly for Japanese users, because there a lot of non-trivial transliterations are active. For reference 
I'm enumerating the active rules: "ProlongedSoundMark", "IterationMark", "Ignore-Width", "BaFa", "SeZe", 
"HyuByu", "IandEfollowedByYa" and "KiKuFollowedBySa".


That sounds an area of mine...

Tora

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Ross Gardler
 wrote:
> On 30 September 2011 03:04, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> 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.
>
> ...
>
>> 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."
>
> This is an area where ASF projects differ from one another. Some
> projects prefer to have a separation, others prefer not to.
>
> In my experience a flatter organisational structure is generally
> better. However, on a project as large and diverse as OOo this may not
> be the case.
>

Do you know offhand what the largest Apache project is that uses such
a "flat" approach?

By my count we have 72 committers right now, almost all of them also
PPMC members.  With the new IBMers coming on board, as well as
possibly forum admins/moderators/volunteers (at least according to one
draft proposal), we could shortly have 120+ committers/ppmc members.

This is not just quantitatively different.  This is qualitatively
different.  It is no longer a committee.   It doesn't work like a
committee.  It doesn't think like a committee.  It is not necessarily
a bad thing, but it is qualitatively a different thing.  It is more
like a congress, where factions form and individual voices are less
heard.  The voice of reason is less often heard in a "committee" of
120 people.  It doesn't cut through the noise.

Honestly, any sane organization that had a leadership committee of 120
people would quickly form a system of subcommittees to discuss and
make proposals, reach initial consensus among those most interested in
that issue, and then bring the consensus resolution back in plenary
for ratification.  Is that what we're headed for?  The PPMC Website
subcommittee, the PPMC release subcommittee, the PPMC community
subcommittee?  I don't see how you avoid this if you try to scale this
up beyond anything that has ever been attempted at Apache.

Note also that Apache does the same thing with its Members.  You
create legal, branding, communications, events, etc., essentially
subcommittees to deal with the impossibility of having day to day
oversight of a larger membership.  And then you also have a Board of
Directors to oversee the overseers.


> The reason for "flatter is better" is that people tend to be more
> engaged when they feel more empowered. Once OOo graduates PMC members
> will have binding votes on everything committers may not have binding
> votes on everything (this is something that the PPMC needs to resolve
> nearer the time). By creating the separation of roles you are creating
> the potential for a hierarchy to emerge.
>

Who is more empowered, an active participant in a PMC of 25, or a
passive observer on a PMC of 150?   If anything, a PMC filled with
passive bystanders, uninvolved in the oversight of the project, but
ready to bike-shed at a moment's notice on a dull day, reduces the
empowerment of those who are interested in community-wide oversight.

If someone has the inclination and interest in community-wide
concerns, then that is great, and we should be inviting them to become
a PMC member.  I'm not saying we should never invite someone to be a
committer and PMC member at the same time.  I'm just saying we
evaluate them for each role, and offer them the most appropriate
role(s) based on the contributions they've made and the interests they
may have had in community-wide concerns.

> Generally we find that people will not meddle with areas of the
> project they are not qualified to meddle in. It's kind of hard to do
> so anyway since a veto requires an alternative course of action that
> the community supports. If one isn't qualified to meddle how can one
> come up with a proposal that will be supported?
>

I don't buy that.  It certainly has not matched what we've seen in
this podling.  We wouldn't now be familiar with the term
"bike-shedding" if that were true.

>>> My preference is to continue the current practice of inviting contributors 
>>> to be both committers

Re: Build AOOo on Mac OS X 10.7

[Tor Lillqvist]

Building against the 10.7 SDK will not succeed, as the MacOSX code at
least in vcl uses some APIs that have been removed completely in the
10.7 SDK. (They were deprecated already in 10.4... which shows the
state the Mac code is in.)

So either some Mac expert need to really do some hard work on the Mac
code (presumably duplicating much of the NeoOffice work...), or the
10.6 SDK is the most current one you can use. I know because I have
just been trying.

(Well, trying to build LO against it, but the Mac-specific code
shouldn't be different in LO and AOOo as far as I know.)

(There will be minor glitches here and there when building against the
10.6 SDK; they should be relatively easy to fix.)

--tml

Re: Build AOOo on Mac OS X 10.7

[Raphael Bircher]

Am 30.09.11 12:49, schrieb Rolf Eder:

Am 28.09.2011 um 01:00 schrieb Raphael Bircher:


Hi Chao

Ok, you have only the 10.6 and 10.7 SDK on board. This explain, why you can't 
build OOo. We build OOo agentist the 10.4 SDK. Well, we should try to use a 
newer SDK anyway, but releases should be done with a mashine with 10.4 SDK.

The question at the moment is: "is it possible to build a OOo with 10.4 SDK *and* 
10.7 as OS." Clare is, it will work not out of the box.

It is possible.

Following

http://catacombae.blogspot.com/2011/07/installing-xcode-326-in-mac-os-x-lion.html

I you want to use the 10.4 SDK with Xcode 4.x here is the recipe:

http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20110318050811544

I have a setup with Xcode 3.2.6, 10.4 SDK running OS X 10.7.1 and can build OOo 
successfully (src was fetched Sep 26).

In order to build soltools I just had to remove a disturbing symlink

lrwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel17 21 Jul 12:53 /usr/lib/libstdc++.dylib ->  
libstdc++.6.dylib

which stopped otool and the script.

Tx Pavel for helping me with that.

Ok, great!. Even it's tricky. Anyway, we should try to build with later 
SDK too. Thats my option.


Greetings Raphael


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

i18nregexp replaced with ICU regexp => heads up

[Herbert Duerr]

Hi,

for removing "category X excluded licenses" from Apache OpenOffice I 
replaced the formerly used LGPL licensed module i18nregexp with the 
regular expression engine of module ICU which is already widely use in 
OpenOffice.


The replacement fixes a lot of problems: e.g. in a text "abcabc" trying 
to "find all backwards" for "b" resulted in it only finding the last 
"b", now it actually finds all of them. It also introduces some changes, 
e.g. i18nregexp had two modes "classic" and "extended" regexp whereas 
the ICU based engine treats all patterns as extended-regexp.


I18nregexp used an approach where it transliterated and compared each 
codepoint pair of the pattern and text string. The new engine does the 
transliteration only once per pattern and text string. This is much 
faster, but it only works because the transliteration was tweaked to 
preserve the special regexp control characters.


The reporters of any issues in the lists below are encouraged to check 
the problems they saw with the new engine.

https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=regexp
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=regular\ expression
Please make sure to have the "More Options -> Regular Expressions" 
checkbox activated for testing.


I'm afraid the regexp replacement resulted in changes mostly for 
Japanese users, because there a lot of non-trivial transliterations are 
active. For reference I'm enumerating the active rules: 
"ProlongedSoundMark", "IterationMark", "Ignore-Width", "BaFa", "SeZe", 
"HyuByu", "IandEfollowedByYa" and "KiKuFollowedBySa".


Herbert

FYI: Forum back on the air!!!

[Rory O'Farrell]

The OpenOffice forum is back on the air.  Thanks to whoever in Oracle worked 
the miracle.

-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

Re: Top posting is bad

[Ross Gardler]

On 30 September 2011 13:18, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> "bad" may be "unpleasant for you" but how about looking at the
> interoperability challenges and not encouraging belief that there
> is a silver-bullet, one-size fits all fiat when the only thing
> that works is civility.

There is no one-size fits all, this is true. But there is an "average
size which suits more" (I have no idea why you bring civility into
this, this was a perfectly reasonable request to improve the quality
of our online communications based on a great deal of personal and
collective experience of what works for ASF projects - and non-ASF
projects alike).

For open source projects the generally accepted "average size" is to
use inline posting, e.g.

"When quoting someone else's mail, insert your responses where they're
most appropriate, at several different places if necessary, and trim
off the parts of their mail you didn't use." from the "bible of open
source project management" (my opinion) Producing Open Source [1]

or if you want a wider discussion then

"This style makes it easier for readers to identify the points of the
original message that are being replied to; in particular, whether the
reply misunderstood or ignored some point of the original text."
(wikipedia [2])

or perhaps something a little more "official"

"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
 summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
 enough text of the original to give a context.  This will make
 sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
 Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
 postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
 response to a message before seeing the original.  Giving context
 helps everyone.  But do not include the entire original!" from
Netiquette Guidelines (RFC 1855) [3]

and back to an observation in Wikipedia:

"Interleaved reply combined with top-posting combines the advantages
of both styles. " [2]

Ross

[1] http://producingoss.com/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Choosing_the_proper_posting_style
[3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855

Re: Top posting is bad

[Ian Lynch]

>
>
> From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@opendirective.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 01:47
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Top posting is bad
>
> At the risk of starting a flame-war I am going to state that
> top-posting is bad on publicly archived mailing lists. Can we please
> stop doing it?
>


> 
>


> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
>
On 30 September 2011 13:18, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> The assumption behind this recommendation seems to be that all
> mail clients are the same and the list is read the same by
> everyone.  I already *manually* truncate lines to match the
> line-width of the sender.


Hi Dennis, I'm on Gmail and it is quite easy to top post accidentally :-).
Gmail hides a lot of the quoted text anyway unless you want to see it.

On the other hand I think having a convention we all try to stick to is a
good idea simply because it provides consistency and predictability. I'd
hate to think that this was something that would get to such a point you
would leave given the amount of hard graft you put in. It's not that
important.  Surely it isn't too difficult, though, to post sequentially.
Took me all of 5 seconds to rearrange the order of your post in reply to
Ross in this mail and chop out most of the text :-). Really this whole issue
gets blown out of proportion, but I'd say if it's not a big imposition let's
just go with the flow.
-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.

Re: Top posting is bad

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
> The assumption behind this recommendation seems to be that all
> mail clients are the same and the list is read the same by
> everyone.

Choosing to use inadequate tools is no excuse to be bad mannered.

>
> "bad" may be "unpleasant for you"

Not just merely 'unpleasant'

A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text?

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: The lost context.
Q: What makes top-posted replies harder to read than bottom-posted?

A: Yes.
Q: Should I trim down the quoted part of an email to which I'm replying?

Norbert

RE: Top posting is bad

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

The assumption behind this recommendation seems to be that all 
mail clients are the same and the list is read the same by 
everyone.  I already *manually* truncate lines to match the 
line-width of the sender.  I prefer text flow of paragraphing 
among those whose clients and list archives handle it properly.  
So I do not turn on hard line-chopping.  I am doing it manually 
right now to be polite.  I appreciate that people don't complain 
when I fail to do that here.

To tell me to not to top post from a client that doesn't have ">"
marking turned on or even available just makes a mess.  See how
Ross's post appears to me and consider what would happen if I
blithely commented in line.

LibreOffice users have this flame war monthly.  I get schooled by
NoOp regularly.  If it happens here, I am freakin' leavin'.

Also, the fact that not everyone reads the archive the same way,
but use NNTP synthesizers, such as GMane, just creates mystery 
meat for those of us who have no idea what those users are seeing 
(or producing).  To then be schooled by them is unacceptable.

Also, there has already been the discussion about thread 
preservation (even though people continue threads without 
changing topics so it is hardly a reliable process anyhow).  

[People who use NNTP readers see the threads in expando-views and
have no need for the context, so they are infuriated by the 
repetition.  There are clueless ones who think there is some sort
of statutory requirement to keep full threads, even though this is
an archived list and that is subject to all the discovery one would
care to be exposed to.]

"bad" may be "unpleasant for you" but how about looking at the 
interoperability challenges and not encouraging belief that there
is a silver-bullet, one-size fits all fiat when the only thing
that works is civility.

[NOTE: This post has been filtered to incivility level -3.  Your 
mileage may vary.  No neutrinos were harmed in the making of this 
post.  Good luck if your required line-width is narrower than this.]

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@opendirective.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 01:47
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Top posting is bad

At the risk of starting a flame-war I am going to state that
top-posting is bad on publicly archived mailing lists. Can we please
stop doing it?

It is very difficult to understand what is going on in a mailing list,
especially the archives, if it is common practice to top-post rather
than reply inline.

The problem is that one has to go back to the beginning of a thread to
get a grasp of the context of a discussion. Top posting assumes that
everyone has read every word up until that post. Very often this is
not the case. Very often people dip into a thread half way through.
Either because they have been busy for a few hours whilst the
discussion progressed or because they got to the message via an
archive search.

Replying inline with careful cutting of no longer relevant content
(this is the hard part), retains context and allows people to
understand the main gist of what is being said. If someone is looking
for the answer to a question in the archives, this context will tell
them if the answer provide is for the question they are asking (in
fact inline posting makes most search engines more accurate too as a
result of proximity matching). If the person is dipping in to an
ongoing thread the context can tell them how far back they need to
read in order to understand the current position.

I realise that some people disagree with this and prefer top posting.
However, in ASF projects it is generally accepted that top posting is
bad. Other environments are good for top posting, but ASF projects are
not.

Ross


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

Re: Build AOOo on Mac OS X 10.7

[Rolf Eder]

Am 28.09.2011 um 01:00 schrieb Raphael Bircher:

> Hi Chao
> 
> Ok, you have only the 10.6 and 10.7 SDK on board. This explain, why you can't 
> build OOo. We build OOo agentist the 10.4 SDK. Well, we should try to use a 
> newer SDK anyway, but releases should be done with a mashine with 10.4 SDK.
> 
> The question at the moment is: "is it possible to build a OOo with 10.4 SDK 
> *and* 10.7 as OS." Clare is, it will work not out of the box.

It is possible.

Following 

http://catacombae.blogspot.com/2011/07/installing-xcode-326-in-mac-os-x-lion.html

I you want to use the 10.4 SDK with Xcode 4.x here is the recipe:

http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20110318050811544 

I have a setup with Xcode 3.2.6, 10.4 SDK running OS X 10.7.1 and can build OOo 
successfully (src was fetched Sep 26).

In order to build soltools I just had to remove a disturbing symlink

lrwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel17 21 Jul 12:53 /usr/lib/libstdc++.dylib -> 
libstdc++.6.dylib

which stopped otool and the script.

Tx Pavel for helping me with that.

> Am 27.09.11 19:03, schrieb Chao Huang:
>> hi Rolf
>> 
>> I was trying to use XCode 4.1 on Mac OS X 10.7.

-- 
Rolf Eder
e...@herrmannsdorfer.de

Re: Top posting is bad

[Ross Gardler]

On 30 September 2011 10:45, floris v  wrote:
> Op 30-9-2011 10:46, Ross Gardler schreef:

...

> That was probably aimed at me.

Not at all, it was aimed at what I observe is a generally increasing trend.

Ross

Re: Top posting is bad

[floris v]

Op 30-9-2011 10:46, Ross Gardler schreef:

At the risk of starting a flame-war I am going to state that
top-posting is bad on publicly archived mailing lists. Can we please
stop doing it?

It is very difficult to understand what is going on in a mailing list,
especially the archives, if it is common practice to top-post rather
than reply inline.

The problem is that one has to go back to the beginning of a thread to
get a grasp of the context of a discussion. Top posting assumes that
everyone has read every word up until that post. Very often this is
not the case. Very often people dip into a thread half way through.
Either because they have been busy for a few hours whilst the
discussion progressed or because they got to the message via an
archive search.

Replying inline with careful cutting of no longer relevant content
(this is the hard part), retains context and allows people to
understand the main gist of what is being said. If someone is looking
for the answer to a question in the archives, this context will tell
them if the answer provide is for the question they are asking (in
fact inline posting makes most search engines more accurate too as a
result of proximity matching). If the person is dipping in to an
ongoing thread the context can tell them how far back they need to
read in order to understand the current position.

I realise that some people disagree with this and prefer top posting.
However, in ASF projects it is generally accepted that top posting is
bad. Other environments are good for top posting, but ASF projects are
not.

Ross


That was probably aimed at me. Sorry if my posting behaviour makes for 
hard reading, but for me the inline replying is hard to follow.

Peter aka floris v

Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC

[Ross Gardler]

On 30 September 2011 03:04, Rob Weir  wrote:
> 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.

...

> 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."

This is an area where ASF projects differ from one another. Some
projects prefer to have a separation, others prefer not to.

In my experience a flatter organisational structure is generally
better. However, on a project as large and diverse as OOo this may not
be the case.

The reason for "flatter is better" is that people tend to be more
engaged when they feel more empowered. Once OOo graduates PMC members
will have binding votes on everything committers may not have binding
votes on everything (this is something that the PPMC needs to resolve
nearer the time). By creating the separation of roles you are creating
the potential for a hierarchy to emerge.

Generally we find that people will not meddle with areas of the
project they are not qualified to meddle in. It's kind of hard to do
so anyway since a veto requires an alternative course of action that
the community supports. If one isn't qualified to meddle how can one
come up with a proposal that will be supported?

>> 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.

Never trust documentation in the ASF ;-)

You will find many many people who do not agree with that paragraph
but can't be bothered to change it (guilty ;-)

I think Denis is demonstrating an understanding of the alternative view.

Every year, just before the ASF Members meeting, we have the same
discussion about what barriers should there be to people becoming
members. Typically you will hear the oldest hands saying "minimal
barriers, we need bodies" whilst the newer hands will say "some
barriers, we need control".

I myself went through that process. I was amazed when I was voted in
as a member. I didn't think I'd done enough to deserve it. I watched
and learned. I realised early was good, but thought there should be
some barriers. Today, ten years on, I am of the "minimal barriers"
camp.

Now, ASF membership is different from OOo PMC membership. I'm not
suggesting that you have to go this way. I'm saying that just because
it is written doesn't mean it is the one true way.

>> 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 argument of "there is no harm" is exactly the argument that
matters. There really is no harm in having all committers in the PMC.
The decision making process respects the community as a whole. Should
a member of the PMC be causing problems there are mechanisms for
dealing with it (it is very, very  rare).

Conversely there is harm in not having a broad and varied PMC. There
is increased opportunity for vested interests to take control. There
are more rumours of backroom deals on the private list. There is a
feeling of reduced transparencey etc. None of these things exist in
the OOo podling, but when independent mentors like myself clear off
will the community trust the remaining PMC members?

Note, this decision is not an either/or. You can make it common
practie to invite committers to the PMC but allow committer proposals
to say "committer only" in specific cases.

I suggest you discuss this one widely in the community and then put it
to community vote since it is a very important issue moving forwards.

Ross

Top posting is bad

[Ross Gardler]

At the risk of starting a flame-war I am going to state that
top-posting is bad on publicly archived mailing lists. Can we please
stop doing it?

It is very difficult to understand what is going on in a mailing list,
especially the archives, if it is common practice to top-post rather
than reply inline.

The problem is that one has to go back to the beginning of a thread to
get a grasp of the context of a discussion. Top posting assumes that
everyone has read every word up until that post. Very often this is
not the case. Very often people dip into a thread half way through.
Either because they have been busy for a few hours whilst the
discussion progressed or because they got to the message via an
archive search.

Replying inline with careful cutting of no longer relevant content
(this is the hard part), retains context and allows people to
understand the main gist of what is being said. If someone is looking
for the answer to a question in the archives, this context will tell
them if the answer provide is for the question they are asking (in
fact inline posting makes most search engines more accurate too as a
result of proximity matching). If the person is dipping in to an
ongoing thread the context can tell them how far back they need to
read in order to understand the current position.

I realise that some people disagree with this and prefer top posting.
However, in ASF projects it is generally accepted that top posting is
bad. Other environments are good for top posting, but ASF projects are
not.

Ross


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

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

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann]

Hi Pedro,

On 29.09.2011 18:29, 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 ;).



Ok, I will reference the original URL [1] in the header file.

Best regards, Oliver.

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

Re: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog

[Marcus (OOo)]

Please add me "marcus" to the editors list. If there is still a need for 
more admins (e.g., to moderate comments) then please add me here, too.


Thanks

Marcus



Am 09/30/2011 02:24 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:

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

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann]

Hi Pedro,

thanks for the investigation.

What you are proposing are exactly the changes which I have made locally 
to integrate the new header file and to prepare a corresponding patch.
Additionally, I deleted everything in the header file which is not used 
in our source code. Thus, only the two records are left over. I also 
changed the type of the record entries to .



Best regards, Oliver.

On 30.09.2011 06:04, Pedro Giffuni wrote:

Oliver-Rainer;

I looked at the files: the GPL'd file has
only two records and the names don't match the
ones in the XFree86 file.

We shouldn't rename anything in the header, but
change the sources instead. It's not difficult
because both names appear only on hcode.cpp.

cheers,

Pedro.

--- On Thu, 9/29/11, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann  wrote:


From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
Subject: hwpfilter/source/ksc5601.h - header from GNU c library
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date: Thursday, September 29, 2011, 4:59 AM
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: Editorial Calendar for the project Blog

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

> 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?
>
>
please include me "jsc" and "jsc at apache.org"

Juergen



> 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

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:

>
> 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

Juergen