date:20111011

Hi Rob,

 Welcome to the project and welcome to Apache!

thanks :-))

 I'd recommend reading this page, especially the sections on
 Meritocracy and Roles:

I looked at these pages first, but I thought that existing OOo 
developers with write access to sun servers were already at committer 
level. But it is not a problem to start as developer :-))


 You can send the iCLA to the Apache Secretary at any time.  You do not

sent.

 In any case, I'd recommend starting with simple patches, at a module
 level, to make it easier to review.

sure, I have plenty of them to submit once I resync with AOOo tree.

 
 Also, where are you distributing the OS/2 ports?

current OS/2 binary builds are done by a vendor, and are shipped with 
the eComStation license, so they are not available to general public. 
While full source tree is available to everyone, nobody tried to 
compile it (it is not a trivial task).




-- 
Bye,

Yuri Dario

/*
 * OS/2 open source software
 * http://web.os2power.com/yuri
 * http://www.netlabs.org
*/

Re: [patch} removal of OS2Bitmap.cxx

Hi Pedro,

 Welcome Yuri!

thanks!

 I have great sympathy for the OS/2 port and I am glad you are
 working on it. 

great to ear, I will need some help around here :-))

 I will be glad to revert the commit once there
 is a newly licensed OS2Bitmap.cxx available.

I don't have now an AOOo svn tree here, so I'm unable to prepare a 
patch; but OS2Clipboard.cxx has a correct license header, you can grab
it as is.


-- 
Bye,

Yuri Dario

/*
 * OS/2 open source software
 * http://web.os2power.com/yuri
 * http://www.netlabs.org
*/

Re: wiki down

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:07 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.org wrote:
 Got issues connecting to the mysql website.
 Please confirm:
 http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/


Is anyone *actively* working on migrating the wiki over to Apache?  Or
should we start working on writing a eulogy for it?

-Rob


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

Re: Fixing security lists

Thanks Martin.  Could you please subscribe our privately archived 
mailing list ooo-secur...@incubator.apache.org to the securityteam@ 
mailing list?


Note that it's an ezmlm mailing list, so if a confirmation email is 
needed we'll need someone on our ooo-security list to confirm it.


The purpose of doing this is to ensure that the Apache OOo PPMC's 
security team - who monitors ooo-security@ - is aware of any end user 
reports that come into the pre-existing securityteam@ list.


Privacy and reporting guidelines for the ooo-security@ list follow best 
Apache security@ practices and are documented here:


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

Thanks,
- Shane, Mentor on Apache OOo

bcc: ooo-security@ for awareness

On 10/11/2011 6:08 AM, Martin Hollmichel wrote:

Hi Shane,

yes, it looks like that I'm able to edit the list of subscribers,

Martin

Am 10.10.2011 18:54, schrieb Shane Curcuru:

On 10/10/2011 12:33 PM, Malte Timmermann wrote:
...snip...

- Which leaves us with 1 common list where we don't have such
restrictive rules, and can continue with our cooperation: The
old/original OOo security list securityt...@openoffice.org.

...snip...

To ask a practical question: is there anyone reading this email who is
able to, and is willing to, manage the subscribers and archives for
that list currently?

Of not, the PPMC certainly needs to find such person ASAP so we know
who's on the list, and so we can archive (privately) any ongoing list
traffic someplace that has ASF Member and ooo-security@ oversight of
the archive (at minimum, obviously any approved subscribers - from
whatever organizatoins - should have some kind of archive access to
the list).

- Shane

Re: Fixing security lists

2011-10-11 Thread Martin Hollmichel

Shane, 

done, and sent out a welcome mail, please confirm if this got through 
to your list,


Martin

Am Dienstag, 11. Oktober 2011 15:29:07 schrieb Shane Curcuru:
Thanks Martin. Could you please subscribe our privately archived 
mailing list ooo-secur...@incubator.apache.org to the securityteam@ 
mailing list?


Note that it's an ezmlm mailing list, so if a confirmation email is 
needed we'll need someone on our ooo-security list to confirm it.


The purpose of doing this is to ensure that the Apache OOo PPMC's 
security team - who monitors ooo-security@ - is aware of any end user 
reports that come into the pre-existing securityteam@ list.


Privacy and reporting guidelines for the ooo-security@ list follow 
best Apache security@ practices and are documented here:


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

Thanks,
- Shane, Mentor on Apache OOo

bcc: ooo-security@ for awareness

On 10/11/2011 6:08 AM, Martin Hollmichel wrote:

Hi Shane,

yes, it looks like that I'm able to edit the list of subscribers,

Martin

Am 10.10.2011 18:54, schrieb Shane Curcuru:

On 10/10/2011 12:33 PM, Malte Timmermann wrote:
...snip...

- Which leaves us with 1 common list where we don't have such
restrictive rules, and can continue with our cooperation: The
old/original OOo security list securityt...@openoffice.org.

...snip...

To ask a practical question: is there anyone reading this email who is
able to, and is willing to, manage the subscribers and archives for
that list currently?

Of not, the PPMC certainly needs to find such person ASAP so we know
who's on the list, and so we can archive (privately) any ongoing list
traffic someplace that has ASF Member and ooo-security@ oversight of
the archive (at minimum, obviously any approved subscribers - from
whatever organizatoins - should have some kind of archive access to
the list).

- Shane

Re: [patch} removal of OS2Bitmap.cxx

Hi Yuri;

--- On Tue, 10/11/11, Yuri Dario mc6...@mclink.it wrote:
...
 
  I will be glad to revert the commit once there
  is a newly licensed OS2Bitmap.cxx available.
 
 I don't have now an AOOo svn tree here, so I'm unable to
 prepare a  patch; but OS2Clipboard.cxx has a correct
 license header, you can grab it as is.
 

The (lack-of) license header was the reason for it's removal.

Check the Treatment of Third Party Works section here:

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

In particular number (2):
Do ensure that every third-party work includes its associated license, even if 
that requires adding a copy of the license from the third-party download site 
into the distribution.

I would also like to know the origin of the file to note it
in the NOTICE file.

best regards,

Pedro.

ps. What compiler do you use for the OS/2 port?

I would welcome a binary OS/2 port for Dmake:
http://code.google.com/p/ooo-dmake/

Re: Fixing security lists


Yes, looks good, thanks.

Ooooh... I have to savor this moment.  Legitimately reposting a note 
from a security-based list on a public list.  I'm such a rebel today.



Subject Welcome to the securityt...@openoffice.org mailing list!
DateTue, 11 Oct 2011 13:32:57 GMT

This is a confirmation email that you have subscribed to the
securityt...@openoffice.org mailing list.


- Shane

On 10/11/2011 9:37 AM, Martin Hollmichel wrote:

Shane,
done, and sent out a welcome mail, please confirm if this got through to
your list,

Martin

Am Dienstag, 11. Oktober 2011 15:29:07 schrieb Shane Curcuru:

Thanks Martin. Could you please subscribe our privately archived
mailing list ooo-secur...@incubator.apache.org to the securityteam@
mailing list?

Note that it's an ezmlm mailing list, so if a confirmation email is
needed we'll need someone on our ooo-security list to confirm it.

The purpose of doing this is to ensure that the Apache OOo PPMC's
security team - who monitors ooo-security@ - is aware of any end user
reports that come into the pre-existing securityteam@ list.

Privacy and reporting guidelines for the ooo-security@ list follow
best Apache security@ practices and are documented here:

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

Thanks,
- Shane, Mentor on Apache OOo

bcc: ooo-security@ for awareness

On 10/11/2011 6:08 AM, Martin Hollmichel wrote:

Hi Shane,

yes, it looks like that I'm able to edit the list of subscribers,

Martin

Am 10.10.2011 18:54, schrieb Shane Curcuru:

On 10/10/2011 12:33 PM, Malte Timmermann wrote:
...snip...

- Which leaves us with 1 common list where we don't have such
restrictive rules, and can continue with our cooperation: The
old/original OOo security list securityt...@openoffice.org.

...snip...

To ask a practical question: is there anyone reading this email who is
able to, and is willing to, manage the subscribers and archives for
that list currently?

Of not, the PPMC certainly needs to find such person ASAP so we know
who's on the list, and so we can archive (privately) any ongoing list
traffic someplace that has ASF Member and ooo-security@ oversight of
the archive (at minimum, obviously any approved subscribers - from
whatever organizatoins - should have some kind of archive access to
the list).

- Shane

Re: [patch} removal of OS2Bitmap.cxx

Hi Pedro,


 I would also like to know the origin of the file to note it
 in the NOTICE file.

I wrote this code. I think I used some other code as template, but now
I don't recall the details (too many years...)


 ps. What compiler do you use for the OS/2 port?

the 3.2 build has been done with gcc 4.3.2, now I'm using gcc 4.4 
(moving to 4.5)

 I would welcome a binary OS/2 port for Dmake:
 http://code.google.com/p/ooo-dmake/

I have it, at OOo 3.2 level, and it says to be a 4.12 version, so 
seems quite recent :-)


-- 
Bye,

Yuri Dario

/*
 * OS/2 open source software
 * http://web.os2power.com/yuri
 * http://www.netlabs.org
*/

Re: svn commit: r1181165 - /incubator/ooo/trunk/main/LICENSE

On Oct 10, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Yes;

I think Rob took the LICENSE file from Apache POI and
a lot of things that didn't belong there crept in.

I took it from the ODF Toolkit, which presumably came from POI. I
would have never thought to check that their LICENSE file had crud in
it. Odd. Maybe a remnant from previous practice at Apache?

Apache POI's LICENSE does include extra information. The EMCA mentions came in
with our OOXML branch. The rest came in as a patch from Jukka Zittig (an Apache
Member) in February 2009.

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46756

I'd recommend replacing with an authentic clean copy of the license
from some authoritative source, rather then trying to guess what parts
are wrong.

I've reviewed and diffed the history of the POI LICENSE file and Avik was the
one who converted it from 1.1 to 2.0 in 2005. The front part of the license has
remained unchanged since.

Ross - if we are doing it wrong in Apache POI please let us know on our list.

Regards,
Dave

-Rob

I cleaned it but perhaps my commit didn't express it well.

Pedro.

--- On Mon, 10/10/11, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:

Although there seems to be some
confusion in this area, I thought the LICENSE file should be
the Apache ALv2 license document alone and the NOTICE file
includes all of the third party stuff (as well as a simple
ALv2 claim for the overall combination).

I don't disagree with removing dependencies that Apache OOo
doesn't have (any longer). I am just surprised they
are in LICENSE.

- Dennis

-Original Message-
From: p...@apache.org
[mailto:p...@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:39
To: ooo-comm...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: svn commit: r1181165 -
/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/LICENSE

Author: pfg
Date: Mon Oct 10 19:39:25 2011
New Revision: 1181165

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1181165view=rev
Log:
Apache License version 2.0 text - clear up extra components
that we are not using (yet)

Modified:
incubator/ooo/trunk/main/LICENSE

Modified: incubator/ooo/trunk/main/LICENSE
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/LICENSE?rev=1181165r1=1181164r2=1181165view=diff
==
--- incubator/ooo/trunk/main/LICENSE (original)
+++ incubator/ooo/trunk/main/LICENSE Mon Oct 10 19:39:25
2011
@@ -200,308 +200,3 @@
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND,
either express or implied.
See the License for the specific language
governing permissions and
limitations under the License.
-
-
-APACHE POI SUBCOMPONENTS:
-
-Apache POI includes subcomponents with separate copyright
notices and
-license terms. Your use of these subcomponents is subject
to the terms
-and conditions of the following licenses:
-
-
-Office Open XML schemas (ooxml-schemas-1.0.jar)
-
-The Office Open XML schema definitions used
by Apache POI are
-a part of the Office Open XML ECMA
Specification (ECMA-376, [1]).
-As defined in section 9.4 of the ECMA bylaws
[2], this specification
-is available to all interested parties
without restriction:
-
-9.4 All documents when
approved shall be made available to
-all interested
parties without restriction.
-
-Furthermore, both Microsoft and Adobe have
granted patent licenses
-to this work [3,4,5].
-
-[1]
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm
-[2] http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/Ecmabylaws.htm
-[3] http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/
-[4]
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma%20PATENT/ECMA-376%20Edition%201%20Microsoft%20Patent%20Declaration.pdf
-[5]
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma%20PATENT/ga-2006-191.pdf
-
-
-DOM4J library (dom4j-1.6.1.jar)
-
-Copyright 2001-2005 (C) MetaStuff, Ltd. All
Rights Reserved.
-
-Redistribution and use of this software and
associated documentation
-(Software), with or without modification,
are permitted provided
-that the following conditions are met:
-
-1. Redistributions of source code must
retain copyright
- statements and
notices. Redistributions must also contain a
- copy of this document.
-
-2. Redistributions in binary form must
reproduce the
- above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the
- following disclaimer in
the documentation and/or other
- materials provided with
the distribution.
-
-3. The name DOM4J must not be used to
endorse or promote
- products derived from this
Software without prior written
- permission of MetaStuff,
Ltd. For written permission,
- please contact dom4j-i...@metastuff.com.
-
-4. Products

Status of migration of OOo domains?

It's been almost two months [1] since Oracle officially started 
assigning the various oo.o domains to the ASF.  Do we have any actual 
progress on migrating - or at least re-branding to show Apache heritage 
rather than Oracle - the actual content of various oo.o sites?


In particular, I'm concerned not just about the technical/code content, 
but also about other content, especially oo.o sites that may require 
significant changes to reflect ASF ownership and Apache OOo stewardship 
of these domains.  There are far too many different kinds of content, I 
imagine, to have a single way to transfer all of them, so I think we 
really need to just start on at least some rebranding and figuring out 
which ones can be moved (or changed) independently.


In particular, I'd really like to see people working on the non-code 
informational sites on oo.o like about, council, marketing, 
infrastructure (or website), and the other topics of bizdev, 
certification, distribution, and especially security.


Independent of the great code we've inherited, we've also inherited a 
rather large brand, and I think we need the PPMC to take a much more 
active and constructive focus on managing that.


I'm presuming the best place to get an overall view of what's being done 
is on the wiki, correct?



https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OOo-to-ASF-site-recommendation

- Shane

[1] http://markmail.org/message/lwfcisvg46fst2cq

Re: Is there any rules to use third party library/software in AOOo?

See the Legal Previously Asked Questions page, which has an excellent 
overview and some discussion of the permitted licenses (Category A), 
maybe (Category B) and licenses that must not be included (Category X):


  http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a

- Shane

On 9/13/2011 11:07 PM, Shao Zhi Zhao wrote:


hi, all

I'm a new comer in this community. Very glad to see you through mail
list.
I am counting the third party libraries in Aooo,
Is there any license/copyright rule for the third party library/software in
AOOo?



thanks

mail:zhaos...@cn.ibm.com

Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?


On Oct 11, 2011, at 8:36 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:

 It's been almost two months [1] since Oracle officially started assigning the 
 various oo.o domains to the ASF.  Do we have any actual progress on migrating 
 - or at least re-branding to show Apache heritage rather than Oracle - the 
 actual content of various oo.o sites?

Kay and I put all the web content is in the AOOo svn at -  
/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/

The CMS build is a work in progress as different parts present differing html. 
I planned to work on this some more but I have been down with a pinched nerve. 
Pain killers are the only reason I am typing now.

Joe Schaefer and I discussed this sometime ago when I split the OOo site over 
from the incubator site tree. There is this JIRA ticket for a staging version.

INFRA-3933 www.OpenOffice.org staging site - http://site-ooo.apache.org - using 
the Apache CMS

I'll put up a build on my people site in the next day or two.

Also, we are waiting on Infra for Domain Registration Transfer - see

INFRA-3898 Transfer the openoffice domain from Oracle to ASF


 
 In particular, I'm concerned not just about the technical/code content, but 
 also about other content, especially oo.o sites that may require significant 
 changes to reflect ASF ownership and Apache OOo stewardship of these domains. 
  There are far too many different kinds of content, I imagine, to have a 
 single way to transfer all of them, so I think we really need to just start 
 on at least some rebranding and figuring out which ones can be moved (or 
 changed) independently.
 
 In particular, I'd really like to see people working on the non-code 
 informational sites on oo.o like about, council, marketing, infrastructure 
 (or website), and the other topics of bizdev, certification, distribution, 
 and especially security.

The content is there and I am here to help anyone with the wrapping if they are 
ahead of me. There are instructions.

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


 
 Independent of the great code we've inherited, we've also inherited a rather 
 large brand, and I think we need the PPMC to take a much more active and 
 constructive focus on managing that.

One issue I think we need to address is that the people who will support this 
added infrastructure need to become enabled to work with APache Infrastructure. 
Perhaps these are people who should be offered Commiter and not PPMC if elected 
by the PPMC. Maybe these are the individuals where an ICLA first policy should 
be used. We need many volunteers for AOOo infrastructure.


 
 I'm presuming the best place to get an overall view of what's being done is 
 on the wiki, correct?
 
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OOo-to-ASF-site-recommendation

I think so.

Regards,
Dave

 
 - Shane
 
 [1] http://markmail.org/message/lwfcisvg46fst2cq

Re: Solve SVG visualization without cairo and librsvg

Hi Armin,

Sorry for the delayed response. I'm more a project manager than coder these 
days. I have a more overall than detailed view. There is a lot of value in the 
Java2D approach - it can provide a gateway to a large number of output formats.

On Oct 6, 2011, at 1:52 AM, Armin Le Grand wrote:

   Hi Dave,
 
 On 05.10.2011 18:05, Dave Fisher wrote:
 
 On Oct 4, 2011, at 2:57 AM, Armin Le Grand wrote:
 
 On 27.09.2011 10:18, Armin Le Grand wrote:
 ...
 - still an external renderer, screen and all outputs would use a bitmap 
 visualization
 
 Yes, it is still external, but it seems to support SVG-  EPS and PDF.
 
 ...by using the bitmap from the external renderer as Bitmap action, 
 unfortunately (AFAIK).
 
 
 ...
 I will spend another week and see how I can progress. If I will not be able 
 to advance with the necessary speed, I will probably fallback to (b).
 
 In Apache POI we've had success writing Java2D engines that output PPT, 
 PPTX, and Microsoft's Escher drawing layers.
 
 I looked but could not find something about SVG. Since I'm pretty interested, 
 could you please give some more data? Maybe a link into the repository where 
 SVG gets involved?

Actually I should have written Using Apache POI instead of in Apache POI. 
Producing SVG is currently on our project list at work and I would like for 
Yegor to go into some detail about Java2D engine architecture.

This may be AOOo 4.0 track work ...

Regards,
Dave

 
 Thanks in advance,
   Armin
 
 Regards,
 Dave
 
 
 
 Sincerely,
 Armin
 
 -- 
 ALG

Apache OpenOffice.org Blog -- username/pwd re-set?

2011-10-11 Thread Donald Harbison

My Apache ID and password is not recognized by
https://blogs.apache.org/roller-ui/login.rol ...

Dave Fisher, is this something you can help me out with? I'd like to get
active on the blog.

Thanks!

/don

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Blog -- username/pwd re-set?


On Oct 11, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:

 
 On Oct 11, 2011, at 11:02 AM, Donald Harbison wrote:
 
 My Apache ID and password is not recognized by
 https://blogs.apache.org/roller-ui/login.rol ...
 
 Dave Fisher, is this something you can help me out with? I'd like to get
 active on the blog.
 
 OK. I've checked and you do not yet have an blog account.
 
 So the next step is to ask Infrastructure (Gavin) to create one for 
 dpharbison - he'll handle the rest.
 
 I would cross-post to infrastructure but that is a private list.

To be clear, I have made the request. (I've got to reread three times now...)


 
 Regards,
 Dave
 
 
 
 
 Thanks!
 
 /don

RE: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

The Draft Proposal for governance and operation of the OpenOffice.org Forums
within the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling is available on the Apache OO.o
Community Wiki at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project.

The Draft Proposal is the work of the OpenOffice.org Forums operators, with
consultation of Apache contributors.

It is proposed to discuss this proposal for at least 6 days starting now,
Tuesday 2011-10-11, and ending at midnight Monday, 2011-10-17T24:00Z.

Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
discussion can stop. If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the Apache
OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its provisions for
governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o Podling.

GUIDELINES

The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
Forums operators. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.

Instead, discuss suggestions and modifications on this list and await any
changes to be made as the OpenOffice.org Forum operators choose to offer
improvements in response to the discussion, including based on ooo-dev
suggestions of their own.

When it is concluded that the Draft Proposal is in a final condition suitable
for ratification, the OpenOffice.org Forum operators will notify us of their
readiness (repeatedly if there is still ongoing discussion and improvement).

- Dennis

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote:
The Draft Proposal for governance and operation of the OpenOffice.org Forums
within the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling is available on the Apache OO.o
Community Wiki at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project.

The Draft Proposal is the work of the OpenOffice.org Forums operators, with
consultation of Apache contributors.

It is proposed to discuss this proposal for at least 6 days starting now,
Tuesday 2011-10-11, and ending at midnight Monday, 2011-10-17T24:00Z.

It is proposed ??? Could you be more explicit? Your passive voice
is obscuring things. Are the forum people asking for these proposal
to be reviewed now?

GUIDELINES

The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
Forums operators. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.

- Dennis

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Blog -- username/pwd re-set?

2011-10-11 Thread Donald Harbison

T

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:


 On Oct 11, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:

 
  On Oct 11, 2011, at 11:02 AM, Donald Harbison wrote:
 
  My Apache ID and password is not recognized by
  https://blogs.apache.org/roller-ui/login.rol ...
 
  Dave Fisher, is this something you can help me out with? I'd like to get
  active on the blog.
 
  OK. I've checked and you do not yet have an blog account.
 
  So the next step is to ask Infrastructure (Gavin) to create one for
 dpharbison - he'll handle the rest.
 
  I would cross-post to infrastructure but that is a private list.

 To be clear, I have made the request. (I've got to reread three times
 now...)


Thanks Dave!


 
  Regards,
  Dave
 
 
 
 
  Thanks!
 
  /don

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote:
The Draft Proposal for governance and operation of the OpenOffice.org Forums
within the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling is available on the Apache OO.o
Community Wiki at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project.

The Draft Proposal is the work of the OpenOffice.org Forums operators, with
consultation of Apache contributors.

It is proposed to discuss this proposal for at least 6 days starting now,
Tuesday 2011-10-11, and ending at midnight Monday, 2011-10-17T24:00Z.

It is proposed ??? Could you be more explicit? Your passive voice
is obscuring things. Are the forum people asking for these proposal
to be reviewed now?

Please read the proposal and discuss from now until the mentioned
date. The discuss period will be extended when necessary. It is always
good to have some kind of a deadline. If the period does not need
extension there will be a vote on that date (see paragraph below).

And yes, the forum people are asking to look at this proposal now and discuss.

This is the outcome of many hours, much sweat and many people
speaking. Thanks to the forum folks for all the work and the patience
with their observers :-)

Cheers
Christian

Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
discussion can stop. If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the
Apache
OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its provisions
for
governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o Podling.

GUIDELINES

The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
Forums operators. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.

- Dennis

--
http://www.grobmeier.de

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Christian Grobmeier
grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org
wrote:
The Draft Proposal for governance and operation of the OpenOffice.org Forums
within the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling is available on the Apache OO.o
Community Wiki at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project.

The Draft Proposal is the work of the OpenOffice.org Forums operators, with
consultation of Apache contributors.

It is proposed to discuss this proposal for at least 6 days starting now,
Tuesday 2011-10-11, and ending at midnight Monday, 2011-10-17T24:00Z.

It is proposed ??? Could you be more explicit? Your passive voice
is obscuring things. Are the forum people asking for these proposal
to be reviewed now?

And yes, the forum people are asking to look at this proposal now and discuss.

OK. That's what I wanted to hear. We've had false starts on this
before. I expected the forum proposal to come from a forum admin or
moderator, not fro Dennis. But that's fine.

This is the outcome of many hours, much sweat and many people
speaking. Thanks to the forum folks for all the work and the patience
with their observers :-)

Cheers
Christian

Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
discussion can stop. If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the
Apache
OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its provisions
for
governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o Podling.

GUIDELINES

The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
Forums operators. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.

When it is concluded that the Draft Proposal is in a final condition
suitable
for ratification, the OpenOffice.org Forum operators will notify us of their
readiness (repeatedly if there is still ongoing discussion and improvement).

- Dennis

--
http://www.grobmeier.de

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

To enable list-based discussion of the proposal, I'm pasting in the
current wiki markup. This will allow anyone to enter inline
commentary, as a response, to the quoted original.

-Rob

---

h1. Changes to integrate the forums into the AOOo project

h2. 1. Community

The forum community divides in:

* Site Admins
* Forum Admins
* Moderators
* Volunteers

Volunteers are registered users of the forum(s) with a post count of
over 200 (or another lower limit), who visit and post regularly to
answer questions, report spam and in general show commitment to the
forum(s), as opposed to regular registered users who may never post at
all or post infrequently, or mostly post to ask questions.
Volunteers can vote within the forum on administrative and policy
decisions just like moderators and administrators (who really are
volunteers with some extra powers). Examples of such decisions are how
to handle a particular case of user misbehavior or how to apply the
spam policy to hyperlinks in signatures. Volunteers (and other forum
members) can only vote in/on the PMC if they sign the iCLA and are
accepted as committers.
More information about the Volunteer role can be found in the
[Volunteer Code of
Conduct|http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50t=12579]

Note: Moderators and administrators of nl forums also get the
volunteer rank for the English forum, regardless of how often they
post there.
A volunteer may lose his/her rank after long inactivity (but will be
restored on his/her return).

Moderators are maintainers of the board, they have access to the
moderator panel, removing spam, marking topics as Solved or Issue,
editing topic titles to make them more meaningful or removing all
caps, warning people who seriously misbehave, but not applying
censorship except in case of very explicit or bad language.
More information about the Moderator role can be found in the
[Moderator Code of
Conduct|http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50t=12535]

Admins have access to the underlying forum code and the phpBB admin
control panel.

The forum [Survival
Guide|http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewforum.php?f=76]
includes a description of the different user ranks and other
information about the culture and standards of the forum.

The following proposal was compiled from a lengthy discussion on the
EN and ES forums by FJCC
[http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=90t=43901start=180#p204949].
It contains the contributions of several forum members, including
Apache Observers.

h2. Proposal

*A.* Forum governance will be discussed in a publicly readable forum.
Write access will be limited to those with at least 10 posts. The
previous governance forum will become read only with access limited to
Volunteers, Moderators and Admins. This is to protect the personal
information that was posted on that forum.

*B.* The Forum Issues section will remain private with access limited
to Volunteers, Moderators and Admins and will be used only to discuss
user behavior or similarly sensitive topics

*C.* Forum admins must sign the ICLA. They will interact with the
Apache Infra group and should be official project members. At least
one Moderator, who will sign the ICLA, or Admin on every NL forum will
commit to reporting forum status to the Project as determined by the
Apache OpenOffice PPMC

*D.* Moderators and Volunteers will keep their current functions and
will be created through the traditional process of nomination and lazy
consensus on the forum.

*E.* Any [Apache Member|http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html]
or [Apache OpenOffice
PPMC|http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html] member can
request Apache Observer status and thereby gain read and write access
to all forums, including Forum Issues, and have read access to the
logs. Apache Observers will not have the capability to edit, delete or
move posts or perform administrative functions unless otherwise
elected to those positions by normal forum rules.

*F.* Any decisions made by the Apache OpenOffice PPMC with respect to
the forums or the forum members will be posted on the Site Governance
forum or, in the case of a sensitive topic, on the Forum Issues forum.

*G.* The new Terms of Use will be similar to the current ToU,
particularly the clause that
You hereby grant to the Host and all Users a royalty-free, perpetual,
irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right
and license under Your intellectual property rights to reproduce,
modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from,
distribute, perform, display and use Your Submissions (in whole or
part) and to incorporate them in other works in any form, media, or
technology now known or later developed, all subject to the obligation
to retain any copyright notices included in Your Submissions. All
Users, the Host, and their sublicensees are responsible for any
modifications they make to

Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote:
 I am not sure that a complete list is being dealt with in the manner Shane is
 requesting.


Like anything happens around here based on someone's request?
Remember, most people here are volunteers, not employees.  I don;t
think they take requests.

This is really quite simple.  The legacy website migration will triage
itself based on interest of the members.  The critical stuff will be
migrated.  Some of the nice to have stuff will get migrated.  And
the stuff that no one cares about will be lost.  That's life.

I was making a list yesterday of what I thought the most critical
parts of the legacy website are.  My list was:

1) Source control, including CWS's

2) Bugzilla

3) phpBB forums

4) Pootle

I'm pleased to say that we've migrated two of these, and we're
discussing a proposal for the 3rd, and the 4th doesn't look too hard.

If someone else thinks that there are other parts of the OOo website
that are critical to them, then great.  Opinions are free.  Here's
what you can do with them:

1) Volunteer to lead a migration of something

2) Plead your case here on the list, or via a blog post or Facebook,
and maybe convince someone else to do the migration.  You might do the
legwork to find out how something is done and help direct volunteers
with expertise to that task.  But saying I see a big hole will not
work.  What volunteer wants to fill holes?

3) Pay someone to do the migration

Those are the options.

Note that that is the way that features, bugs, documentation, website
pages, and everything else in the project is prioritized, namely by
those who do.  Not those who request.  Those who do.

-Rob

  1. I see a big hole around all @openoffice.org migration, since that includes
 mailing lists and a single-sign-on registration and e-mail forwarding (i.e.,
 the orcmid user name that I registered with too many years ago has an orcmid @
 openoffice.org e-mail address and it is also the User ID for log-in to the
 site, to the wiki, to forums, and to a page where I can manage my own
 subscriptions to @ openoffice.org e-mail lists.  (The securityteam@ OO.o list
 is different, because it is a restricted, moderated list in a different
 manner.  There are also administrative lists, such as moderators@ and so on.)

 Up to this point there have been no identified individuals that support this
 on the current host and those plus others that can assist in a migration.
 This part impacts the non-disruptive transfer of the custody of all of the
 other features of OpenOffice.org, including those called-out below, especially
 with regard to the preservation of registration and the tying of registrations
 to the provenance of contributed material:

  2. The bugzilla was migrated, but it was done without any advanced-staging at
 http://openoffice.org.   On my latest check there is still breakage left
 behind, although someone has provided more links to the new Apache OOo live
 instance.  (It would be really great if folks pitching in would announce their
 intention and at least the results on ooo-dev.  Absent a traditional
 management structure, the only thing that keeps us from being herdless cats is
 communication.  Especially communication that eliminates duplication of effort
 and continual wondering what the current state is.)

  3. The OpenOffice Forums have been brought up on an Apache-hosted system.
 The live instance remains under Oracle hosting and negotiations on governance
 of the migrated forums is proceeding.  (Watch this space.)  Still, the ability
 to provide site administration and coordinated staging and then hook-in of the
 transferred live forums to the Apache server needs more steady hands.

  4. The OpenOffice Wiki had been brought up on an Apache-hosted system.  There
 is proof-of-concept, in effect, and a pilot operation.  There is serious doubt
 whether sufficient skilled hands are available for conducting the server and
 site administration, providing coordinated staging, and operating a
 transferred MediaWiki site on Apache infrastructure.  Instead of acquiring
 that capability, there is ad hoc preparation to convert the OpenOffice
 MediaWiki to Confluence Wiki despite warnings that this is going to take far
 more effort for less appealing result than is foreseen.

  5. I think there are other services (such as the localization services,
 historical archives, repositories for extensions and templates) that have not
 been put on our radar.  The list of OO.o Projects (their term) that Kay Schenk
 has provided may provide more that are not comprehended.  Since security has
 been a topic of late, I confess to having never checked (or learned where to
 check) that there are any previous CVEs on OO.o releases and whether any
 security warnings against specific releases are easily found before someone
 downloads one of the older puppies.

  6. And then there is lining up terms of use, continuing the separation of

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

 And yes, the forum people are asking to look at this proposal now and 
 discuss.


 OK.  That's what I wanted to hear.  We've had false starts on this
 before.  I expected the forum proposal to come from a forum admin or
 moderator, not fro Dennis.  But that's fine.

I can confirm that this document has been written by the forum
members. Even the text of this email has been discussed.

Cheers
Christian


 This is the outcome of many hours, much sweat and many people
 speaking. Thanks to the forum folks for all the work and the patience
 with their observers :-)

 Cheers
 Christian



 Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
 discussion can stop.  If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
 acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
 separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
 Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the 
 Apache
 OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its provisions 
 for
 governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o Podling.

 GUIDELINES

 The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
 Forums operators.  PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.

 Instead, discuss suggestions and modifications on this list and await any
 changes to be made as the OpenOffice.org Forum operators choose to offer
 improvements in response to the discussion, including based on ooo-dev
 suggestions of their own.

 When it is concluded that the Draft Proposal is in a final condition 
 suitable
 for ratification, the OpenOffice.org Forum operators will notify us of 
 their
 readiness (repeatedly if there is still ongoing discussion and 
 improvement).

  - Dennis





 --
 http://www.grobmeier.de





-- 
http://www.grobmeier.de

Re: [patch} removal of OS2Bitmap.cxx


--- On Tue, 10/11/11, Yuri Dario mc6...@mclink.it wrote:

 Hi Pedro,
 
 
  I would also like to know the origin of the file to
 note it
  in the NOTICE file.
 
 I wrote this code. I think I used some other code as
 template, but now I don't recall the details
 (too many years...)


The problem is if the code doesn't carry a license it's
assumed the code is proprietary and we cannot take it.
I need a license from here:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a

I personally prefer a BSD license for my work because
I can't make any claims about patents but If the code
you used as a template is from OOo, then we
(actually you and only you) can add AL2 header on it.

See the Appendix here:
http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

Sorry that contributing is such a mess, but you learn
this stuff once and it works everywhere ;).

 
  ps. What compiler do you use for the OS/2 port?
 
 the 3.2 build has been done with gcc 4.3.2, now I'm using
 gcc 4.4 (moving to 4.5)
 

I had no idea EMX had continued advancing.. cool :).

  I would welcome a binary OS/2 port for Dmake:
  http://code.google.com/p/ooo-dmake/
 
 I have it, at OOo 3.2 level, and it says to be a 4.12
 version, so  seems quite recent :-)
 

There were some minor updates that were not included in
an old 4.12. I guess you will be making a new one so feel
free to send me a private message with a packaged version
or submit it as an issue in the google code place.

cheers,

Pedro.

 /*
  * OS/2 open source software
  * http://web.os2power.com/yuri
  * http://www.netlabs.org
 */


ps. If Ted Tsikora is still around there, tell him
I said hi ;). 

Pedro.

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

The proposal looks pretty good to me. Well thought out.

I do have an operational question about the three people given the role of 
Initial Committers / PMC

Do Zoltan, Rory, and Ricardo each have the skills and time to necessary to both 
complete the migration of the Fora that was begun by TerryE and then maintain 
the service? Are they all able to be SysAdmins. My concern is if there is 
only one person in the full SysAdmin role we will have a support problem.

Regards,
Dave

On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:

 And yes, the forum people are asking to look at this proposal now and 
 discuss.
 
 
 OK.  That's what I wanted to hear.  We've had false starts on this
 before.  I expected the forum proposal to come from a forum admin or
 moderator, not fro Dennis.  But that's fine.
 
 I can confirm that this document has been written by the forum
 members. Even the text of this email has been discussed.
 
 Cheers
 Christian
 
 
 This is the outcome of many hours, much sweat and many people
 speaking. Thanks to the forum folks for all the work and the patience
 with their observers :-)
 
 Cheers
 Christian
 
 
 
 Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
 discussion can stop.  If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
 acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
 separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
 Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the 
 Apache
 OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its 
 provisions for
 governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o 
 Podling.
 
 GUIDELINES
 
 The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
 Forums operators.  PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.
 
 Instead, discuss suggestions and modifications on this list and await any
 changes to be made as the OpenOffice.org Forum operators choose to offer
 improvements in response to the discussion, including based on ooo-dev
 suggestions of their own.
 
 When it is concluded that the Draft Proposal is in a final condition 
 suitable
 for ratification, the OpenOffice.org Forum operators will notify us of 
 their
 readiness (repeatedly if there is still ongoing discussion and 
 improvement).
 
  - Dennis
 
 
 
 
 
 --
 http://www.grobmeier.de
 
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 http://www.grobmeier.de

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
To enable list-based discussion of the proposal, I'm pasting in the
current wiki markup. This will allow anyone to enter inline
commentary, as a response, to the quoted original.

-Rob

---

h1. Changes to integrate the forums into the AOOo project

First, I'd like to thank the forum admins, moderators and volunteers
for putting together this thoughtful proposal. Also, thanks to the
PPMC members and mentors who helped develop this as well. I truly
appreciate the effort that went into this.

I have some suggestions following for how this can be improved, as
well as some suggestions.

h2. 1. Community

The forum community divides in:

* Site Admins
* Forum Admins
* Moderators
* Volunteers

I don't think we need to be ratifying details like post count of over
200. Maybe better to just say something like Volunteers are valued
users of the forum selected for their contributions.

The exact criteria is something that the forum can figure out for
itself and modify from time to time as it sees fit. I realize it
might be 200 now, but they might consider a more flexible view of
meritocracy down the road. Forums make it easy to count posts, and
assign titles based on that metric. It is built into the software.
Metrics that are easy to measure tend to be used more often. Quantity
is always easier to measure than quality. But is that what you really
care about?

Volunteers can vote within the forum on administrative and policy
decisions just like moderators and administrators (who really are
volunteers with some extra powers). Examples of such decisions are how
to handle a particular case of user misbehavior or how to apply the
spam policy to hyperlinks in signatures. Volunteers (and other forum
members) can only vote in/on the PMC if they sign the iCLA and are
accepted as committers.

I'm not sure about the use of the word policy here. The PPMC makes
policies for the AOOo project. Only PPMC members have binding votes on
policy matters. And even then some policy areas are reserved for
other parts of Apache, like legal, branding, ASF Board, etc.

Maybe we can just substitute a different word? Maybe terms of use?
Or site operations? Or just forum decisions. It will be clear
enough that the forum volunteers may make any decisions that the PPMC
has delegated to forum volunteers.

More information about the Volunteer role can be found in the
[Volunteer Code of
Conduct|http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50t=12579]

Passive voice. Could we reword it in active voice so it expresses who
removes/restores their rank? Or is this something that is automated
by phpBB?

Admins have access to the underlying forum code and the phpBB admin
control panel.

Does that mean that only the portions of the proposal up to this point
was compiled from from a lengthy discussion on the EN and ES forums
by FJCC? What about the rest of the proposal? Maybe we don't need
that paragraph?

h2. Proposal

*A.* Forum governance will be discussed in a publicly readable forum.
Write access will be limited to those with at least 10 posts. The

So the proposal is to prevent someone who is concerned about a
governance discussion to weigh in on that discussion, unless they have
already posted 10 unrelated posts?

I think this cuts the project off from potentially

Interest in Apache beanshell incubation?

(Sorry for crossposting for this time, please redirect any
response only to general@incubator)

Hello;

As some advocacy related to Apache OpenOffice.org, I asked
the beanshell.org guys to adopt the Apache License 2.

Not only did Patrick Niemeyer and Daniel Leuck agree to this,
they were willing to transfer beanshell to the ASF. They are
willing to sign a SGA, hand over a mirror of their SVN server
and a dump of their CWiki. They are busy in their own projects
though, so in general they would want to spend time in an
incubation process themselves.

http://www.beanshell.org/

I see there are several Apache projects (BSF, Camel, Script,
AOOo) using Beanshell so I think this would be beneficial
to the ASF.

Perhaps someone already used to Apache ways, would like to
take the lead in an incubation process?

best regards,

Pedro.

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

2011-10-11 Thread drew

On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 13:13 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
 The proposal looks pretty good to me. Well thought out.
 
 I do have an operational question about the three people given the role of 
 Initial Committers / PMC
 
 Do Zoltan, Rory, and Ricardo each have the skills and time to necessary to 
 both complete the migration of the Fora that was begun by TerryE and then 
 maintain the service? Are they all able to be SysAdmins. My concern is if 
 there is only one person in the full SysAdmin role we will have a support 
 problem.
 

Hi Dave,

hmm - I think that needs a little clarification.

The proposal section is what is being discussed right now - that
proposal was constructed by the folks that work the forums along with
some helpful input form Dennis, Christian and others.

The inital committers / PMC section was really a left over on that page
and doesn't signify who would handle the site admin - at least not to my
knowledge 

(I just add in here, I made a choice to not be part of drafting the
proposal, but I doubt I missed reading any of the discussion, and I was
and am quite happy with what was put together by the group)

So - as for initial comitters/PPMC members section of the page, the list
was just an early list of those with admin/moderator status on the
forums that where _already_ had commit status or PPMC members and is
short at that and just off the top of my head would include:

Kazunari Hirano
Alexandro Colorado
Drew Jensen

I think I'm missing some folks there...darnit, my apologies.

Now the question of site admin - that is a bit tougher - right now that
is me... Terry, I don't know, so I have to assume no, but would love to
be wrong.

So first question is if I could get the migration done - yes, I could
handle that - though I might infuriate the Apache admins doing
it...*smile*...but we will all live through it, I have no doubt.

Going forward it best to have at least 2 individuals - on that all I can
say is that I'm not above begging people to get involved. Of course this
is assuming, or I should say, discounting the  Apache admins - so is
this an issue that must be addressed, absolutely. Do I think it can be
fulfilled, I think so and it shouldn't really be all that big a
deal...but you are correct to bring it up, IMO.

Best wishes,

//drew

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

2011-10-11 Thread RGB ES

2011/10/11 Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net

 The proposal looks pretty good to me. Well thought out.

 I do have an operational question about the three people given the role of
 Initial Committers / PMC

 Do Zoltan, Rory, and Ricardo each have the skills and time to necessary to
 both complete the migration of the Fora that was begun by TerryE and then
 maintain the service? Are they all able to be SysAdmins. My concern is if
 there is only one person in the full SysAdmin role we will have a support
 problem.

 Regards,
 Dave

 Speaking for myself... no, I do not have the skills to do the migration. My
role as admin do not include the code part: I'm able to create
sub-forums, modify accounts (a very, very rare activity only needed for
example when someone put spam on the signature)...
Regards
Ricardo

Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?

Heh, indeed, while I so completely disagree with Rob's style here that I 
don't even know where to start, he does have a point in that things get 
done in projects by people who actually do them.


Wearing my mentor hat, my primary job is to encourage the community 
around this project to grow in a healthy manner and do the things 
themselves.  So from my mentor hat perspective, I'm really not a very 
good example in what I do.  As a mentor, there are things where you 
should do as I say, not as I do, because part of the point of being a 
mentor is to help *you* (as in the community) actually start doing things.




On the other hand, wearing my VP, Brand hat, I strongly urge the PPMC to 
take action on my email, especially the points about ensuring some sort 
of branding updates are done on existing openoffice.org websites.  In 
particular, I'm concerned about the non-code areas - fundraising, 
leadership, marketing, and the like.  I'd really like to see the PPMC 
taking ownership and working out how they want to manage the transition 
in ownership from all those web properties, but starting to at least 
make some updates in place reflecting the future plans for the sites.


If not, then yes, I will eventually get to it, and I will do the work 
myself, unilaterally, as VP, Brand (i.e. not as a mentor on this project).


It's inappropriate for the project to spend so long with so much 
orphan content on oo.o sites, wherein it's kinda Oracle's (and is 
perceived as dead by more people each day), and it's kinda ours (since 
we have a transfer of the domains and marks).  We need action on showing 
the rest of the world where we're planning to go with this great big 
brand and chunk of content we've inherited.


- Shane

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

2011-10-11 Thread Daniel Shahaf

Rob Weir wrote on Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 15:13:31 -0400:
 To enable list-based discussion of the proposal, I'm pasting in the
 current wiki markup.  This will allow anyone to enter inline
 commentary, as a response, to the quoted original.
 

Thanks!

 *H.* Should the ASF or the Apache OpenOffice.org project decide to
 terminate its support of the forums, it will grant a period of at
 least 90 days for the transfer of the contents and structure of the
 forums to another host as decided by the Administrators, Moderators
 and Volunteers.

The PPMC is not empowered to agree to a clause that reads, The ASF will
grant 90 days to someone.  Only the board and officers can make
commitments on behalf of the org.

That's just the legal side of things and is not the same as the question
of whether one should expect the ASF, should any of its entities decide
to take the forums down, provide advance warning or migration codepath.

The relevant entities in this case include IPMC, Infra, and Board.

Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?



--- On Tue, 10/11/11, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
 
 
 This is really quite simple.  The legacy website
 
 I was making a list yesterday of what I thought the most
 critical parts of the legacy website are.  My list was:
 
 1) Source control, including CWS's
 

I am not sure what you mean here, but this is done, right?
I love SVN, and the bitbucket mirror already covers the CWSs.
It would be nice to have opengrok and I'll probably go ahead
and ask infra@ about it.

cheers,

Pedro.

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

2011-10-11 Thread Rory O'Farrell

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:13:54 -0700
Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:

 I do have an operational question about the three people given
 the role of Initial Committers / PMC
 
 Do Zoltan, Rory, and Ricardo each have the skills and time

I certainly do not have tthe skills to do that, not the time, due
to real life committments over which I have no control.

-- 
Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie

Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:


 --- On Tue, 10/11/11, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:


 This is really quite simple.  The legacy website

 I was making a list yesterday of what I thought the most
 critical parts of the legacy website are.  My list was:

 1) Source control, including CWS's


 I am not sure what you mean here, but this is done, right?
 I love SVN, and the bitbucket mirror already covers the CWSs.
 It would be nice to have opengrok and I'll probably go ahead
 and ask infra@ about it.


It is done, yes.  I was just pointing out that much of the most
critical migration work (at least the stuff important to me) has
already been done.

-Rob

 cheers,

 Pedro.

Re: [patch} removal of OS2Bitmap.cxx

Hi Pedro,


 The problem is if the code doesn't carry a license it's
 assumed the code is proprietary and we cannot take it.

sure, but in this case I'm the writer of this code, so I can choose 
whatever license I prefer for my personal work.

 I personally prefer a BSD license for my work because
 I can't make any claims about patents but If the code
 you used as a template is from OOo, then we
 (actually you and only you) can add AL2 header on it.

since the other OS2* files in that module are coming from the same 
base, I think the OOo license is better suited for os2bitmap.cxx too.

 Sorry that contributing is such a mess, but you learn
 this stuff once and it works everywhere ;).

OOo past move to lgpl/gpl has created a lot of more problems in 
licensing for the code I contributed to Sun :-)

 I had no idea EMX had continued advancing.. cool :).

we use a new libc, named klibc which is based on emx but a lot better 
in many ways.


 free to send me a private message with a packaged version
 or submit it as an issue in the google code place.

sure!


 ps. If Ted Tsikora is still around there, tell him
 I said hi ;). 

I remember this name, but I never saw him on irc.

-- 
Bye,

Yuri Dario

/*
 * OS/2 open source software
 * http://web.os2power.com/yuri
 * http://www.netlabs.org
*/

Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?

2011-10-11 Thread TJ Frazier


On 10/11/2011 17:06, Pedro Giffuni wrote:



--- On Tue, 10/11/11, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org  wrote:



This is really quite simple.  The legacy website

I was making a list yesterday of what I thought the most
critical parts of the legacy website are.  My list was:

1) Source control, including CWS's



I am not sure what you mean here, but this is done, right?
I love SVN, and the bitbucket mirror already covers the CWSs.
It would be nice to have opengrok and I'll probably go ahead
and ask infra@ about it.

cheers,

Pedro.

If you're going to inquire about opengrok, you might want to see if they 
have a new version which fixes a most disconcerting bug: opengrok only 
handles the first 128 characters in the ASCII code set! Any letters (for 
instance) with diacritics are simply dropped; not substituted with boxes 
or question-marks, they just vanish.


When I checked about a year ago, there was promise of a fix to come. If 
it indeed happened, it would be nice to have.


--
/tj/

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

2011-10-11 Thread Kazunari Hirano

Hi Drew and all,

I sent an email to Vietnamese and Chinese forum admins and asked them
to read the proposal and say something.
:)
But I have not heard from them yet.  Have you, Drew?

Thanks,
khirano

Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?

2011-10-11 Thread Rory O'Farrell

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:13:42 -0400
Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:

 It is done, yes.  I was just pointing out that much of the most
 critical migration work (at least the stuff important to me) has
 already been done.

This is use of the passive voice to which you have already
objected; be consistent!


-- 
Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

2011-10-11 Thread floris v


Op 11-10-2011 23:30, Kazunari Hirano schreef:

Hi Drew and all,

I sent an email to Vietnamese and Chinese forum admins and asked them
to read the proposal and say something.
:)
But I have not heard from them yet.  Have you, Drew?

Thanks,
khirano
Your chances to hear something from the Vietnamese forum staff are slim 
to nonexistent.

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

2011-10-11 Thread drew

On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 06:30 +0900, Kazunari Hirano wrote:
 Hi Drew and all,
 
 I sent an email to Vietnamese and Chinese forum admins and asked them
 to read the proposal and say something.
 :)
 But I have not heard from them yet.  Have you, Drew?

No - but I'll be doing the following this evening.

1 - putting a copy of the email to the discuss list on ever forum as a
sticky for 5 days

2 - sending emails to each admin/moderators on those forums pointing to
the posting on their forum and to the email thread on the ML. [Even if
you have done so already, I'll still put a copy up as that is what I
promised to do on the site-admin forum]

The VI forum is a real problem, not sure if you have followed along at
all on the Site_admin board on the en forum, but I've been trying to get
in touch with them for days, and no luck, the site has turned into just
a haven for spam...later tonight I will be suspending activity on the
board if no one willing to actively monitor/work the site can be found -
as my Vietnamese is pretty much non-existent.

Any help with the VI forum would be very much appreciated.

//drew

RE: Status of migration of OOo domains?

Shane, just to clarify a bit.  As far as I know, the PPMC does not have the 
keys, as it were, to the live OpenOffice.org site.  Apparently someone does, 
and some touch ups are made, but it is all sort of behind the scenes and, um, 
not very transparent, especially since there is no archive or repository that 
the PPMC has visibility into.

However, there does need to be some lofting around what is a roadmap here, and 
how does the existing live site be staged (and users informed) for transition 
of the properties under OpenOffice.org.

I'm thinking on it.  I am trusting that others with their hands on the knobs 
and dials will also speak up on what they can do by way of preparation for 
staging, and then staging.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Shane Curcuru [mailto:a...@shanecurcuru.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 13:55
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?

Heh, indeed, while I so completely disagree with Rob's style here that I
don't even know where to start, he does have a point in that things get
done in projects by people who actually do them.

Wearing my mentor hat, my primary job is to encourage the community
around this project to grow in a healthy manner and do the things
themselves.  So from my mentor hat perspective, I'm really not a very
good example in what I do.  As a mentor, there are things where you
should do as I say, not as I do, because part of the point of being a
mentor is to help *you* (as in the community) actually start doing things.



On the other hand, wearing my VP, Brand hat, I strongly urge the PPMC to
take action on my email, especially the points about ensuring some sort
of branding updates are done on existing openoffice.org websites.  In
particular, I'm concerned about the non-code areas - fundraising,
leadership, marketing, and the like.  I'd really like to see the PPMC
taking ownership and working out how they want to manage the transition
in ownership from all those web properties, but starting to at least
make some updates in place reflecting the future plans for the sites.

If not, then yes, I will eventually get to it, and I will do the work
myself, unilaterally, as VP, Brand (i.e. not as a mentor on this project).

It's inappropriate for the project to spend so long with so much
orphan content on oo.o sites, wherein it's kinda Oracle's (and is
perceived as dead by more people each day), and it's kinda ours (since
we have a transfer of the domains and marks).  We need action on showing
the rest of the world where we're planning to go with this great big
brand and chunk of content we've inherited.

- Shane


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

RE: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

Daniel,

Can you suggest a preferable wording that would work and would be something 
the PPMC can manage?

-Original Message-
From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d...@daniel.shahaf.name]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 14:05
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

Rob Weir wrote on Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 15:13:31 -0400:
 To enable list-based discussion of the proposal, I'm pasting in the
 current wiki markup.  This will allow anyone to enter inline
 commentary, as a response, to the quoted original.

Thanks!

 *H.* Should the ASF or the Apache OpenOffice.org project decide to
 terminate its support of the forums, it will grant a period of at
 least 90 days for the transfer of the contents and structure of the
 forums to another host as decided by the Administrators, Moderators
 and Volunteers.

The PPMC is not empowered to agree to a clause that reads, The ASF will
grant 90 days to someone.  Only the board and officers can make
commitments on behalf of the org.

That's just the legal side of things and is not the same as the question
of whether one should expect the ASF, should any of its entities decide
to take the forums down, provide advance warning or migration codepath.

The relevant entities in this case include IPMC, Infra, and Board.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

2011-10-11 Thread Ross Gardler

On 11 October 2011 22:05, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name wrote:
 Rob Weir wrote on Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 15:13:31 -0400:
 To enable list-based discussion of the proposal, I'm pasting in the
 current wiki markup.  This will allow anyone to enter inline
 commentary, as a response, to the quoted original.


 Thanks!

 *H.* Should the ASF or the Apache OpenOffice.org project decide to
 terminate its support of the forums, it will grant a period of at
 least 90 days for the transfer of the contents and structure of the
 forums to another host as decided by the Administrators, Moderators
 and Volunteers.

 The PPMC is not empowered to agree to a clause that reads, The ASF will
 grant 90 days to someone.  Only the board and officers can make
 commitments on behalf of the org.

Whilst this is technically correct in practice the board delegates to
its PMCs (that's the IPMC while in the incubator and the AOOo PMC
after graduation). I'm not aware of a project entering into such an
agreement before so there is no precedent that I'm aware of.

The right thing to do in this case is define the agreement you would
like to make and have it approved by the legal PMC. If legal@ are
happy then the AOOo project can proceed, if not they will recommend a
course of action.

Ross

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

2011-10-11 Thread floris v


Op 11-10-2011 23:46, Dennis E. Hamilton schreef:

*H.* Should the ASF or the Apache OpenOffice.org project decide to
terminate its support of the forums, it will grant a period of at
least 90 days for the transfer of the contents and structure of the
forums to another host as decided by the Administrators, Moderators
and Volunteers.

The PPMC is not empowered to agree to a clause that reads, The ASF will
grant 90 days to someone.  Only the board and officers can make
commitments on behalf of the org.

That's just the legal side of things and is not the same as the question
of whether one should expect the ASF, should any of its entities decide
to take the forums down, provide advance warning or migration codepath.

The relevant entities in this case include IPMC, Infra, and Board.
How exactly should I understand this? Is this meant to be discouraging, 
like: forum people, you might as well leave right now?

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

I don't think we need to be ratifying details like post count of over
200. Maybe better to just say something like Volunteers are valued
users of the forum selected for their contributions.

This is how the forum currently works. Of course it might change at a
later point of time, but at the moment it works like that, and if the
forum starts at the asf, then this is how its going to fly.

I know about projects who have a similar policy, you need a specific
timeframe and you need a number of contributions to get elected.

This is a guideline, not the law. Anyway I don't think we need to
change this b/c no harm done if we leave it in.

Policy is the word they have being using for managing their forum.
Policy is this case is not only the terms of use, it is decisions like
the 200 posts to enter. Therefore I think the word is matching, and
terms of usage is not.

More information about the Volunteer role can be found in the
[Volunteer Code of
Conduct|http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50t=12579]

Passive voice. Could we reword it in active voice so it expresses who
removes/restores their rank? Or is this something that is automated
by phpBB?

To my knowledge he/she must ask for it.

Please be aware that most people on the forum are not native speakers.

This paragraph is probably not necessary.
As you can read, the original proposal which you can find behind the
hyperlink has been proposed by somebody with the username FJCC. So it
refers to the original proposal and the discussion behind. Probably
interesting for historical reasons. Good to know, if you want to know
how decisions have been made.

*A.* Forum governance will be discussed in a publicly readable forum.
Write access will be limited to those with at least 10 posts. The

So the proposal is to prevent someone who is concerned about a
governance discussion to weigh in on that discussion, unless they have
already posted 10 unrelated posts?

Why do you say unrelated? If it is unrelated it will be deleted/moved whatever.
This is a usual rule on many bulletin boards out there, btw.

I think this cuts the project off from potentially valuable feedback
from users of the support forum. Why would we want to do that?

Such a message board has lots of 1-3 time posters. They want feedback
on forum related matters from people who seem to have an interest to
participate and not looking for the quick fix.

A mailinglist is

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
 On 11 October 2011 22:05, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name wrote:
 Rob Weir wrote on Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 15:13:31 -0400:
 To enable list-based discussion of the proposal, I'm pasting in the
 current wiki markup.  This will allow anyone to enter inline
 commentary, as a response, to the quoted original.


 Thanks!

 *H.* Should the ASF or the Apache OpenOffice.org project decide to
 terminate its support of the forums, it will grant a period of at
 least 90 days for the transfer of the contents and structure of the
 forums to another host as decided by the Administrators, Moderators
 and Volunteers.

 The PPMC is not empowered to agree to a clause that reads, The ASF will
 grant 90 days to someone.  Only the board and officers can make
 commitments on behalf of the org.

 Whilst this is technically correct in practice the board delegates to
 its PMCs (that's the IPMC while in the incubator and the AOOo PMC
 after graduation). I'm not aware of a project entering into such an
 agreement before so there is no precedent that I'm aware of.

 The right thing to do in this case is define the agreement you would
 like to make and have it approved by the legal PMC. If legal@ are
 happy then the AOOo project can proceed, if not they will recommend a
 course of action.


Legal?  That  sounds like extreme overkill.  We're not making a
contract with an external organization.  We're making an agreement
with ourselves.  This is a governance question, not a legal one.

In any case, the right way to handle this is just to take out the
mention of ASF.  If indeed the PPMC has delegated authority, then it
is sufficient to just mention the PPMC.

 Ross

Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?

--- On Tue, 10/11/11, TJ Frazier wrote:

...
 
 If you're going to inquire about opengrok, you might want
 to see if they have a new version  ...

I am a BSD guy and I understand they use FreeBSD too, so
before inquiring I just submitted an update for the FreeBSD
port, which means there will be extra eyes to ensure it works
correctly.

cheers,

Pedro.

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

2011-10-11 Thread drew

On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 23:58 +0200, floris v wrote:
 Op 11-10-2011 23:46, Dennis E. Hamilton schreef:
  *H.* Should the ASF or the Apache OpenOffice.org project decide to
  terminate its support of the forums, it will grant a period of at
  least 90 days for the transfer of the contents and structure of the
  forums to another host as decided by the Administrators, Moderators
  and Volunteers.
  The PPMC is not empowered to agree to a clause that reads, The ASF will
  grant 90 days to someone.  Only the board and officers can make
  commitments on behalf of the org.
 
  That's just the legal side of things and is not the same as the question
  of whether one should expect the ASF, should any of its entities decide
  to take the forums down, provide advance warning or migration codepath.
 
  The relevant entities in this case include IPMC, Infra, and Board.
 How exactly should I understand this? Is this meant to be discouraging, 
 like: forum people, you might as well leave right now?
 

Hi Floris,

Just my thought on that - if you recall I mentioned that it was time to
let the Apache folks see the proposal and make sure it fits into the
framework here also - it is a two way street..if I understand what is
being said it is merely that this is something not seen before and will
naturally, IMO, get a review from a broader group then just the PPMC.

and now I see that Ross G. has stated pretty much exactly that.

So, just my .02 worth - it doesn't appear to be anything beyond what one
should expect at this point and I would strongly advise not to jump to
any conclusions.

Best wishes,

//drew

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:58 PM, floris v floris...@gmail.com wrote:
 Op 11-10-2011 23:46, Dennis E. Hamilton schreef:

 *H.* Should the ASF or the Apache OpenOffice.org project decide to
 terminate its support of the forums, it will grant a period of at
 least 90 days for the transfer of the contents and structure of the
 forums to another host as decided by the Administrators, Moderators
 and Volunteers.

 The PPMC is not empowered to agree to a clause that reads, The ASF will
 grant 90 days to someone.  Only the board and officers can make
 commitments on behalf of the org.

 That's just the legal side of things and is not the same as the question
 of whether one should expect the ASF, should any of its entities decide
 to take the forums down, provide advance warning or migration codepath.

 The relevant entities in this case include IPMC, Infra, and Board.

 How exactly should I understand this? Is this meant to be discouraging,
 like: forum people, you might as well leave right now?

Surely not. It is the question: can we, as project, make such an
agreement, does it require prokura or not?

I think the paragraph should maybe a little bit rephrased. As I
understood, it is when the ASF throws you out of the game the forum
folks can take the forum data and build up the forum on another place
- correct?

I would say it is possible to agree that we give out the data.
I would say it is possible to say as a project that we simply do not
hit the off button, just because we had the idea last night. Can we
say smeting like.if the pmc decides to turn off the board for several
reasons, it will grant a notice period to allow a transfer of
remaining forum people or something






-- 
http://www.grobmeier.de

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
 On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Ross Gardler
 rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
 On 11 October 2011 22:05, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name wrote:
 Rob Weir wrote on Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 15:13:31 -0400:
 To enable list-based discussion of the proposal, I'm pasting in the
 current wiki markup.  This will allow anyone to enter inline
 commentary, as a response, to the quoted original.


 Thanks!

 *H.* Should the ASF or the Apache OpenOffice.org project decide to
 terminate its support of the forums, it will grant a period of at
 least 90 days for the transfer of the contents and structure of the
 forums to another host as decided by the Administrators, Moderators
 and Volunteers.

 The PPMC is not empowered to agree to a clause that reads, The ASF will
 grant 90 days to someone.  Only the board and officers can make
 commitments on behalf of the org.

 Whilst this is technically correct in practice the board delegates to
 its PMCs (that's the IPMC while in the incubator and the AOOo PMC
 after graduation). I'm not aware of a project entering into such an
 agreement before so there is no precedent that I'm aware of.

 The right thing to do in this case is define the agreement you would
 like to make and have it approved by the legal PMC. If legal@ are
 happy then the AOOo project can proceed, if not they will recommend a
 course of action.


 Legal?  That  sounds like extreme overkill.  We're not making a
 contract with an external organization.  We're making an agreement
 with ourselves.  This is a governance question, not a legal one.

 In any case, the right way to handle this is just to take out the
 mention of ASF.  If indeed the PPMC has delegated authority, then it
 is sufficient to just mention the PPMC.

+1


 Ross





-- 
http://www.grobmeier.de

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

2011-10-11 Thread Ross Gardler

On 11 October 2011 23:07, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
 On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Ross Gardler
 rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
 On 11 October 2011 22:05, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name wrote:
 Rob Weir wrote on Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 15:13:31 -0400:
 To enable list-based discussion of the proposal, I'm pasting in the
 current wiki markup.  This will allow anyone to enter inline
 commentary, as a response, to the quoted original.


 Thanks!

 *H.* Should the ASF or the Apache OpenOffice.org project decide to
 terminate its support of the forums, it will grant a period of at
 least 90 days for the transfer of the contents and structure of the
 forums to another host as decided by the Administrators, Moderators
 and Volunteers.

 The PPMC is not empowered to agree to a clause that reads, The ASF will
 grant 90 days to someone.  Only the board and officers can make
 commitments on behalf of the org.

 Whilst this is technically correct in practice the board delegates to
 its PMCs (that's the IPMC while in the incubator and the AOOo PMC
 after graduation). I'm not aware of a project entering into such an
 agreement before so there is no precedent that I'm aware of.

 The right thing to do in this case is define the agreement you would
 like to make and have it approved by the legal PMC. If legal@ are
 happy then the AOOo project can proceed, if not they will recommend a
 course of action.


 Legal?  That  sounds like extreme overkill.  We're not making a
 contract with an external organization.  We're making an agreement
 with ourselves.  This is a governance question, not a legal one.

Quite possibly.

 In any case, the right way to handle this is just to take out the
 mention of ASF.  If indeed the PPMC has delegated authority, then it
 is sufficient to just mention the PPMC.

That'll work.

Ross

RE: Status of migration of OOo domains?

There *are* only 128 code points in the ASCII code set.  95 of them are 
printable.

If opengrok is going to support Unicode and UTF-8, that would be cool indeed. 
Otherwise, if there is a single-byte code only, the problem is which one?  The 
Western European 8-bit code is common.  It doesn't do anything for Cyrillic, 
Asian languages, Greek, Middle-Eastern languages, and special diacritical 
usages outside of the core Western European set.  (Not to mention that 
ever-popular favorite, Klingon {;).

-Original Message-
From: TJ Frazier [mailto:tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 14:27
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?

On 10/11/2011 17:06, Pedro Giffuni wrote:


 --- On Tue, 10/11/11, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org  wrote:


 This is really quite simple.  The legacy website

 I was making a list yesterday of what I thought the most
 critical parts of the legacy website are.  My list was:

 1) Source control, including CWS's


 I am not sure what you mean here, but this is done, right?
 I love SVN, and the bitbucket mirror already covers the CWSs.
 It would be nice to have opengrok and I'll probably go ahead
 and ask infra@ about it.

 cheers,

 Pedro.

If you're going to inquire about opengrok, you might want to see if they
have a new version which fixes a most disconcerting bug: opengrok only
handles the first 128 characters in the ASCII code set! Any letters (for
instance) with diacritics are simply dropped; not substituted with boxes
or question-marks, they just vanish.

When I checked about a year ago, there was promise of a fix to come. If
it indeed happened, it would be nice to have.

-- 
/tj/


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Christian Grobmeier
grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
Volunteers are registered users of the forum(s) with a post count of
over 200 (or another lower limit), who visit and post regularly to
answer questions, report spam and in general show commitment to the
forum(s), as opposed to regular registered users who may never post at
all or post infrequently, or mostly post to ask questions.

I don't think we need to be ratifying details like post count of over
200. Maybe better to just say something like Volunteers are valued
users of the forum selected for their contributions.

This is how the forum currently works. Of course it might change at a
later point of time, but at the moment it works like that, and if the
forum starts at the asf, then this is how its going to fly.

I know about projects who have a similar policy, you need a specific
timeframe and you need a number of contributions to get elected.

This is a guideline, not the law. Anyway I don't think we need to
change this b/c no harm done if we leave it in.

OK. No objections. This is just my observation/recommendation.

Sorry, I don't understand. What word is matching?

More information about the Volunteer role can be found in the
[Volunteer Code of
Conduct|http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50t=12579]

Passive voice. Could we reword it in active voice so it expresses who
removes/restores their rank? Or is this something that is automated
by phpBB?

To my knowledge he/she must ask for it.

Please be aware that most people on the forum are not native speakers.

OK. It may not matter, since it is not putting a requirement on the
PPMC. It doesn't really need to be in the proposal at all. But no
harm if it stays.

OK.

*A.* Forum governance will be discussed in a publicly readable forum.
Write access will be limited to those with at least 10 posts. The

So the proposal is to prevent someone who is concerned about a
governance discussion to weigh in on that discussion, unless they have
already posted 10 unrelated posts?

Why do you say unrelated? If it is unrelated it will be deleted/moved
whatever.
This is a usual rule

RE: Status of migration of OOo domains?



--- On Tue, 10/11/11, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:

 Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2011, 5:14 PM
 There *are* only 128 code points in the ASCII code set.  95
 of them are printable.
 
 If opengrok is going to support Unicode and UTF-8, that
 would be cool indeed. 
 Otherwise, if there is a single-byte code only, the problem
 is which one?  The 
 Western European 8-bit code is common.  It doesn't do
 anything for Cyrillic, 
 Asian languages, Greek, Middle-Eastern languages, and
 special diacritical 
 usages outside of the core Western European set.  (Not
 to mention that 
 ever-popular favorite, Klingon {;).
 
Not that I care either but ...

Korean.. there are some Korean comments somewhere that
didn't survive the SVN conversion anyways and appear as

/* ???  */

I plan to translate them with babelfish or something when
I find time for that ;).

cheers,

Pedro.

Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?

On Oct 11, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

 Shane, just to clarify a bit.  As far as I know, the PPMC does not have the 
 keys, as it were, to the live OpenOffice.org site.  Apparently someone does, 
 and some touch ups are made, but it is all sort of behind the scenes and, um, 
 not very transparent, especially since there is no archive or repository that 
 the PPMC has visibility into.

Marcus is the only one I know of who has made changes to the existing OOo 
websites. I don't know if he has access to the site template.

If Apache Infra makes progress on the JIRA issues I mentioned then I think that 
we can gain traction on moving the openoffice.org static website very soon. 
I'll flesh out a proposal on the CWiki in the next few days based on the 
various content we have accumulated.

 However, there does need to be some lofting around what is a roadmap here, 
 and 
 how does the existing live site be staged (and users informed) for transition 
 of the properties under OpenOffice.org.
 
 I'm thinking on it.  I am trusting that others with their hands on the knobs 
 and dials will also speak up on what they can do by way of preparation for 
 staging, and then staging.

One of the JIRA issues was for a staging server for www.openoffice.org. If that 
is present MANY hands are enabled as the Apache CMS will work directly on the 
site.

Regards,
Dave


 
 - Dennis
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Shane Curcuru [mailto:a...@shanecurcuru.org]
 Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 13:55
 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
 Subject: Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?
 
 Heh, indeed, while I so completely disagree with Rob's style here that I
 don't even know where to start, he does have a point in that things get
 done in projects by people who actually do them.
 
 Wearing my mentor hat, my primary job is to encourage the community
 around this project to grow in a healthy manner and do the things
 themselves.  So from my mentor hat perspective, I'm really not a very
 good example in what I do.  As a mentor, there are things where you
 should do as I say, not as I do, because part of the point of being a
 mentor is to help *you* (as in the community) actually start doing things.
 
 
 
 On the other hand, wearing my VP, Brand hat, I strongly urge the PPMC to
 take action on my email, especially the points about ensuring some sort
 of branding updates are done on existing openoffice.org websites.  In
 particular, I'm concerned about the non-code areas - fundraising,
 leadership, marketing, and the like.  I'd really like to see the PPMC
 taking ownership and working out how they want to manage the transition
 in ownership from all those web properties, but starting to at least
 make some updates in place reflecting the future plans for the sites.
 
 If not, then yes, I will eventually get to it, and I will do the work
 myself, unilaterally, as VP, Brand (i.e. not as a mentor on this project).
 
 It's inappropriate for the project to spend so long with so much
 orphan content on oo.o sites, wherein it's kinda Oracle's (and is
 perceived as dead by more people each day), and it's kinda ours (since
 we have a transfer of the domains and marks).  We need action on showing
 the rest of the world where we're planning to go with this great big
 brand and chunk of content we've inherited.
 
 - Shane

RE: Status of migration of OOo domains?

2011-10-11 Thread Gavin McDonald

 -Original Message-
 From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
 Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2011 5:27 AM
 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
 Subject: Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?

 On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org
 wrote:
  I am not sure that a complete list is being dealt with in the manner
  Shane is requesting.

 Like anything happens around here based on someone's request?
 Remember, most people here are volunteers, not employees.  I don;t think
 they take requests.

 This is really quite simple.  The legacy website migration will triage itself
 based on interest of the members.  The critical stuff will be migrated.  Some
 of the nice to have stuff will get migrated.  And the stuff that no one 
 cares
 about will be lost.  That's life.

 I was making a list yesterday of what I thought the most critical parts of the
 legacy website are.  My list was:

 1) Source control, including CWS's

 2) Bugzilla

 3) phpBB forums

 4) Pootle

 I'm pleased to say that we've migrated two of these, and we're discussing a
 proposal for the 3rd, and the 4th doesn't look too hard.

Please let infra know via a JIRA ticket when you are ready for the forums 
migration
to be completed, I'm waiting with baited breath. I am not going to continue to 
trawl these lists for hints of what you guys want, please let me know via infra
list or ticket when you are ready.

snip

   4. The OpenOffice Wiki had been brought up on an Apache-hosted
  system.  There is proof-of-concept, in effect, and a pilot operation.
  There is serious doubt whether sufficient skilled hands are available
  for conducting the server and site administration, providing
  coordinated staging, and operating a transferred MediaWiki site on
  Apache infrastructure.  Instead of acquiring that capability, there is
  ad hoc preparation to convert the OpenOffice MediaWiki to Confluence
  Wiki despite warnings that this is going to take far more effort for less
 appealing result than is foreseen.

I have yet to see a request to infra either via the mailing the list or the Jira
that you want this migration doing.

Consider me 'sufficiently skilled' to do the migration and let me know via infra
list or jira ticket what you decide to do with it.

All I need for forums and wiki migration is upto date copies of the dbs.

Once more so it is clear, I do not read all mails on this list so I may miss 
any 
requests or ideas or whatnot, come to infra when you made your minds up.

Gav...

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

2011-10-11 Thread Daniel Shahaf

drew wrote on Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 18:07:35 -0400:
 On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 23:58 +0200, floris v wrote:
  Op 11-10-2011 23:46, Dennis E. Hamilton schreef:
   *H.* Should the ASF or the Apache OpenOffice.org project decide to
   terminate its support of the forums, it will grant a period of at
   least 90 days for the transfer of the contents and structure of the
   forums to another host as decided by the Administrators, Moderators
   and Volunteers.
   The PPMC is not empowered to agree to a clause that reads, The ASF will
   grant 90 days to someone.  Only the board and officers can make
   commitments on behalf of the org.
  
   That's just the legal side of things and is not the same as the question
   of whether one should expect the ASF, should any of its entities decide
   to take the forums down, provide advance warning or migration codepath.
  
   The relevant entities in this case include IPMC, Infra, and Board.
  How exactly should I understand this? Is this meant to be discouraging, 
  like: forum people, you might as well leave right now?
  

No.

I don't know how to communicate my point more clearly than I did in the
first sentences of my previous email.

Beyond that, +1 all over Drew's reply --- including the points about
framework / organizational structure (goes to the PPMC's inability to
make commitments on behalf of the Foundation), about a broader group
(I'm not on the PPMC), and about not jumping to conclusions.

 
 Hi Floris,
 
 Just my thought on that - if you recall I mentioned that it was time to
 let the Apache folks see the proposal and make sure it fits into the
 framework here also - it is a two way street..if I understand what is
 being said it is merely that this is something not seen before and will
 naturally, IMO, get a review from a broader group then just the PPMC.
 
 and now I see that Ross G. has stated pretty much exactly that.
 
 So, just my .02 worth - it doesn't appear to be anything beyond what one
 should expect at this point and I would strongly advise not to jump to
 any conclusions.
 
 Best wishes,
 
 //drew

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

2011-10-11 Thread Daniel Shahaf

Ross Gardler wrote on Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 23:11:23 +0100:
 On 11 October 2011 23:07, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
  In any case, the right way to handle this is just to take out the
  mention of ASF.  If indeed the PPMC has delegated authority, then it
  is sufficient to just mention the PPMC.
 
 That'll work.

+1

Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?

Dennis,

On Oct 11, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

 Dave, can you say more about what the OO.o staging server would hold? I might 
 be thinking of something related, but not sure.

At the start it holds the static content with each project including 
downloads.

 
 Is the idea to have a server ready with the static comment so the domain 
 could be switched to it, and the non-static services switched in by then also.

Essentially. We would convert, rebrand, and adjust the site completely in 
parallel. If tweaks are needed to the existing openoffice.org that is other 
work.

In staging we have

ooo-site.apache.org = www.openoffice.org
ooo-site.apache.org/downloads = downloads.openoffice.org

Once that is built we should all agree it is ready for cutover.

One detail that will need to be determined is the proper svn tree and 
configuration for mapping of DNS subdomains like downloads.openoffice.org.

 
 I was thinking dynamic properties might be swapped in on the live OO.o site 
 and then they would still be spliced in when the static change-over happens.  
 What is your thinking?

The OOo domain as served by Oracle is essentially an overlay of two domains.

*.openoffice.org and *.services.openoffice.org

I guess that Apache will be flatter. At any rate it would be easier to have the 
DNS in Apache Infras control.

Then each can be flipped by changing the IP address on a case by case basis.

Note that ooo-site.apache.org is named like ooo-wiki.apache.org

I suppose that these staging versions could become the real versions with the 
ooo-*.apache.org domain name as an alias to the *.openoffice.org or 
*.services.openoffice.org name. Maybe on a case by case basis, I think that is 
Infras business.

 
 I suppose part of what I mean by staging is both the places for stages and 
 also the choreography that has the migration be as unnoticeable as possible.
 
 [Still thinking how to describe this so that those interested can help 
 reality-test it and also do some contingency planning and triage as needed.]
 
 - Dennis
 
 (In my frightful moments, I think of this as disaster-recovery on a 
 still-living complex site.  Sort of like open-heart surgery, kidney 
 transplant, and chemo all at once, in the dark.)

Migration is tricky.

Regards,
Dave

 
 -Original Message-
 From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
 Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 15:52
 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
 Subject: Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?
 
 On Oct 11, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
 
 Shane, just to clarify a bit.  As far as I know, the PPMC does not have the 
 keys, as it were, to the live OpenOffice.org site.  Apparently someone does, 
 and some touch ups are made, but it is all sort of behind the scenes and, 
 um, 
 not very transparent, especially since there is no archive or repository 
 that 
 the PPMC has visibility into.
 
 Marcus is the only one I know of who has made changes to the existing OOo 
 websites. I don't know if he has access to the site template.
 
 If Apache Infra makes progress on the JIRA issues I mentioned then I think 
 that we can gain traction on moving the openoffice.org static website very 
 soon. I'll flesh out a proposal on the CWiki in the next few days based on 
 the various content we have accumulated.
 
 However, there does need to be some lofting around what is a roadmap here, 
 and 
 how does the existing live site be staged (and users informed) for 
 transition 
 of the properties under OpenOffice.org.
 
 I'm thinking on it.  I am trusting that others with their hands on the knobs 
 and dials will also speak up on what they can do by way of preparation for 
 staging, and then staging.
 
 One of the JIRA issues was for a staging server for www.openoffice.org. If 
 that is present MANY hands are enabled as the Apache CMS will work directly 
 on the site.
 
 Regards,
 Dave
 
 
 
 - Dennis
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Shane Curcuru [mailto:a...@shanecurcuru.org]
 Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 13:55
 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
 Subject: Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?
 
 Heh, indeed, while I so completely disagree with Rob's style here that I
 don't even know where to start, he does have a point in that things get
 done in projects by people who actually do them.
 
 Wearing my mentor hat, my primary job is to encourage the community
 around this project to grow in a healthy manner and do the things
 themselves.  So from my mentor hat perspective, I'm really not a very
 good example in what I do.  As a mentor, there are things where you
 should do as I say, not as I do, because part of the point of being a
 mentor is to help *you* (as in the community) actually start doing things.
 
 
 
 On the other hand, wearing my VP, Brand hat, I strongly urge the PPMC to
 take action on my email, especially the points about ensuring some sort
 of branding updates are done on existing openoffice.org websites.  In
 particular, I'm

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement




On 10/11/2011 5:58 PM, floris v wrote:

Op 11-10-2011 23:46, Dennis E. Hamilton schreef:

*H.* Should the ASF or the Apache OpenOffice.org project decide to
terminate its support of the forums, it will grant a period of at
least 90 days for the transfer of the contents and structure of the
forums to another host as decided by the Administrators, Moderators
and Volunteers.

The PPMC is not empowered to agree to a clause that reads, The ASF will
grant 90 days to someone. Only the board and officers can make
commitments on behalf of the org.

That's just the legal side of things and is not the same as the question
of whether one should expect the ASF, should any of its entities decide
to take the forums down, provide advance warning or migration codepath.

The relevant entities in this case include IPMC, Infra, and Board.

How exactly should I understand this? Is this meant to be discouraging,
like: forum people, you might as well leave right now?


Er, no, it shouldn't be discouraging.  It's just stating the fact that 
the PPMC here doesn't physically own the servers we'd be hosting on - 
they belong to the ASF.  Remember that the ASF's purpose is to provide 
software for the public good, so I can't see why the ASF would ever just 
turn off the server unless it was for an security breach.



Given the greater - or lesser - degree of trust in this matter, I really 
don't know how to make people feel better about this than to show an 
example.  Bear with me for a moment as we learn about the Apache Attic - 
the place Apache projects go when they're no longer active.


Apache projects rely on healthy, diverse communities to function.  As 
technology changes, older projects sometimes lose community energy. 
Take Apache Xalan as a current example.  Back in 1999 when I started 
when Xalan was started as a project at the ASF, XML and XSLT were The 
Next Big Thing, and were the huge buzzwords of the day.  The project 
flourished, and provided a great product that ended up within 2 years at 
having over 80% marketshare (by a rough calculation).  Things were great.


Fast forward 10 years later to 2009.  The XML/XSLT processing stack is 
old news; the core features haven't changed in ages, and even minor bug 
fixes are rare, given that the software is so mature.  Vendors that had 
originally put employees to work on Xalan had focused elsewhere, and the 
community was quiet.


Come up to 2010.  The Xalan project still answers the occasional 
questions, but it's reports to the board get monotonous.  Nothing's 
really happening - nothing bad is happening, but nothing much good 
either.  The board starts to ask what's up, but some remaining PMC 
members say that they still hope to do more work on the project.


Come to 2011.  The project fails to report sometimes, and fails to give 
a real response to the board when they are asked if they still have a 
healthy, viable community.  A resolution to move Xalan to the attic is 
put on the board agenda, but is tabled a number of times because 
directors want to make absolutely sure that the whole of the Xalan 
community has had a chance to show sufficiently diverse activity to 
continue.


Wait!  They have a new committer and PMC member, with a new plan! 
Great, the board says: see what you can do with some new energy, and 
report on your progress next quarter.  The board passed a resolution 
rebooting the Xalan PMC to give them a new chance.


Even if Xalan hadn't found a sufficient community to continue working, 
the code still wouldn't have been gone.  Projects that show no healthy 
activity are given plenty of chance, and then are carefully boxed up 
and put into the Apache Attic, where all resources are carefully 
preserved in a read-only state, available for anyone to fork or take as 
they please (under the Apache license).


So I really don't see *any* need to fear that Apache will turn off the 
servers.


- Shane

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

I think by far the most important thing to realize is that we are trying 
to come up with well understood, basic guidelines for collaborative 
community governance here, under the broad umbrella of the Apache Way 
and an ASF podling.  We are not trying to come up with an international 
treaty with multinational repercussions, nor are we trying to come up 
with a detailed technical specification for a global technology standard.


I applaud attempts to make the overall proposal better understood by the 
whole community, but have to say the overly detailed and legalistic 
parsing of the wording is over the top here.


The main caveat for all of this is: the Apache OOo PPMC is the 
responsible body - as a whole - for managing and providing oversight of 
any content published from the project; this includes the website.  So 
whatever details are agreed here will always be subject to revision (by 
appropriate votes or consensus) as the community grows.


On 10/11/2011 4:32 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org  wrote:

...snip...


*C.* Forum admins must sign the ICLA. They will interact with the
Apache Infra group and should be official project members. At least
one Moderator, who will sign the ICLA, or Admin on every NL forum will
commit to reporting forum status to the Project as determined by the
Apache OpenOffice PPMC



Working with Apache Infra requires you have an Apache ID.  Without an
ID you cannot get onto their mailing list.  Without an ID you have no
identity in the system that they can assign permissions to.  What is
really required is becoming a Committer.  That's what gets you an
Apache ID.Signing the iCLA is a pre-req for becoming a committer.
But the iCLA by itself is not enough.


Actually anyone is welcome to work with Apache infra on their normal 
mailing lists or even open JIRAs to get work done, so there's no strict 
need for Apache IDs in many cases; not sure where you got that idea. 
However there are many tasks that are simpler to do within the ASF if 
the requester is a committer, so it certainly helps to be a committer.




...snip...

*D.* Moderators and Volunteers will keep their current functions and
will be created through the traditional process of nomination and lazy
consensus on the forum.



If I read Dennis's cover letter correctly, he is asking the PPMC to
bind ourselves to this proposal. Do we really want to bind ourselves
to a decision making process and say that we will never change it?  Do
we want to say that even if the forum volunteers, in the future, want
to change the traditional process, they cannot because the PPMC
agreed previously to maintain this process?

Maybe just say something like Existing moderators and Volunteers will
keep their current functions.  New moderators and volunteers will be
created through the traditional process of nomination and lazy
consensus on the forum, or by other means as the project may determine
in the future.


Most of this is not a legal contract requiring binding signatures in 
triplicate, so personally, whatever people want to write here is fine 
with me.  I would hope that everyone is aware that how the project 
operates *is* going to change in the future as it grows - and the way 
that the project operates will follow the Apache Way of consensus-driven 
and collaborative changes.



*E.* Any [Apache Member|http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html]
or [Apache OpenOffice
PPMC|http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html] member can
request Apache Observer status and thereby gain read and write access
to all forums, including Forum Issues, and have read access to the
logs. Apache Observers will not have the capability to edit, delete or
move posts or perform administrative functions unless otherwise
elected to those positions by normal forum rules.



This is good.  However, I think we need someone with the ability to
edit, delete, etc.  Someone with oversite authority should have all of
those permissions.  Maybe the IPMC Chair?  Maybe Apache Infra?  (Maybe
they have that ability already?).


Since infra will be hosting the system, I would certainly expect they 
can grant write rights as needed for ASF business.


...snip...

*G.* The new Terms of Use will be similar to the current ToU,
particularly the clause that
You hereby grant to the Host and all Users a royalty-free, perpetual,
irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right
and license under Your intellectual property rights to reproduce,
modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from,
distribute, perform, display and use Your Submissions (in whole or
part) and to incorporate them in other works in any form, media, or
technology now known or later developed, all subject to the obligation
to retain any copyright notices included in Your Submissions. All
Users, the Host, and their sublicensees are responsible for any
modifications they make to the Submissions of others.  Note

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
 I think by far the most important thing to realize is that we are trying to
 come up with well understood, basic guidelines for collaborative community
 governance here, under the broad umbrella of the Apache Way and an ASF
 podling.  We are not trying to come up with an international treaty with
 multinational repercussions, nor are we trying to come up with a detailed
 technical specification for a global technology standard.

 I applaud attempts to make the overall proposal better understood by the
 whole community, but have to say the overly detailed and legalistic parsing
 of the wording is over the top here.


Shane, The proposal was not thrown together in an hour.I'm showing
respect by reviewing the proposal with the same attention with which
it was obviously written.

 The main caveat for all of this is: the Apache OOo PPMC is the responsible
 body - as a whole - for managing and providing oversight of any content
 published from the project; this includes the website.  So whatever details
 are agreed here will always be subject to revision (by appropriate votes or
 consensus) as the community grows.

 On 10/11/2011 4:32 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

 On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org  wrote:

 ...snip...

 *C.* Forum admins must sign the ICLA. They will interact with the
 Apache Infra group and should be official project members. At least
 one Moderator, who will sign the ICLA, or Admin on every NL forum will
 commit to reporting forum status to the Project as determined by the
 Apache OpenOffice PPMC


 Working with Apache Infra requires you have an Apache ID.  Without an
 ID you cannot get onto their mailing list.  Without an ID you have no
 identity in the system that they can assign permissions to.  What is
 really required is becoming a Committer.  That's what gets you an
 Apache ID.    Signing the iCLA is a pre-req for becoming a committer.
 But the iCLA by itself is not enough.

 Actually anyone is welcome to work with Apache infra on their normal mailing
 lists or even open JIRAs to get work done, so there's no strict need for
 Apache IDs in many cases; not sure where you got that idea. However there
 are many tasks that are simpler to do within the ASF if the requester is a
 committer, so it certainly helps to be a committer.


Where did I get this idea?  From this page [1] where it says,

The infrastruct...@apache.org mailing list is used by the
Foundation's infrastructure team to discuss issues concerning the
operation of the overall Apache Software Foundation systems.
Participation in this list is only available to committers of the
Apache Software Foundation

Are you saying that there is  a normal Apache Infra mailing list
where this is not true?

[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-infrastructure


 ...snip...

 *D.* Moderators and Volunteers will keep their current functions and
 will be created through the traditional process of nomination and lazy
 consensus on the forum.


 If I read Dennis's cover letter correctly, he is asking the PPMC to
 bind ourselves to this proposal. Do we really want to bind ourselves
 to a decision making process and say that we will never change it?  Do
 we want to say that even if the forum volunteers, in the future, want
 to change the traditional process, they cannot because the PPMC
 agreed previously to maintain this process?

 Maybe just say something like Existing moderators and Volunteers will
 keep their current functions.  New moderators and volunteers will be
 created through the traditional process of nomination and lazy
 consensus on the forum, or by other means as the project may determine
 in the future.

 Most of this is not a legal contract requiring binding signatures in
 triplicate, so personally, whatever people want to write here is fine with
 me.  I would hope that everyone is aware that how the project operates *is*
 going to change in the future as it grows - and the way that the project
 operates will follow the Apache Way of consensus-driven and collaborative
 changes.

 *E.* Any [Apache Member|http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html]
 or [Apache OpenOffice
 PPMC|http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/people.html] member can
 request Apache Observer status and thereby gain read and write access
 to all forums, including Forum Issues, and have read access to the
 logs. Apache Observers will not have the capability to edit, delete or
 move posts or perform administrative functions unless otherwise
 elected to those positions by normal forum rules.


 This is good.  However, I think we need someone with the ability to
 edit, delete, etc.  Someone with oversite authority should have all of
 those permissions.  Maybe the IPMC Chair?  Maybe Apache Infra?  (Maybe
 they have that ability already?).

 Since infra will be hosting the system, I would certainly expect they can
 grant write rights as

RE: PMC report for October 2011

I'll provide a PPMC Status: Bringing Initial Committers On-Board update on 
ooo-dev tonight and then reflect that state on the PMC report for October 2011.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 17:25
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: PMC report for October 2011

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.org wrote:
 Added some items for the October report for OOo. Feel free to chip in.

 http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/October2011?action=diffrev2=11rev1=10

I've made some additions and moved things around to bring it more in
line with our earlier reports.  There are some things that we have
been reporting each time, like number of committers and PPMC members.
It would be good if Dennis could review that information.  I saw we
had 75 committers currently, up from 72 last month.  But I am not
aware of what our PPMC count is now.

http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/October2011

-Rob

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement




On 10/11/2011 8:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Shane Curcurua...@shanecurcuru.org  wrote:

...snip...


Actually anyone is welcome to work with Apache infra on their normal mailing
lists or even open JIRAs to get work done, so there's no strict need for
Apache IDs in many cases; not sure where you got that idea. However there
are many tasks that are simpler to do within the ASF if the requester is a
committer, so it certainly helps to be a committer.



Where did I get this idea?  From this page [1] where it says,

The infrastruct...@apache.org mailing list is used by the
Foundation's infrastructure team to discuss issues concerning the
operation of the overall Apache Software Foundation systems.
Participation in this list is only available to committers of the
Apache Software Foundation

Are you saying that there is  a normal Apache Infra mailing list
where this is not true?

[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-infrastructure


Good point.  Can't help ya on that one.  But there are plenty of people 
who aren't committers who can send emails to the infrastructure@ list to 
ask questions, report problems, and sometimes even get responses back 
from the list.


Dunno if we'd agree that that kind of behavior would be covered under 
the definition of the word work, but it's far too late to day for me 
to discuss that intelligently.


I'm sure infra and many other projects will welcome your patches to 
their websites to clarify details like this.


- Shane

RE: Status of migration of OOo domains?

--- On Tue, 10/11/11, Gavin McDonald ga...@16degrees.com.au wrote:

 From: Gavin McDonald ga...@16degrees.com.au
 Subject: RE: Status of migration of OOo domains?
 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
 Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2011, 6:05 PM

  -Original Message-
  From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
  Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2011 5:27 AM
  To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
  Subject: Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?

  On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 orc...@apache.org
  wrote:
   I am not sure that a complete list is being dealt
 with in the manner
   Shane is requesting.

  Like anything happens around here based on someone's
 request?
  Remember, most people here are volunteers, not
 employees.  I don;t think
  they take requests.

  This is really quite simple.  The legacy website
 migration will triage itself
  based on interest of the members.  The critical
 stuff will be migrated.  Some
  of the nice to have stuff will get migrated. 
 And the stuff that no one cares
  about will be lost.  That's life.

  I was making a list yesterday of what I thought the
 most critical parts of the
  legacy website are.  My list was:

  1) Source control, including CWS's

  2) Bugzilla

  3) phpBB forums

  4) Pootle

  I'm pleased to say that we've migrated two of these,
 and we're discussing a
  proposal for the 3rd, and the 4th doesn't look too
 hard.

 Please let infra know via a JIRA ticket when you are ready
 for the forums migration
 to be completed, I'm waiting with baited breath. I am not
 going to continue to 
 trawl these lists for hints of what you guys want, please
 let me know via infra
 list or ticket when you are ready.

 snip

    4. The OpenOffice Wiki had been brought up
...

   Apache infrastructure.  Instead of acquiring
 that capability, there is
   ad hoc preparation to convert the OpenOffice
 MediaWiki to Confluence
   Wiki despite warnings that this is going to take
 far more effort for less
  appealing result than is foreseen.

 I have yet to see a request to infra either via the mailing
 the list or the Jira that you want this migration doing.

 Consider me 'sufficiently skilled' to do the migration and
 let me know via infra
 list or jira ticket what you decide to do with it.

No one replied on the infra@ list and it seemed like it was
going nowhere so I closed JIRA INFRA-3917.

If you feel like resurrecting it, that would be great!

Pedro.

Introduction Francis C. Costero

2011-10-11 Thread F C. Costero

Hello to all. I've been lurking here for a while and I'm a volunteer on 
the EN and ES user forums with the user names FJCC and FJCC-ES. I helped 
put together the proposal under discussion for bringing the forums into 
the Apache project. I hope I can provide some information here about the 
opinions on the forum, though, of course, I don't have any official 
standing as THE forum representative. I'm just one of the gang.

Francis

RE: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

PS: The public infrastructure-dev and infrastructure-issues (JIRA reports) 
lists are under ASF-wide lists at 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/.

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 17:57
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

Beside infrastructure@ a.o, there is the public list infrastructure-dev @ a.o.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 17:47
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
[ .. ]
 Actually anyone is welcome to work with Apache infra on their normal mailing
 lists or even open JIRAs to get work done, so there's no strict need for
 Apache IDs in many cases; not sure where you got that idea. However there
 are many tasks that are simpler to do within the ASF if the requester is a
 committer, so it certainly helps to be a committer.

Where did I get this idea?  From this page [1] where it says,

The infrastruct...@apache.org mailing list is used by the
Foundation's infrastructure team to discuss issues concerning the
operation of the overall Apache Software Foundation systems.
Participation in this list is only available to committers of the
Apache Software Foundation

Are you saying that there is  a normal Apache Infra mailing list
where this is not true?

[1] 
http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-infrastructure

[ ... ]

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:


 On 10/11/2011 8:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

 On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Shane Curcurua...@shanecurcuru.org
  wrote:

 ...snip...

 Actually anyone is welcome to work with Apache infra on their normal
 mailing
 lists or even open JIRAs to get work done, so there's no strict need for
 Apache IDs in many cases; not sure where you got that idea. However there
 are many tasks that are simpler to do within the ASF if the requester is
 a
 committer, so it certainly helps to be a committer.


 Where did I get this idea?  From this page [1] where it says,

 The infrastruct...@apache.org mailing list is used by the
 Foundation's infrastructure team to discuss issues concerning the
 operation of the overall Apache Software Foundation systems.
 Participation in this list is only available to committers of the
 Apache Software Foundation

 Are you saying that there is  a normal Apache Infra mailing list
 where this is not true?

 [1]
 http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-infrastructure

 Good point.  Can't help ya on that one.  But there are plenty of people who
 aren't committers who can send emails to the infrastructure@ list to ask
 questions, report problems, and sometimes even get responses back from the
 list.

 Dunno if we'd agree that that kind of behavior would be covered under the
 definition of the word work, but it's far too late to day for me to
 discuss that intelligently.

 I'm sure infra and many other projects will welcome your patches to their
 websites to clarify details like this.


We can leave this to the forum admins to resolve.  If they think they
can do their work with just infrequent and casual interactions with
Apache Infra, and they don't need write access to Subversion, shell
access, ability to share files to Infra on people.a.o, etc., then the
don't need to be committers.

But let's be honest here.  We can't maintain the podling's single
status page without access to SVN and ssh.  I suspect forum admins
will benefit from being committers.

-Rob

 - Shane

RE: Introduction Francis C. Costero

Hello Francis.  I noticed with enthusiasm the work that you did in cleaning up 
the proposal page on the Apache OOo Community Wiki.  (Being slow at many 
things, I did not connect you with FJCC on the forums until you explained it 
just now!)

Welcome,


 - Dennis E. Hamilton
   tools for document interoperability,  http://nfoWorks.org/
   dennis.hamil...@acm.org  gsm: +1-206-779-9430  @orcmid




-Original Message-
From: F C. Costero [mailto:fjcc.apa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 18:19
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Introduction Francis C. Costero

Hello to all. I've been lurking here for a while and I'm a volunteer on
the EN and ES user forums with the user names FJCC and FJCC-ES. I helped
put together the proposal under discussion for bringing the forums into
the Apache project. I hope I can provide some information here about the
opinions on the forum, though, of course, I don't have any official
standing as THE forum representative. I'm just one of the gang.
Francis


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: PMC report for October 2011

2011-10-11 Thread Carl Marcum


On 10/11/2011 08:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

I'll provide a PPMC Status: Bringing Initial Committers On-Board update on 
ooo-dev tonight and then reflect that state on the PMC report for October 2011.

  - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 17:25
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: PMC report for October 2011

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Alexandro Coloradoj...@openoffice.org  wrote:

Added some items for the October report for OOo. Feel free to chip in.

http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/October2011?action=diffrev2=11rev1=10


I've made some additions and moved things around to bring it more in
line with our earlier reports.  There are some things that we have
been reporting each time, like number of committers and PPMC members.
It would be good if Dennis could review that information.  I saw we
had 75 committers currently, up from 72 last month.  But I am not
aware of what our PPMC count is now.

http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/October2011

-Rob


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




I will update the incubator page with the October link.

Best regards,
Carl

Re: [PATCH] Fix for #118485#, #108221#, #67705#

Hi;

I committed it as revision 1182166, and noted it in the
bug report, but I admit the patch was too big to do a
review on it.

It was evidently a lot of work that I would hate to see
ignored and, if I understand well, this was like *really*
broken (3 issues) but in the future I will try to avoid
committing these big patches without someone else
reviewing it first.

Pedro.

--- On Tue, 10/11/11, Armin Le Grand armin.le.gr...@me.com wrote:
...
     Hi *,
 
 I took some days to fix that long missing OLE-Attribute
 feature/bug. It is on one hand a missing feature (no reason
 to not apply attributes and transformations to OLE which
 contains the same as graphical object, a MetaFile) and on
 the other a compatibility issue with a big competitor which
 is able to add attributes to OLEs for a long time.
 
 This fix was already prepared in #67705# but could not be
 activated due to a missing part of #108221#. Thanks to ORW
 (aka Oliver-Rainer) which helped to solve that.
 
 The patch adds LineStyle, FillStyle, Text, Shadow, Shear
 and Rotate to OLE objects in Draw/Impress and Calc. It adds
 Shear to graphic objects. It also fixes some long
 existing  not detected bugs to make all this work. It
 leaves OLEs and graphical objects for Writer (SW) untouched
 due to the fact that SW uses it's own implementations for
 those (one more argument for the long missing consolidation
 in SW to use DrawingLayer objects for this).
 
 Details are documented in 
 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118485,
 but here is a list:
 
 - Added LineStyle, FillStyle, Text, Shadow, Shear, Rotate
 to OLE
 - Added Shear to GraphicObjects
 - Adapted context menus in Draw/Impress, Calc
 - Adapted UNO API to allow these attribute families for
 those object types
 - Adapted interactors to show a correct preview for
 interactions
 - Adapted ConvertTo to take set attributes into account
 (was completely missing for GraphicObjects, a bug on it's
 own).
 - Adapted Text edit activation (press any key to start
 typing), activation on Return stays untouched
 - Adapted OLE activation to be centered to the now
 eventually rotated/sheared object bounds
 - Adapted MetaFile-ToSdrObject converter, transformations
 are now applied to the created SdrObjects. Deactivated one
 erroneous Item in text attribute creation which leads to bad
 errors in text generation, wrote f'up #118498# for it (HDU)
 - Adapted Import/Export to take care of added text
 - Added correction for earlier written OOo ODF files at
 load time
 - Activated the prepared attribute visualization in the OLE
 Primitive
 - Corrected attribute generation for newly created OLEs
 
 I checked all changes again and added the patch to
 #118485#. Now I'm looking for someone volunteering to add
 the patch, build AOOo and play around with OLEs a little
 bit, reading the patch will also help in this case, it's not
 too big to do so.
 
 The change looks big, but it touches no too critical parts.
 It is also necessary to bring it in AOOo3.4, this change
 relies on a version change (here: 3.3 to 3.4) to be able to
 correct files written by OOo up to 3.3 (and only those).
 
 Some background: The root problem here was that older
 versions straight ignored attributes set at OLE objects by
 just not painting them. This means that in files generated
 the attributes are written and in plain ODF OLEs are filled
 default (blue8) and have line on default (black hairline).
 
 Questions/Comments are welcome,
     Armin
 --
 ALG

Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement

2011-10-11 Thread F C. Costero

I'm not sure this is the best place to jump in here, but I'd like to
add some comments and try to summarize changes to the proposal that
may be required, or at least welcome.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Christian Grobmeier
grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
Volunteers are registered users of the forum(s) with a post count of
over 200 (or another lower limit), who visit and post regularly to
answer questions, report spam and in general show commitment to the
forum(s), as opposed to regular registered users who may never post at
all or post infrequently, or mostly post to ask questions.

I don't think we need to be ratifying details like post count of over
200. Maybe better to just say something like Volunteers are valued
users of the forum selected for their contributions.

This is how the forum currently works. Of course it might change at a
later point of time, but at the moment it works like that, and if the
forum starts at the asf, then this is how its going to fly.

I know about projects who have a similar policy, you need a specific
timeframe and you need a number of contributions to get elected.

This is a guideline, not the law. Anyway I don't think we need to
change this b/c no harm done if we leave it in.

OK. No objections. This is just my observation/recommendation.

Sorry, I don't understand. What word is matching?

More information about the Volunteer role can be found in the
[Volunteer Code of
Conduct|http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50t=12579]

Passive voice. Could we reword it in active voice so it expresses who
removes/restores their rank? Or is this something that is automated
by phpBB?

To my knowledge he/she must ask for it.

Please be aware that most people on the forum are not native speakers.

OK. It may not matter, since it is not putting a requirement on the
PPMC. It doesn't really need to be in the proposal at all. But no
harm if it stays.

OK.

I, at least, agree that this paragraph could be deleted, though it
really isn't part of the Proposal, which is below it. It is evidence
of what happens when even a

Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?

2011-10-11 Thread Andrew Rist




On Oct 11, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Gavin McDonald ga...@16degrees.com.au wrote:

 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
 Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2011 5:27 AM
 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
 Subject: Re: Status of migration of OOo domains?
 
 On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org
 wrote:
 I am not sure that a complete list is being dealt with in the manner
 Shane is requesting.
 
 
 Like anything happens around here based on someone's request?
 Remember, most people here are volunteers, not employees.  I don;t think
 they take requests.
 
 This is really quite simple.  The legacy website migration will triage itself
 based on interest of the members.  The critical stuff will be migrated.  Some
 of the nice to have stuff will get migrated.  And the stuff that no one 
 cares
 about will be lost.  That's life.
 
 I was making a list yesterday of what I thought the most critical parts of 
 the
 legacy website are.  My list was:
 
 1) Source control, including CWS's
 
 2) Bugzilla
 
 3) phpBB forums
 
 4) Pootle
 
 I'm pleased to say that we've migrated two of these, and we're discussing a
 proposal for the 3rd, and the 4th doesn't look too hard.
 
 Please let infra know via a JIRA ticket when you are ready for the forums 
 migration
 to be completed, I'm waiting with baited breath. I am not going to continue 
 to 
 trawl these lists for hints of what you guys want, please let me know via 
 infra
 list or ticket when you are ready.
 
 snip
 
 
 4. The OpenOffice Wiki had been brought up on an Apache-hosted
 system.  There is proof-of-concept, in effect, and a pilot operation.
 There is serious doubt whether sufficient skilled hands are available
 for conducting the server and site administration, providing
 coordinated staging, and operating a transferred MediaWiki site on
 Apache infrastructure.  Instead of acquiring that capability, there is
 ad hoc preparation to convert the OpenOffice MediaWiki to Confluence
 Wiki despite warnings that this is going to take far more effort for less
 appealing result than is foreseen.
 
 I have yet to see a request to infra either via the mailing the list or the 
 Jira
 that you want this migration doing.
 
 Consider me 'sufficiently skilled' to do the migration
Do you mean migration from mediawiki to Confluence?
 
 and let me know via infra
 list or jira ticket what you decide to do with it.
 
 All I need for forums and wiki migration is upto date copies of the dbs.
 
I have access to the machines to provide the up to date DBS copies.

Andrew
 Once more so it is clear, I do not read all mails on this list so I may miss 
 any 
 requests or ideas or whatnot, come to infra when you made your minds up.
 
 
 Gav...

RE: Status of migration of OOo domains?