Hi Paolo, all,
Am 03.07.22 um 13:50 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
> Hi all,
>
> On 03/07/2022 00:21, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> (...)
> is important to look at the past to try to correct eventual mistakes
> and avoid repeating them.
>
>> If you want to change the status quo, I suggest you pledge your
El 1/7/22 a las 17:16, Cor Nouws escribió:
Hi,
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 01/07/2022 13:54:
On 29/06/2022 22:29, Marco Marinello wrote:
I want to put it in black and white: being the most committing
contributor does not allow anyone to pick the source and move it away,
while have previously
Hi all,
On 03/07/2022 00:21, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Hi Andreas, all,
Andreas Mantke wrote:
Thus the board has to amend the result at least. And if the vote of the
member with a CoI was decisive the proposal was rejected.
Our current CoI policy makes some helpful distinctions between an
El 2 de julio de 2022 7:21:50 p. m. GMT-03:00, Thorsten Behrens
escribió:
>Hi Andreas, all,
>
>Andreas Mantke wrote:
>> Thus the board has to amend the result at least. And if the vote of the
>> member with a CoI was decisive the proposal was rejected.
>>
>Our current CoI policy makes some
Hi Andreas, all,
Andreas Mantke wrote:
> Thus the board has to amend the result at least. And if the vote of the
> member with a CoI was decisive the proposal was rejected.
>
Our current CoI policy makes some helpful distinctions between an
interest in something, and the determination of an
Hi Paolo, all,
Am 01.07.22 um 13:54 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
> (...)
>
> Regarding the freeze in my opinion should have never happened but at
> the time we didn't have a clear CoI Policy so a single vote from a
> what now would be considered a conflicted member of the board made
> that happen:
>
>
Hi,
Paolo Vecchi wrote on 01/07/2022 13:54:
On 29/06/2022 22:29, Marco Marinello wrote:
I want to put it in black and white: being the most committing
contributor does not allow anyone to pick the source and move it away,
while have previously agreed to develop under a non profitable
Hi Marco,
thanks for your clarifications.
On 29/06/2022 22:29, Marco Marinello wrote:
Il 27/06/22 13:31, Jan Holesovsky ha scritto:
Now the question is - does TDF want to be in a business of rebranding
other well behaving open source projects?
Yes. Specifically since a company decided to
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Mantke píše v So 25. 06. 2022 v 00:05 +0200:
> FYI: I wrote a short blog post about my work. And for those who like
> visuals, I added two ones.
>
> https://amantke.de/2022/06/25/work-on-revival-of-libreoffice-online/
Thank you for sharing that!
Seeing the pictures, you
Hi Andreas,
On 24/06/2022 16:51, Andreas Mantke wrote:
I'm not sure, if you as a former Collabora staff member don't any
potential CoI in the whole topic.
I'm pretty sure though =) László hasn't worked with Collabora since
2017 and AFAIK has no (even indirect) commercial relationship
Hi Andreas, *,
Andreas Mantke wrote:
> I don't see the necessary respect for the work of every individual
> in the LibreOffice community and all talents. It looks like if the
> developers think they are the only important part in the community.
>
TDF has been celebrating & acknowledging the work
Replying from the smartphone.
The LibreOffice Technology umbrella brand has been developed to group all
products based on the LibreOffice transactional engine, independently from
their origin and from details which are irrelevant for the end user such as
file's headers.
Prohibiting its use
Hi Sophie and all,
On 25/06/2022 01:44, sophi wrote:
Hi Andreas, all
Le 25/06/2022 à 00:05, Andreas Mantke a écrit :
Hi all,
FYI: I wrote a short blog post about my work. And for those who like
visuals, I added two ones.
https://amantke.de/2022/06/25/work-on-revival-of-libreoffice-online/
Hi Laszlo, all,
Am 24.06.22 um 20:57 schrieb laszlo.nem...@documentfoundation.org:
> (...)
> Forking is possible for everyone, but only with renaming. So it was
> very unfair to write about that renaming is some evil thing, while
> that was likely a mandatory trade mark issue for Collabora
>
Hi Laszlo,
thanks for your engagement. Just a few notes as I've been directly
involved in proposing to get the community to be more involved with LOOL
and to enjoy it's use while trying to agree with the major code
contributor a mutually beneficial way to do it.
On 24/06/2022 17:27,
El 25 de junio de 2022 8:53:54 a. m. GMT-03:00, Andreas Mantke
escribió:
>Hi Sophie, all,
>
>Am 25.06.22 um 01:44 schrieb sophi:
>> Hi Andreas, all
>> Le 25/06/2022 à 00:05, Andreas Mantke a écrit :
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> FYI: I wrote a short blog post about my work. And for those who like
>>>
Hi Sophie, all,
Am 25.06.22 um 01:44 schrieb sophi:
> Hi Andreas, all
> Le 25/06/2022 à 00:05, Andreas Mantke a écrit :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> FYI: I wrote a short blog post about my work. And for those who like
>> visuals, I added two ones.
>>
>>
Andreas thanks for taking the time to put all those bits together in
your post. And would like to add that you are not the first developer
stating that there were an artificial barrier for LOOL development and
that is reflected in the lack of contributions back claimed by Lazlo.
/me don't
Hi Andreas, all
Le 25/06/2022 à 00:05, Andreas Mantke a écrit :
Hi all,
FYI: I wrote a short blog post about my work. And for those who like
visuals, I added two ones.
https://amantke.de/2022/06/25/work-on-revival-of-libreoffice-online/
Thanks a lot for your work on this, I really appreciate
Hi all,
FYI: I wrote a short blog post about my work. And for those who like
visuals, I added two ones.
https://amantke.de/2022/06/25/work-on-revival-of-libreoffice-online/
Regards,
Andreas
--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog
--
To
Hi all,
Am 24.06.22 um 20:57 schrieb laszlo.nem...@documentfoundation.org:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> On 2022-06-24 17:51, Andreas Mantke wrote:
> (..)
>>
>> I also have no idea why it's not possible to work on a common ground of
>> LOOL (LibreOffice Online) and why it is/was instead necessary to fork
>>
Hi Andreas,
On 2022-06-24 17:51, Andreas Mantke wrote:
Hi Laszlo, all,
I'm not sure, if you as a former Collabora staff member don't any
potential CoI in the whole topic.
I'd prefer if only community members without potential CoI share their
opinion on this topic.
I'm not only a former
Hi Laszlo, all,
I'm not sure, if you as a former Collabora staff member don't any
potential CoI in the whole topic.
I'd prefer if only community members without potential CoI share their
opinion on this topic.
I also have no idea why it's not possible to work on a common ground of
LOOL
Hi,
On 2022-06-23 17:09, Paolo Vecchi wrote:
Hi Andreas,
thank you for letting us know that you are working on it.
Ideally it would be great to have a few developers working on it,
especially to fix known security issues, and sufficient activity to
make it viable.
It is true that LOOL has
Hi Andreas, Paolo, all
El 23 de junio de 2022 1:44:39 p. m. GMT-03:00, Andreas Mantke
escribió:
>Hi Paolo, all,
>
>my work on this topic is an offer to the LibreOffice community. I had to
>put some work in the update of the source code because a commercial free
>software company made some name
Hi Paolo, all,
my work on this topic is an offer to the LibreOffice community. I had to
put some work in the update of the source code because a commercial free
software company made some name changes in the source code of their fork
to make it more difficult for the LibreOffice community.
That
Hi Andreas,
thank you for letting us know that you are working on it.
Ideally it would be great to have a few developers working on it,
especially to fix known security issues, and sufficient activity to make
it viable.
It is true that LOOL has been in a kind of limbo. The repository has
Hi all,
only a short info that I'm currently working on an update of the LOOL
source code with the latest patches. Because I have an issue with my
newly bought hardware I had to migrate my environment (etc.) to another
hardware (will need some hours of spare time). Thus I was not able to
finish
28 matches
Mail list logo
