On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hi Rob;
>
>
> - Messaggio originale -
>> Da: Rob Weir
>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Messaggio originale -
Da: Rob Weir
>>> ...
https://plus.google.com/
Hi Rob;
- Messaggio originale -
> Da: Rob Weir
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Messaggio originale -
>>> Da: Rob Weir
>> ...
>>>
>>> https://plus.google.com/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
>>>
>>> You wrote:
>>>
>>
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
>
>
>
> - Messaggio originale -
>> Da: Rob Weir
> ...
>>
>> https://plus.google.com/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> "OO is dead, LO is alive, switch immediately.
>>
>> The article sorta gets that across
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:45 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 22 January 2013 15:36, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> So this does not suggest "good faith". In fact, it suggests a
>> profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as well
>> as having an axe to grind.
>
>
> An opinion is not the s
- Messaggio originale -
> Da: Rob Weir
...
>
> https://plus.google.com/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
>
> You wrote:
>
> "OO is dead, LO is alive, switch immediately.
>
> The article sorta gets that across - read the history and LibreOffice
> sections. Apache OpenOffice is
On 22 January 2013 15:36, Rob Weir wrote:
> So this does not suggest "good faith". In fact, it suggests a
> profound ignorance of the project and what we've been doing, as well
> as having an axe to grind.
An opinion is not the same as a conflict of interest; I am of course
open to persuasion.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:21 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 22 January 2013 15:06, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>
>> I'm not going to do this on your timing or your terms.
>
>
> The other apposite Wikipedia policy page:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
>
So I hope you'll assume
On Jan 22, 2013, at 7:20 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
> wrote:
>> On 1/22/13 3:59 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
>>> There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its
>>> own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Saransh Sharma wrote:
> Is there any difference in OOO and AOO
>
It was a product renaming. OpenOffice.org was the name used from
2000, when Sun initially made their StarOffice (acquired from
StarDivision) product open source, until around December 2011 when we
On 22 January 2013 15:06, Rob Weir wrote:
> I'm not going to do this on your timing or your terms.
The other apposite Wikipedia policy page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
(Compare: https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/draftlist-conduct-policy.html )
> A look at th
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 1/22/13 3:59 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its
>> own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its
>> own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a H
On 1/22/13 4:06 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:43 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> Take a look at the lovely new page:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>>> Some choice bits of distortion:
>>
>>
>> Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I want
On 1/22/13 3:59 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
> There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its
> own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its
> own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History of OO page?
I hope not because AOO is OOO and even if
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:43 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>
>>Take a look at the lovely new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>>Some choice bits of distortion:
>
>
> Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it.
>
> Useful pages in dealing with
Is there any difference in OOO and AOO
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
> There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its
> own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its
> own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History
There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its
own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its
own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History of OO page?
Though if there isn't an OO page it might start a redirect war...
Don
On Mon, Jan 21, 20
On Jan 21, 2013, at 7:02 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>>
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Take a look at the lovely new page:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>>> Some choice bits of distortion:
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wa
David Gerard wrote:
>
> Rob Weir wrote:
>
>>
>> Take a look at the lovely new page:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>> Some choice bits of distortion:
>
>
>
> Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it.
>
> Useful pages in dealing with contentious topics (w
Rob Weir wrote:
>Take a look at the lovely new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>Some choice bits of distortion:
Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it.
Useful pages in dealing with contentious topics (which is everything):
https://en.wikipedia.o
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> Don
> Thanks
> Inline...
>
>
> Donald Whytock wrote:
>> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
>> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
>> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but
Don
Thanks
Inline...
Donald Whytock wrote:
> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
> argument.
>
> Regarding conflicts of interes
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
> argument.
>
> Regarding conflicts
Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
argument.
Regarding conflicts of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simp
Rob Weir wrote:
>> For what it is worth, I too am a Wikipedia editor. Many are, and it's
>> > not anything to write home about as something special. But it does mean
>> > that presenting a more truthful and honest account of Apache OpenOffice
>> > is something we can do.
>> >
>
> So what can you d
put
a flag on the play.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 19:24
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; lo...@apache.org
Subject: Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
over the holidays
[ ..
the tipping toward LibreOffice is also meaningless and
>>> doesn't belong in this article anyhow. His tweeting that he's like
>>> more eyes on the article seems benign to me. I don't see "bragging"
>>> and certainly not about FUD.
>>>
on the article seems benign to me. I don't see "bragging"
>> and certainly not about FUD.
>>
>> I do agree that there is far too much information about
>> LibreOffice, since LibreOffice has its own article. Many of the
>> declarations about that and how
e posturing/FUD.
>
> The OpenOffice article probably needs one of those notices that it is not up
> to standard, etc.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 15:47
> To: dev@openoffi
e is not appropriate for LibreOffice posturing/FUD.
The OpenOffice article probably needs one of those notices that it is not up to
standard, etc.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 15:47
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Su
I noticed David Gerard bragging about this on Twitter to Roy
Schestowitz: https://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/293102313751584768
Take a look at the lovely new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
Some choice bits of distortion:
"In June 2011, Oracle contributed the code and tradem
30 matches
Mail list logo
