Re: Bugzilla on mailing list
Remark those that follow bugzilla-admin, will have noticed that Infra has identified a problem with BZ sending mail. I assume it will be solved quickly. Fixed for me Thanks - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [VOTE][DISCUSS] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website
I favor the option proposed by Tim Williams. I think a good interim maneuver is to remove the sidebar link and then we can fuss about the page ad lib. I haven't checked on the notice that Marcus put up just yet. If that stays, it needs to ripple through the translations too. If I have to cast a ballot on the [VOTE] as worded, it will be for deletion. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Tim Williams [mailto:william...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 09:53 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: [ ... ] I simply do not see the need that AOO goes out alone, on confrontation course with ASF, to explain the difference in licenses seen specifically for our pow. We do not need this kind of pointing fingers. Let other projects use the license they believe in and let us use the license ASF believe in without telling we are better or even different than the others. fwiw, as a lurker here, that approach is much more consistent with the broader culture around here. Leave the provocative stuff to personal blogs and media. I think a good solution is to just delete the page and add a link to the faq[1] to your existing 'free' page[2] - I just don't see any value beyond what's already written between those two. Thanks, --tim [1] - http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#WhatDoesItMEAN [2] - http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_free.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[MWiki] Account creation
Hello all, I am a technical writer based in San Diego, CA and I'd be very interested in participating in writing documentation for OpenOffice. I am, however, unsure on how to get starter. Any pointers would be appreciated. Could you please create a personal account for me (username: obricaud)? Looking forward to contributing. Best, Olivier
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
I think we need to rewrite or remove the page. We can talk about the permissive AL. We can suggest that people do their own research and/or seek their own counsel. We could even offer a google link. If we have a vote then here is my +1 to make a change as we should not be offering this type of advice. I write this as an Apache Member and AOO PMC. Rob if you think differently then you ought to be engaging other Apache Members in this discussion. Regards, Dave On Feb 19, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Marcus wrote: I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry. As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the disclaimer to the top, made it red and used Jan's wording as template to make it hopefully clear what it is. At least for the moment, the intension about the page should be clear now. But the following is still not clear. Unless it is not clarified IMHO we are discussing in circles: - Who is it that do not like the content? - How many people do we speak about since the webpage is online? - Which text parts are exacly wrong or just badly described? Thanks Marcus Am 02/19/2015 04:10 PM, schrieb jan i: Hi. We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as the page we produce are correct). There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has been added: *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses.* Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer and being on the bottom many do not even read it. We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about a lot of mails). I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on top of the page saying something like: This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC would at least stop the negative discussions. Thoughts? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Vote] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: The page in question is here: http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html Voting choices are: [ ] Leave the page as it is. [X ] Make changes in that text parts where the facts are wrong or the tone does not fit or ASF rules were broken. [ ] Delete the entire page. The vote will last for 72-hours. All are welcome to vote. PMC votes are binding. Please put comments into the parallel [VOTE][DISCUSS] thread. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[VOTE][DISCUSS] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website
Thread for discussion - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry. As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the disclaimer to the top, made it red and used Jan's wording as template to make it hopefully clear what it is. At least for the moment, the intension about the page should be clear now. THANKS. But the following is still not clear. Unless it is not clarified IMHO we are discussing in circles: - Who is it that do not like the content? among others jim who is v.p. legal and talk on behalf of the foundation in this case myself - How many people do we speak about since the webpage is online? not a lot, but point is v.p. legal of apache feel we break rules, and that os more important than the numbers - Which text parts are exacly wrong or just badly described? I think (renark the word) that it is because we compare licences. ASF At large do not do this kind of comparing, and definitively not at project level. rob@ I am +1 on calling a vote, but I eould realky prefer we could settle this without, a vote builds fronts and we need a lot more to work together. I have offered 2 solutions, including being very flexible in the wording of the disclaimer, I will leave it up to you to either call a vote or work with us all to find a solution. Please suggest a compromise, that satisfies people like jim (in short keep ASF happy) and is something you can accept. i am easy, if ASF is happy I am happy. tgds jan i Thanks Marcus Am 02/19/2015 04:10 PM, schrieb jan i: Hi. We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as the page we produce are correct). There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has been added: *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses.* Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer and being on the bottom many do not even read it. We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about a lot of mails). I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on top of the page saying something like: This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC would at least stop the negative discussions. Thoughts? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:29 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry. As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the disclaimer to the top, made it red and used Jan's wording as template to make it hopefully clear what it is. At least for the moment, the intension about the page should be clear now. THANKS. But the following is still not clear. Unless it is not clarified IMHO we are discussing in circles: - Who is it that do not like the content? among others jim who is v.p. legal and talk on behalf of the foundation in this case myself - How many people do we speak about since the webpage is online? not a lot, but point is v.p. legal of apache feel we break rules, and that os more important than the numbers - Which text parts are exacly wrong or just badly described? I think (renark the word) that it is because we compare licences. ASF At large do not do this kind of comparing, and definitively not at project level. rob@ I am +1 on calling a vote, but I eould realky prefer we could settle this without, a vote builds fronts and we need a lot more to work together. I have offered 2 solutions, including being very flexible in the wording of the disclaimer, I will leave it up to you to either call a vote or work with us all to find a solution. If there is consensus on the disclaimer then I'm fine with that. If someone has a better way of arguing the benefits of ALv2 in this context, then that's fine as well. My -1 is only on let's just delete Rob's work because I'm annoyed by too many emails about it. And, as I've said, I'll accept the results of a PMC vote over my veto. And needless to say, my veto on deletion implies my willingness to help implement an alternative approach, if we can agree on what would be acceptable. -Rob Please suggest a compromise, that satisfies people like jim (in short keep ASF happy) and is something you can accept. i am easy, if ASF is happy I am happy. tgds jan i Thanks Marcus Am 02/19/2015 04:10 PM, schrieb jan i: Hi. We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as the page we produce are correct). There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has been added: *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses.* Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer and being on the bottom many do not even read it. We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about a lot of mails). I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on top of the page saying something like: This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC would at least stop the negative discussions. Thoughts? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry. As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the disclaimer to the top, made it red and used Jan's wording as template to make it hopefully clear what it is. At least for the moment, the intension about the page should be clear now. But the following is still not clear. Unless it is not clarified IMHO we are discussing in circles: - Who is it that do not like the content? - How many people do we speak about since the webpage is online? - Which text parts are exacly wrong or just badly described? In other words, there is no consensus yet. Even the disclaimer itself represents the opinion of individuals and not the view of the PMC. -Rob Thanks Marcus Am 02/19/2015 04:10 PM, schrieb jan i: Hi. We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as the page we produce are correct). There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has been added: *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses.* Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer and being on the bottom many do not even read it. We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about a lot of mails). I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on top of the page saying something like: This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC would at least stop the negative discussions. Thoughts? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: website security certificate
Am 02/19/2015 08:08 PM, schrieb Keith N. McKenna: Marcus wrote: Am 02/19/2015 02:36 PM, schrieb jan i: On 19 February 2015 at 14:14, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:26 AM, jan ij...@apache.org wrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: The connection to this web site is not fully secure because it contains unencrypted elements (such as images). Perhaps the line: img src=http://www.openoffice.org/images/2014-eu-234x60.png; alt=Logo ApacheCon Europe 2014 / is causing this? A very good idea...since this will cause a jump from HTTPS to HTTP. I had however expected another error for this. Funny thing is, that I do not get an error on that page, even with my Certificate analyzer. I've changed all links for the grey box from HTTP to HTTPS. Let's see if this will help to solve the problem. @Brenda: Please delete your browser cache and reload the webpage. What do oyu see now? Thanks Marcus Marcus; When I delete the SeaMonkey cache and reload the page I still get the warning for a partially encrypted page. I think the content publish got stuck. Now I've also the graphic and links as HTTPS. Please try again. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [MWiki] Account creation
Please read up the documentation module on our site http://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/intro-doc.html On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Olivier Bricaud obric...@mac.com wrote: Hello all, I am a technical writer based in San Diego, CA and I'd be very interested in participating in writing documentation for OpenOffice. I am, however, unsure on how to get starter. Any pointers would be appreciated. Could you please create a personal account for me (username: obricaud)? Looking forward to contributing. Best, Olivier -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
Am 02/19/2015 08:29 PM, schrieb jan i: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Marcusmarcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry. As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the disclaimer to the top, made it red and used Jan's wording as template to make it hopefully clear what it is. At least for the moment, the intension about the page should be clear now. THANKS. But the following is still not clear. Unless it is not clarified IMHO we are discussing in circles: - Who is it that do not like the content? among others jim who is v.p. legal and talk on behalf of the foundation in this case myself OK, you both are new. And (as I learned now) just after Mr. Kuhn made a mistake. But who else? Also before Kuhn's blog post? Sorry when I bother you all. But I don't get it that we are writing tons of mails about some words on a webpage. - How many people do we speak about since the webpage is online? not a lot, but point is v.p. legal of apache feel we break rules, and that os more important than the numbers Sure, Jim may have a special voice/vote here. ;-) - Which text parts are exacly wrong or just badly described? I think (renark the word) that it is because we compare licences. ASF At large do not do this kind of comparing, and definitively not at project level. OK, when we can nail it down to 1-2 text parts then delete them (or better choose a wording in a more neutral form) and that's it - except it would break the whole concept. rob@ I am +1 on calling a vote, but I eould realky prefer we could settle this without, a vote builds fronts and we need a lot more to work together. I suggest: [ ] Leave the page as it is. [ ] Make changes in that text parts where the facts are wrong or the tone does not fit or ASF rules were broken. [ ] Delete the entire page. I have offered 2 solutions, including being very flexible in the wording of the disclaimer, I will leave it up to you to either call a vote or work with us all to find a solution. Please suggest a compromise, that satisfies people like jim (in short keep ASF happy) and is something you can accept. i am easy, if ASF is happy I am happy. Marcus Am 02/19/2015 04:10 PM, schrieb jan i: Hi. We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as the page we produce are correct). There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has been added: *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses.* Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer and being on the bottom many do not even read it. We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about a lot of mails). I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on top of the page saying something like: This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC would at least stop the negative discussions. Thoughts? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Reporting a problem with the OpenOffice Wiki
I think you are not seeing anything about Unicode because ODF is fully Unicode and so is Apache OpenOffice and it is taken for granted. It came with being based on XML. I think you are asking something not about use of Unicode but perhaps having fonts the support the characters you are interested in, having a helper for finding and introducing those characters, or perhaps having more symbols in that particular insertion feature, in the math functions, etc. If it has to do with Base, that might be a problem with database drivers that are not controlled by OpenOffice. Please be more specific and we can narrow this down to something that we can help clarify with you. Also, let us know what platform/OS you are running Apache OpenOffice on. - Dennis PS: Do not reply to me personally. I do not promise to respond. Please reply to dev@openoffice.apache.org where appropriate participants can contribute to clarifying this. -Original Message- From: Steve Henes [mailto:stevehe...@henes.net] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 09:29 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Reporting a problem with the OpenOffice Wiki As hard as it is to find a place on the website showing the improvements in the newest version of Open Office, It is even harder to find a place to let you know that it appears like an attempt to avoid making useful information easy to find I know this is the wrong place to send this to - please forward. I primarily want to know if the newest update will support a useful or very large subset of unicode characters. A search for Unicode on your site provides nothing, so I assume you don't support it. Each time I come to your site, finding anything more than a lot of statements about how wonderful you are is difficult. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
PROPOSAL: Remove the page link from the sidebar, so that the controversial page is no longer reachable from other pages on the site. Do this in all languages having the page. We can then continue this discussion about the page itself, whether it is to be recast in some manner, whether the disclaimer from ASF goes on the top (sort of like a Wikipedia warning) or not, or whether to replace it with a tombstone that refers to some ASF policy page or other flat-footed description of how the Foundation views the variety of open-source license and development models in consistency with its commitment to operation in the public interest. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:23 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Spam (11.08):Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions. I think we need to rewrite or remove the page. We can talk about the permissive AL. We can suggest that people do their own research and/or seek their own counsel. We could even offer a google link. If we have a vote then here is my +1 to make a change as we should not be offering this type of advice. I write this as an Apache Member and AOO PMC. Rob if you think differently then you ought to be engaging other Apache Members in this discussion. Regards, Dave [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: website security certificate
Marcus wrote: Am 02/19/2015 08:08 PM, schrieb Keith N. McKenna: Marcus wrote: Am 02/19/2015 02:36 PM, schrieb jan i: On 19 February 2015 at 14:14, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:26 AM, jan ij...@apache.org wrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: The connection to this web site is not fully secure because it contains unencrypted elements (such as images). Perhaps the line: img src=http://www.openoffice.org/images/2014-eu-234x60.png; alt=Logo ApacheCon Europe 2014 / is causing this? A very good idea...since this will cause a jump from HTTPS to HTTP. I had however expected another error for this. Funny thing is, that I do not get an error on that page, even with my Certificate analyzer. I've changed all links for the grey box from HTTP to HTTPS. Let's see if this will help to solve the problem. @Brenda: Please delete your browser cache and reload the webpage. What do oyu see now? Thanks Marcus Marcus; When I delete the SeaMonkey cache and reload the page I still get the warning for a partially encrypted page. I think the content publish got stuck. Now I've also the graphic and links as HTTPS. Please try again. Marcus Still getting the warning from SeaMonkey. Keith signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: website security certificate
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 07:10:56PM +0100, Marcus wrote: I've changed all links for the grey box from HTTP to HTTPS. Let's see if this will help to solve the problem. The correct solution is to use src=/path/to/image, not forcing the protocol on the url. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: website security certificate
Am 02/19/2015 09:09 PM, schrieb Keith N. McKenna: Marcus wrote: Am 02/19/2015 08:08 PM, schrieb Keith N. McKenna: Marcus wrote: Am 02/19/2015 02:36 PM, schrieb jan i: On 19 February 2015 at 14:14, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.comwrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:26 AM, jan ij...@apache.orgwrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: The connection to this web site is not fully secure because it contains unencrypted elements (such as images). Perhaps the line: img src=http://www.openoffice.org/images/2014-eu-234x60.png; alt=Logo ApacheCon Europe 2014 / is causing this? A very good idea...since this will cause a jump from HTTPS to HTTP. I had however expected another error for this. Funny thing is, that I do not get an error on that page, even with my Certificate analyzer. I've changed all links for the grey box from HTTP to HTTPS. Let's see if this will help to solve the problem. @Brenda: Please delete your browser cache and reload the webpage. What do oyu see now? Thanks Marcus Marcus; When I delete the SeaMonkey cache and reload the page I still get the warning for a partially encrypted page. I think the content publish got stuck. Now I've also the graphic and links as HTTPS. Please try again. Marcus Still getting the warning from SeaMonkey. just to be sure. Do you see/get a HTTPS URL for the graphic and link in thegrey box? What do others get when they reload the webpage? Thanks Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Assigning an issue to myself
Hi Erik, Erik Engstrom schrieb: Developers, I'd like to start working on fixing a bug from Bugzilla, but I don't know how to assign one to myself. The issue has a line Assigned To: The default entry is AOO issues mailing list (edit) (take) Click on take to assign the issue to you. Kind regards Regina - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [MWiki] Account creation
Olivier Bricaud wrote: Hello all, I am a technical writer based in San Diego, CA and I'd be very interested in participating in writing documentation for OpenOffice. I am, however, unsure on how to get starter. Any pointers would be appreciated. Could you please create a personal account for me (username: obricaud)? Looking forward to contributing. Best, Olivier Greetings Oliver; an account with user name obricaud has been created for you on the Mwiki. An email with a temporary password has been e-mailed to the address of your initial request. I also recommend that you read the documentation orientation page at http://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/intro-doc.html. This reply has been cc'd to your e-mail address as a courtesy as you are not subscribed to the mailing list. Please reply ONLY to the list and not my personal e-mail. Regards Keith N. McKenna signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [Vote] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website
[X] Make changes in that text parts where the facts are wrong or the tone does not fit or ASF rules were broken. Marcus Am 02/19/2015 08:57 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: The page in question is here: http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html Voting choices are: [ ] Leave the page as it is. [ ] Make changes in that text parts where the facts are wrong or the tone does not fit or ASF rules were broken. [ ] Delete the entire page. The vote will last for 72-hours. All are welcome to vote. PMC votes are binding. Please put comments into the parallel [VOTE][DISCUSS] thread. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Vote] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website
Rob Weir wrote: The page in question is here: http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html Voting choices are: [ ] Leave the page as it is. [ ] Make changes in that text parts where the facts are wrong or the tone does not fit or ASF rules were broken. [ ] Delete the entire page. The vote will last for 72-hours. All are welcome to vote. PMC votes are binding. Please put comments into the parallel [VOTE][DISCUSS] thread. [ ] Leave the page as it is. [X] Make changes in that text parts where the facts are wrong or the tone does not fit or ASF rules were broken. [ ] Delete the entire page. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Assigning an issue to myself
Alexandro Colorado wrote: you can simply comment on the bug, and provide patches. Once you do a few times your role will be bumped and more features would be enhanced. Actually it's enough to send a mail to the QA list http://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html and ask for QA Team privileges. Erik: Please also send a link to the issue you are working on. And welcome to OpenOffice! Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: website security certificate
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:26 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: The connection to this web site is not fully secure because it contains unencrypted elements (such as images). Perhaps the line: img src=http://www.openoffice.org/images/2014-eu-234x60.png; alt=Logo ApacheCon Europe 2014 / is causing this? S.
Re: website security certificate
On 19 February 2015 at 14:14, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:26 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: The connection to this web site is not fully secure because it contains unencrypted elements (such as images). Perhaps the line: img src=http://www.openoffice.org/images/2014-eu-234x60.png; alt=Logo ApacheCon Europe 2014 / is causing this? A very good idea...since this will cause a jump from HTTPS to HTTP. I had however expected another error for this. Funny thing is, that I do not get an error on that page, even with my Certificate analyzer. rgds jan I. S.
Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
Hi. We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as the page we produce are correct). There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has been added: *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses.* Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer and being on the bottom many do not even read it. We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about a lot of mails). I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on top of the page saying something like: This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC would at least stop the negative discussions. Thoughts? rgds jan I.
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Hi. We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as the page we produce are correct). There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has been added: *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses.* Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer and being on the bottom many do not even read it. We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about a lot of mails). I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on top of the page saying something like: This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC would at least stop the negative discussions. Thoughts? What exactly on this page do you think is an opinion and not a fact? Maybe we can focus on the specifics? I'd note also that this is one page of several, each of which the same accusation can be made. For example: OpenOffice can be freely used and distributed with no license worries. http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_edu.html Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it? Should we remove this page as well? And: Using Apache OpenOffice demonstrates your commitment to deliver best value services. It is not owned by any commercial organisation. Its open source license means there are no license fees to pay, no expensive annual audits, and no worries about non-compliance with onerous and obscure licensing conditions. You may also distribute the software free to your employees, through the schools system, or any other channel of your choice. http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_gov.html Same idea, claiming that the licence of AOO is an advantage, in this case to government users. And: And OpenOffice offers a high degree of compatibility with commercial office software, but with none of the costs or license worries. http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_sme.html Same idea there. And http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_odf.html This page claims advantages of using ODF. Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it? Should we remove this page as well? I'm a bit puzzled why we suddenly think that expressing a viewpoint or touting advantages of AOO is unusual or suspect. It should not be odd to remark that the licence *mandatory* for use by Apache projects is in some way preferable to the licence that is *forbidden* for use in all Apache projects. It should not be seen as controversial to note that. So a -1 from be for removing any of these pages. If you want a more prominent disclaimer on *all* of them, then I'm fine with that. Regards, -Rob rgds jan I. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: New Contributor Looking for Directory Information
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Patrick Lynn plynn...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, my name is Patrick Lynn and I am a student at College of Charleston who is working on bug fixes for AOO this semester with my team. We have familiarized ourselves with the bug system but I was wondering if their is any information on the folder layout of AOO. As it stands whenever we find a bug that seems reasonably easy to fix we don't have the faintest idea where in the code it would be as there are a ton of folders and we aren't sure how the code is distributed among them. I'm not even sure where to look at just the code for Writer. If there is some document that details the contents of the folder system it would be much appreciated. If there isn't, what would be your best suggestion for navigating the code? Hi Patrick, the expertise on the mailing list is better than the documentation on the website. So the easiest thing would be to send a note to the mailing list linking to the issue you want to fix and ask for hints on how to work on it. Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Hi. We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as the page we produce are correct). There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has been added: *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses.* Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer and being on the bottom many do not even read it. We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about a lot of mails). I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on top of the page saying something like: This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC would at least stop the negative discussions. Thoughts? What exactly on this page do you think is an opinion and not a fact? Maybe we can focus on the specifics? I'd note also that this is one page of several, each of which the same accusation can be made. For example: OpenOffice can be freely used and distributed with no license worries. http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_edu.html Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it? Should we remove this page as well? And: Using Apache OpenOffice demonstrates your commitment to deliver best value services. It is not owned by any commercial organisation. Its open source license means there are no license fees to pay, no expensive annual audits, and no worries about non-compliance with onerous and obscure licensing conditions. You may also distribute the software free to your employees, through the schools system, or any other channel of your choice. http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_gov.html Same idea, claiming that the licence of AOO is an advantage, in this case to government users. And: And OpenOffice offers a high degree of compatibility with commercial office software, but with none of the costs or license worries. http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_sme.html Same idea there. And http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_odf.html This page claims advantages of using ODF. Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it? Should we remove this page as well? I'm a bit puzzled why we suddenly think that expressing a viewpoint or touting advantages of AOO is unusual or suspect. It should not be odd to remark that the licence *mandatory* for use by Apache projects is in some way preferable to the licence that is *forbidden* for use in all Apache projects. It should not be seen as controversial to note that. To me life is quite simple, I get email from apache people I respect and know what they stand for, saying this page gives a false impression, not in terms of facts, but in terms of whose opinions are expressed. When my inbox start filling with such mails, I tend to take a look myself...and in this case I find it correct that the page looks as being the opinion of ASF and AOO unless you are a lawyer and read the bottom line carefully. I am not in a position to discuss the actual content, and that it really not the discussion point. We have enough other problems, we do not need to create morewe do not need to make Apache friends of the project negative by not following a simple recommendation. It is a lot better that we show responsibility and act instead of running the risk, that we get told what to do. So a -1 from be for removing any of these pages. If you want a more prominent disclaimer on *all* of them, then I'm fine with that. I have no opinion on that the *all* part, if you think that gives a better result then I am all for it. rgds jan I. Regards, -Rob rgds jan I. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
I saw no confusion in the article and I enjoyed it But it is odd that the page exists there of it is an unrelated opinion piece. That said, of it is indicating a reason the license fire AOO is desirable, that is different. On Feb 19, 2015 10:10 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Hi. We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as the page we produce are correct). There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has been added: *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses.* Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer and being on the bottom many do not even read it. We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about a lot of mails). I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on top of the page saying something like: This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC would at least stop the negative discussions. Thoughts? rgds jan I. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
On 18.02.2015 20:46, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 08/02/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: I will send a resolution for the next Board Meeting (18 February) for replacing me with Jan Iversen. The Board has just approved the resolution, so Jan Iversen is the new OpenOffice PMC Chair (or, to state it in official terms, Jan is the new VP, Apache OpenOffice). I've updated the Foundations records accordingly. Jan is now listed as Chair at http://www.apache.org/foundation/index.html and in internal ASF resources. Congratulations, Jan! And let's continue to work together for the continued success of OpenOffice. Congratulations, Jan! Andrea: thank you very much for your incredible (thoroughful and patient) work as PMC chair for AOO. I have been very impressed by your professionalism, which has been serving the AOO project a lot! I am glad that you keep sticking with the AOO project and looking forward to meeting you on one of those conference occasions again! ---rony - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
New Contributor Looking for Directory Information
Hi, my name is Patrick Lynn and I am a student at College of Charleston who is working on bug fixes for AOO this semester with my team. We have familiarized ourselves with the bug system but I was wondering if their is any information on the folder layout of AOO. As it stands whenever we find a bug that seems reasonably easy to fix we don't have the faintest idea where in the code it would be as there are a ton of folders and we aren't sure how the code is distributed among them. I'm not even sure where to look at just the code for Writer. If there is some document that details the contents of the folder system it would be much appreciated. If there isn't, what would be your best suggestion for navigating the code?
Re: New Contributor Looking for Help Locating Bugs
You can use our code browser that will let you identify code rather quickly. Please take a look here: http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/ Hope this helps, please provide more specific questions regarding the specific problem. On 2/19/15, Patrick Lynn plynn...@gmail.com wrote: My team and I are students at the College of Charleston are working on bug fixes for AOO. We have identified these three bugs as things that may be within our skill set: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=58604 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=54923 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=45593 Do you have any advice on where to find the code related to these bugs? -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: website security certificate
Am 02/19/2015 02:36 PM, schrieb jan i: On 19 February 2015 at 14:14, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:26 AM, jan ij...@apache.org wrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: The connection to this web site is not fully secure because it contains unencrypted elements (such as images). Perhaps the line: img src=http://www.openoffice.org/images/2014-eu-234x60.png; alt=Logo ApacheCon Europe 2014 / is causing this? A very good idea...since this will cause a jump from HTTPS to HTTP. I had however expected another error for this. Funny thing is, that I do not get an error on that page, even with my Certificate analyzer. I've changed all links for the grey box from HTTP to HTTPS. Let's see if this will help to solve the problem. @Brenda: Please delete your browser cache and reload the webpage. What do oyu see now? Thanks Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
+1 on change or removal It is perhaps more useful to follow the thread view of the conversation that resumed today on the legal-discuss mailing list, http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/thread. Some suggestions have been voiced there too. Anyone can also follow that list via the web archive or subscribing. It is all available to the public. Observers might also be interested in knowing who the participants on that thread happen to be in addition to those whose voices are known on this dev@ list. This http://apache.org/foundation/ may be helpful in terms of the Board composition and the Corporate Officers (listed before all of the PMC chairs). I have already made my views known on this topic and I will not repeat them. I do suggest that the continuing effort to rationalize that page and to consider it a compendium of essential facts that AOO and even ASF has some duty to present is a case of fighting way above our own weight and it would be very good to stop twisting the wound and remove that thorn in some suitable manner. Officials of the ASF have made it clear that this page does not reflect views of the ASF and that its posture is objectionable. For those expressing pique over it being a topic on legal-discuss at all, I am mindful that AOO exists at the pleasure of the ASF, not the reverse, and that alignment of projects with how the ASF sees its public-interest duty to be fulfilled is a very big deal, AOO-exceptionalism notwithstanding. This project is accountable, via its PMC and through its Chair, for demonstrating and preserving that alignment. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 08:39 To: dev Subject: Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more agreeable content on it. That sounds smart to me, +1. I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] misrepresentation - maybe he has comments on what the project should do here? S. [1]: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/%3CB5FAC1D8-332E-48FD-A495-5E5C9255A859%40jaguNET.com%3E - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry. As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the disclaimer to the top, made it red and used Jan's wording as template to make it hopefully clear what it is. At least for the moment, the intension about the page should be clear now. But the following is still not clear. Unless it is not clarified IMHO we are discussing in circles: - Who is it that do not like the content? - How many people do we speak about since the webpage is online? - Which text parts are exacly wrong or just badly described? Thanks Marcus Am 02/19/2015 04:10 PM, schrieb jan i: Hi. We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as the page we produce are correct). There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has been added: *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses.* Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer and being on the bottom many do not even read it. We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about a lot of mails). I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on top of the page saying something like: This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC would at least stop the negative discussions. Thoughts? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Reporting a problem with the OpenOffice Wiki
Am 02/19/2015 06:28 PM, schrieb Steve Henes: As hard as it is to find a place on the website showing the improvements in the newest version of Open Office, at least this should be easy: - go to the download webpage [1] - click on the link Release Notes inside the green box For older releases first choose the wanted version and then the Release Notes link. It is even harder to find a place to let you know that it appears like an attempt to avoid making useful information easy to find I know this is the wrong place to send this to - please forward. I primarily want to know if the newest update will support a useful or very large subset of unicode characters. OpenOffice is supporting Unicode. So, it depends also from the used font/character set. Or are you searching for something totally different? Sorry, then I haven't understood your request. ;-) [1] http://www.openoffice.org/download/ HTH Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: website security certificate
Marcus wrote: Am 02/19/2015 02:36 PM, schrieb jan i: On 19 February 2015 at 14:14, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:26 AM, jan ij...@apache.org wrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: The connection to this web site is not fully secure because it contains unencrypted elements (such as images). Perhaps the line: img src=http://www.openoffice.org/images/2014-eu-234x60.png; alt=Logo ApacheCon Europe 2014 / is causing this? A very good idea...since this will cause a jump from HTTPS to HTTP. I had however expected another error for this. Funny thing is, that I do not get an error on that page, even with my Certificate analyzer. I've changed all links for the grey box from HTTP to HTTPS. Let's see if this will help to solve the problem. @Brenda: Please delete your browser cache and reload the webpage. What do oyu see now? Thanks Marcus Marcus; When I delete the SeaMonkey cache and reload the page I still get the warning for a partially encrypted page. Regards Keith signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
1 Andrea -Original Message- From: Rony G. Flatscher (Apache) [mailto:r...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 06:15 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair On 18.02.2015 20:46, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 08/02/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: I will send a resolution for the next Board Meeting (18 February) for replacing me with Jan Iversen. The Board has just approved the resolution, so Jan Iversen is the new OpenOffice PMC Chair (or, to state it in official terms, Jan is the new VP, Apache OpenOffice). I've updated the Foundations records accordingly. Jan is now listed as Chair at http://www.apache.org/foundation/index.html and in internal ASF resources. Congratulations, Jan! And let's continue to work together for the continued success of OpenOffice. Congratulations, Jan! Andrea: thank you very much for your incredible (thoroughful and patient) work as PMC chair for AOO. I have been very impressed by your professionalism, which has been serving the AOO project a lot! I am glad that you keep sticking with the AOO project and looking forward to meeting you on one of those conference occasions again! ---rony - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On 19 February 2015 at 18:22, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more agreeable content on it. That sounds smart to me, +1. I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] misrepresentation - maybe he has comments on what the project should do here? Let me put it like this without disclosing content of mails from private lists, Jim is also AOO PMC member and has given good advice. My recommendation follow that advice. I'm a PMC member as well. I trust my -1 has been noted. Hi Simon, Rather than put it off to someone else, maybe you as an esteemed project contributor can help with some suitable replacement content. Why do you think the ASF mandates the ALv2 and forbids GPL? Surely it is not merely some bit of arcane religious dogma that we practice out of blind devotion, without knowing any reason why. So in your personal opinion, as a project member, why do we prefer ALv2? And how can we best express these benefits to potential users? Changing the content, does not change the fact about whose opinion it is ! I have already made one proposal as to how a disclaimer placed at top could look like. This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC I assumed that was a placeholder. Abbreviations like ASF and AOO and PMC will not be understood by a random visitor. And beyond the abbreviations very few visitors will understand what the ASF is, what the PMC is, how they relate, etc. This is a kind of disclaimer that causes more confusion. I know that you've avoided actually reading or understanding the page but I'd highly recommend trying to understand that page in context. Something like 80% of the visitors to that page reach it from search (Google or Bing). Aside from a few Apache and FSF insiders writhing in anguish over this page, almost everyone who sees it comes to it without any deep knowledge of how the ASF works. So I think any disclaimer would need to be written in a form that is clear to them. you might be right that my proposal is not the best one, but to have a proposal is better that not have any, and I am not touchy about other wordings. I appreciate that. I'm just saying 1) We don't have a statement ready to drop in yet and 2) We probably want to get it into final form before doing so since it will need translation. I am not a license specialist nor do I want to be, but I think our project should not talk about other licenses, let others do that. Apart from that, ASF and not AOO is the one who decides on licenses, so that would be the right place to have such a page. But from what I understand from a number of conversations, ASF tries by principle not to talk a lot about others, f.x. you will not find an ASF page that compares different foundations and the ASF page about licenses explain how ALv2 works nothing more. I simply do not see the need that AOO goes out alone, on confrontation course with ASF, to explain the difference in licenses seen specifically for our pow. We do not need this kind of pointing fingers. Let other projects use the license they believe in and let us use the license ASF believe in without telling we are better or even different than the others. Clearly there is disagreement on this question and we've seen views on both sides, including PMC members. Considering we're no longer debating facts but opinions, maybe just start a 72-hour PMC vote on whether to delete the page. I'd accept the results of the vote, even over my -1. Regards, -Rob rgds jan I. -Rob rgds jan I. Thanks! -Rob S. [1]: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/%3CB5FAC1D8-332E-48FD-A495-5E5C9255A859%40jaguNET.com%3E - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website
Rob Weir wrote: Thread for discussion Come on, what's this? Do you guys read this list? We had this conversation earlier this month, not ages ago. It ended like this: http://markmail.org/message/2ae5vrtevxyizaje [Andrea] The page provides relevant information in a bad way. It is by keeping it as it is that we play the game of haters. I'll propose a rewrite next weekend. Now, weekends do not last 5 days, unfortunately, and life on the OpenOffice lists has been more eventful than I expected. But I very much prefer that instead of flooding the list as a handful of people did in the last few hours, someone would remember this and either say that we were still waiting for my rewrite or that they were replacing me in the task since I'm clearly late. But voting on the abstract option of replacing the page which something that doesn't exist does not really make a lot of sense to me. And it sounds too much like the usual we talk about something expecting that someone else does the work that I'd like we abandon. Well, my offer to rewrite it remains valid... but you'll have to be patient until next weekend! Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Rob Weir wrote: Thread for discussion Come on, what's this? Do you guys read this list? We had this conversation earlier this month, not ages ago. It ended like this: http://markmail.org/message/2ae5vrtevxyizaje Unfortunately we have a party who wants to steamroll through a fast delete unless I immediately show proof of consensus for another option. From what I've been able to ascertain a vote is the only acceptable proof. Personally, I'd be happy to look at your eventual version. I think many others would as well. The vote does not really change that. Regards, -Rob [Andrea] The page provides relevant information in a bad way. It is by keeping it as it is that we play the game of haters. I'll propose a rewrite next weekend. Now, weekends do not last 5 days, unfortunately, and life on the OpenOffice lists has been more eventful than I expected. But I very much prefer that instead of flooding the list as a handful of people did in the last few hours, someone would remember this and either say that we were still waiting for my rewrite or that they were replacing me in the task since I'm clearly late. But voting on the abstract option of replacing the page which something that doesn't exist does not really make a lot of sense to me. And it sounds too much like the usual we talk about something expecting that someone else does the work that I'd like we abandon. Well, my offer to rewrite it remains valid... but you'll have to be patient until next weekend! Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: website security certificate
On 19/02/2015 Marcus wrote: OK, next try. Still an error message? Well... we NOWHERE, and I repeat NOWHERE, advertise the URL https://www.openoffice.org ; as a courtesy to those people who prefer HTTPS, we make it available, but if they use broken extensions or paranoid security settings they cannot blame us too much. Then: 1) I also get (Firefox) the warning about This website does not supply identity information; I didn't investigate this one. 2) We still load components from HTTP. Marcus, the Net panel in Firebug will show you the URLs to all components. You will see that starting with a 404 (?) for http://www.openoffice.org/images/formElementDropShadow.png?2011060812 you have a series of action buttons that are all included via HTTP. This is because lines 56- of https://www.openoffice.org/home.css contain explicit HTTP links. You may fix it (but I would need to check the CSS syntax for the url() parameter) by: - Using /path/to links as Ariel suggested - Using // URLs (e.g., //www.openoffice.org will point to https://www.openoffice.org when called in a https page and to http://www.openoffice.org when called in a http page) ; I'm not a big fan of this solution, I would prefer the former one. All of this would anyway fix an undocumented, unpublished URL that we make available just to please people (remember, this is a static HTML site with no interactive server-side functionality or logins). Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website
OK, it seems your offer good lost as the topic got more intensive today. At least this applies to me. So, sorry from myside. When the forecast of the vote still remains then you can still do the rework of the webpage. At least this work should be not for nothing. Marcus Am 02/19/2015 10:38 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Rob Weir wrote: Thread for discussion Come on, what's this? Do you guys read this list? We had this conversation earlier this month, not ages ago. It ended like this: http://markmail.org/message/2ae5vrtevxyizaje [Andrea] The page provides relevant information in a bad way. It is by keeping it as it is that we play the game of haters. I'll propose a rewrite next weekend. Now, weekends do not last 5 days, unfortunately, and life on the OpenOffice lists has been more eventful than I expected. But I very much prefer that instead of flooding the list as a handful of people did in the last few hours, someone would remember this and either say that we were still waiting for my rewrite or that they were replacing me in the task since I'm clearly late. But voting on the abstract option of replacing the page which something that doesn't exist does not really make a lot of sense to me. And it sounds too much like the usual we talk about something expecting that someone else does the work that I'd like we abandon. Well, my offer to rewrite it remains valid... but you'll have to be patient until next weekend! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Vote] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website
On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I favor the option proposed by Tim Williams. I think a good interim maneuver is to remove the sidebar link and then we can fuss about the page ad lib. I haven't checked on the notice that Marcus put up just yet. If that stays, it needs to ripple through the translations too. I too favor the option proposed by Tim If I have to cast a ballot on the [VOTE] as worded, it will be for deletion. I strongly believe voting is doing more damage than good. but given the choices, I would have to VOTE +1 for deleting the page. but please sleep on it, cancel the vote tomorrow, and make a wording together with Andrea that the PMC (this includes Jim and yourself) are happy with. rgds jan i - Dennis -Original Message- From: Tim Williams [mailto:william...@gmail.com javascript:;] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 09:53 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; Subject: Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, jan i j...@apache.org javascript:; wrote: [ ... ] I simply do not see the need that AOO goes out alone, on confrontation course with ASF, to explain the difference in licenses seen specifically for our pow. We do not need this kind of pointing fingers. Let other projects use the license they believe in and let us use the license ASF believe in without telling we are better or even different than the others. fwiw, as a lurker here, that approach is much more consistent with the broader culture around here. Leave the provocative stuff to personal blogs and media. I think a good solution is to just delete the page and add a link to the faq[1] to your existing 'free' page[2] - I just don't see any value beyond what's already written between those two. Thanks, --tim [1] - http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#WhatDoesItMEAN [2] - http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_free.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: website security certificate
On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 19/02/2015 Marcus wrote: OK, next try. Still an error message? Well... we NOWHERE, and I repeat NOWHERE, advertise the URL https://www.openoffice.org ; as a courtesy to those people who prefer HTTPS, we make it available, but if they use broken extensions or paranoid security settings they cannot blame us too much. two things I agree they cannot blame us, but since we have a https: site it should work. A simple alternative is to add a .httpaccess and route https: to a single dummy page saying unsupported. just my 2ct. rgds jan i Then: 1) I also get (Firefox) the warning about This website does not supply identity information; I didn't investigate this one. 2) We still load components from HTTP. Marcus, the Net panel in Firebug will show you the URLs to all components. You will see that starting with a 404 (?) for http://www.openoffice.org/images/formElementDropShadow. png?2011060812 you have a series of action buttons that are all included via HTTP. This is because lines 56- of https://www.openoffice.org/home.css contain explicit HTTP links. You may fix it (but I would need to check the CSS syntax for the url() parameter) by: - Using /path/to links as Ariel suggested - Using // URLs (e.g., //www.openoffice.org will point to https://www.openoffice.org when called in a https page and to http://www.openoffice.org when called in a http page) ; I'm not a big fan of this solution, I would prefer the former one. All of this would anyway fix an undocumented, unpublished URL that we make available just to please people (remember, this is a static HTML site with no interactive server-side functionality or logins). Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: website security certificate
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:33 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 19/02/2015 Marcus wrote: OK, next try. Still an error message? Well... we NOWHERE, and I repeat NOWHERE, advertise the URL https://www.openoffice.org ; as a courtesy to those people who prefer HTTPS, we make it available, but if they use broken extensions or paranoid security settings they cannot blame us too much. two things I agree they cannot blame us, but since we have a https: site it should work. A simple alternative is to add a .httpaccess and route https: to a single dummy page saying unsupported. Not sure thats a good idea. I mean we already have https working perfectly for most people. Why should we have everyone get an unsupported message? just my 2ct. rgds jan i Then: 1) I also get (Firefox) the warning about This website does not supply identity information; I didn't investigate this one. 2) We still load components from HTTP. Marcus, the Net panel in Firebug will show you the URLs to all components. You will see that starting with a 404 (?) for http://www.openoffice.org/images/formElementDropShadow. png?2011060812 you have a series of action buttons that are all included via HTTP. This is because lines 56- of https://www.openoffice.org/home.css contain explicit HTTP links. You may fix it (but I would need to check the CSS syntax for the url() parameter) by: - Using /path/to links as Ariel suggested - Using // URLs (e.g., //www.openoffice.org will point to https://www.openoffice.org when called in a https page and to http://www.openoffice.org when called in a http page) ; I'm not a big fan of this solution, I would prefer the former one. All of this would anyway fix an undocumented, unpublished URL that we make available just to please people (remember, this is a static HTML site with no interactive server-side functionality or logins). Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings. -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614
Re: website security certificate
Andrea Pescetti wrote on 19/02/15 23:14: On 19/02/2015 Marcus wrote: OK, next try. Still an error message? Well... we NOWHERE, and I repeat NOWHERE, advertise the URL https://www.openoffice.org ; as a courtesy to those people who prefer HTTPS, we make it available, but if they use broken extensions or paranoid security settings they cannot blame us too much. https://www.google.com/search?q=openofficegws_rd=ssl 1st result is: https. Why? Probably because since August 2014 google uses https as a ranking signal: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.it/2014/08/https-as-ranking-signal.html So, even if you do not advertise the URL, google does it for you, and you can't blame users that arrive from google and find the page broken. ;) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Updating the wiki theme.
I would like to update the wiki theme to the one that we use on the homepage. ATM the wiki theme uses the very old OpenOffice.org, we are going 4-5 years in Apache and still have the same look and feel. I would like to get a new theme on the wiki for current style. First step should be to 'create' a theme that can be hacked and tested. Then change it to the default by the wiki admin. The old wiki would still be available and enabled by users that preffer the old one, but new theme could become the default once reaching a functional style. Please comment. -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614
Re: website security certificate
Am 02/19/2015 11:14 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: On 19/02/2015 Marcus wrote: OK, next try. Still an error message? Well... we NOWHERE, and I repeat NOWHERE, advertise the URL https://www.openoffice.org ; as a courtesy to those people who prefer HTTPS, we make it available, but if they use broken extensions or paranoid security settings they cannot blame us too much. then the solution would be to make it unavailable. ;-) Seriously, I agree with Jan. When it's available then it should work. Furthermore, there is also involvement of SEO: Google prefers the availability of HTTPS over HTTP. Then: 1) I also get (Firefox) the warning about This website does not supply identity information; I didn't investigate this one. 2) We still load components from HTTP. Marcus, the Net panel in Firebug will show you the URLs to all components. You will see that starting with a 404 (?) for http://www.openoffice.org/images/formElementDropShadow.png?2011060812 you have a series of action buttons that are all included via HTTP. This is because lines 56- of https://www.openoffice.org/home.css contain explicit HTTP links. You may fix it (but I would need to check the CSS syntax for the url() parameter) by: - Using /path/to links as Ariel suggested - Using // URLs (e.g., //www.openoffice.org will point to https://www.openoffice.org when called in a https page and to http://www.openoffice.org when called in a http page) ; I'm not a big fan of this solution, I would prefer the former one. All of this would anyway fix an undocumented, unpublished URL that we make available just to please people (remember, this is a static HTML site with no interactive server-side functionality or logins). I don't want to stress a new topic. :-P However, wasn't there a discussion to request a SSL certificate from Infra and the point was IMHO the difficulty to get this as a wildcard certificate? Anyway, I volunteer to do fixes where they a re needed (yes, I know we have a big wesite. ;-) ) Thanks for your valuable hints. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Updating the wiki theme.
+1 Nice idea and great attention to progressive staging. - Dennis -Original Message- From: acolor...@gmail.com [mailto:acolor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alexandro Colorado Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 14:41 To: dev Subject: Updating the wiki theme. I would like to update the wiki theme to the one that we use on the homepage. ATM the wiki theme uses the very old OpenOffice.org, we are going 4-5 years in Apache and still have the same look and feel. I would like to get a new theme on the wiki for current style. First step should be to 'create' a theme that can be hacked and tested. Then change it to the default by the wiki admin. The old wiki would still be available and enabled by users that preffer the old one, but new theme could become the default once reaching a functional style. Please comment. -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:51 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Hi. We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as the page we produce are correct). There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has been added: *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses.* Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer and being on the bottom many do not even read it. We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about a lot of mails). I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on top of the page saying something like: This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC would at least stop the negative discussions. Thoughts? What exactly on this page do you think is an opinion and not a fact? Maybe we can focus on the specifics? I'd note also that this is one page of several, each of which the same accusation can be made. For example: OpenOffice can be freely used and distributed with no license worries. http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_edu.html Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it? Should we remove this page as well? And: Using Apache OpenOffice demonstrates your commitment to deliver best value services. It is not owned by any commercial organisation. Its open source license means there are no license fees to pay, no expensive annual audits, and no worries about non-compliance with onerous and obscure licensing conditions. You may also distribute the software free to your employees, through the schools system, or any other channel of your choice. http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_gov.html Same idea, claiming that the licence of AOO is an advantage, in this case to government users. And: And OpenOffice offers a high degree of compatibility with commercial office software, but with none of the costs or license worries. http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_sme.html Same idea there. And http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_odf.html This page claims advantages of using ODF. Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it? Should we remove this page as well? I'm a bit puzzled why we suddenly think that expressing a viewpoint or touting advantages of AOO is unusual or suspect. It should not be odd to remark that the licence *mandatory* for use by Apache projects is in some way preferable to the licence that is *forbidden* for use in all Apache projects. It should not be seen as controversial to note that. To me life is quite simple, I get email from apache people I respect and know what they stand for, saying this page gives a false impression, not in terms of facts, but in terms of whose opinions are expressed. When my inbox start filling with such mails, I tend to take a look myself...and in this case I find it correct that the page looks as being the opinion of ASF and AOO unless you are a lawyer and read the bottom line carefully. I am not in a position to discuss the actual content, and that it really not the discussion point. We have enough other problems, we do not need to create morewe do not need to make Apache friends of the project negative by not following a simple recommendation. It is a lot better that we show responsibility and act instead of running the risk, that we get told what to do. The current disclaimer was added after a discussion on the legal-discuss mailing list (public) to make it clear that it was not an ASF statement. As I understand it is now entirely a PMC question and there is no one who will tell us what to do. So a -1 from be for removing any of these pages. If you want a more prominent disclaimer on *all* of them, then I'm fine with that. I have no opinion on that the *all* part, if you think that gives a better result then I am all for it. If someone wants to suggest a disclaimer that can be put on all the why pages, then let's see it.Since it will
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:51 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Hi. We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as the page we produce are correct). There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has been added: *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses.* Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer and being on the bottom many do not even read it. We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about a lot of mails). I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on top of the page saying something like: This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC would at least stop the negative discussions. Thoughts? What exactly on this page do you think is an opinion and not a fact? Maybe we can focus on the specifics? I'd note also that this is one page of several, each of which the same accusation can be made. For example: OpenOffice can be freely used and distributed with no license worries. http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_edu.html Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it? Should we remove this page as well? And: Using Apache OpenOffice demonstrates your commitment to deliver best value services. It is not owned by any commercial organisation. Its open source license means there are no license fees to pay, no expensive annual audits, and no worries about non-compliance with onerous and obscure licensing conditions. You may also distribute the software free to your employees, through the schools system, or any other channel of your choice. http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_gov.html Same idea, claiming that the licence of AOO is an advantage, in this case to government users. And: And OpenOffice offers a high degree of compatibility with commercial office software, but with none of the costs or license worries. http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_sme.html Same idea there. And http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_odf.html This page claims advantages of using ODF. Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it? Should we remove this page as well? I'm a bit puzzled why we suddenly think that expressing a viewpoint or touting advantages of AOO is unusual or suspect. It should not be odd to remark that the licence *mandatory* for use by Apache projects is in some way preferable to the licence that is *forbidden* for use in all Apache projects. It should not be seen as controversial to note that. To me life is quite simple, I get email from apache people I respect and know what they stand for, saying this page gives a false impression, not in terms of facts, but in terms of whose opinions are expressed. When my inbox start filling with such mails, I tend to take a look myself...and in this case I find it correct that the page looks as being the opinion of ASF and AOO unless you are a lawyer and read the bottom line carefully. I am not in a position to discuss the actual content, and that it really not the discussion point. We have enough other problems, we do not need to create morewe do not need to make Apache friends of the project negative by not following a simple recommendation. It is a lot better that we show responsibility and act instead of running the risk, that we get told what to do. The current disclaimer was added after a discussion on the legal-discuss mailing list (public) to make it clear that it was not an ASF statement. As I understand it is now entirely a PMC question and there is no one who will tell us what to do. So a -1 from be for removing any of these pages. If you want a more prominent disclaimer on *all* of them, then I'm fine with that. I have
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more agreeable content on it. That sounds smart to me, +1. I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] misrepresentation - maybe he has comments on what the project should do here? S. [1]: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/%3CB5FAC1D8-332E-48FD-A495-5E5C9255A859%40jaguNET.com%3E
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more agreeable content on it. That sounds smart to me, +1. I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] misrepresentation - maybe he has comments on what the project should do here? Let me put it like this without disclosing content of mails from private lists, Jim is also AOO PMC member and has given good advice. My recommendation follow that advice. Hi Simon, Rather than put it off to someone else, maybe you as an esteemed project contributor can help with some suitable replacement content. Why do you think the ASF mandates the ALv2 and forbids GPL? Surely it is not merely some bit of arcane religious dogma that we practice out of blind devotion, without knowing any reason why. So in your personal opinion, as a project member, why do we prefer ALv2? And how can we best express these benefits to potential users? Changing the content, does not change the fact about whose opinion it is ! I have already made one proposal as to how a disclaimer placed at top could look like. This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC rgds jan I. Thanks! -Rob S. [1]: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/%3CB5FAC1D8-332E-48FD-A495-5E5C9255A859%40jaguNET.com%3E - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more agreeable content on it. That sounds smart to me, +1. I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] misrepresentation - maybe he has comments on what the project should do here? Let me put it like this without disclosing content of mails from private lists, Jim is also AOO PMC member and has given good advice. My recommendation follow that advice. I'm a PMC member as well. I trust my -1 has been noted. Hi Simon, Rather than put it off to someone else, maybe you as an esteemed project contributor can help with some suitable replacement content. Why do you think the ASF mandates the ALv2 and forbids GPL? Surely it is not merely some bit of arcane religious dogma that we practice out of blind devotion, without knowing any reason why. So in your personal opinion, as a project member, why do we prefer ALv2? And how can we best express these benefits to potential users? Changing the content, does not change the fact about whose opinion it is ! I have already made one proposal as to how a disclaimer placed at top could look like. This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC I assumed that was a placeholder. Abbreviations like ASF and AOO and PMC will not be understood by a random visitor. And beyond the abbreviations very few visitors will understand what the ASF is, what the PMC is, how they relate, etc. This is a kind of disclaimer that causes more confusion. I know that you've avoided actually reading or understanding the page but I'd highly recommend trying to understand that page in context. Something like 80% of the visitors to that page reach it from search (Google or Bing). Aside from a few Apache and FSF insiders writhing in anguish over this page, almost everyone who sees it comes to it without any deep knowledge of how the ASF works. So I think any disclaimer would need to be written in a form that is clear to them. -Rob rgds jan I. Thanks! -Rob S. [1]: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/%3CB5FAC1D8-332E-48FD-A495-5E5C9255A859%40jaguNET.com%3E - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Assigning an issue to myself
Ok. Thanks for your quick response On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: you can simply comment on the bug, and provide patches. Once you do a few times your role will be bumped and more features would be enhanced. If you did this already then please reffer to the patch and a mantainer/tester might take a look at it. Regards. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Erik Engstrom engstro...@g.cofc.edu wrote: Developers, I'd like to start working on fixing a bug from Bugzilla, but I don't know how to assign one to myself. I have fixed a bug and submitted a patch file as an attachment to that issue, but I haven't heard any response. I read something in the documentation about clicking a button to assign an issue to yourself, but I don't see an assignment button on a Bugzilla issue. Also, How long should I expect to wait for a response on future bug fixes? Thanks, Erik -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614
Re: website security certificate
I tried it on 2 different computers and both got the error. Brenda From: jan i Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:26 AM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org ; dennis.hamil...@acm.org Cc: blissfulh...@live.com Subject: Re: website security certificate On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: With Brenda's permission, I am reporting her direct replies to me back to the list. I also have a jpg screen image that I will need to upload somewhere, such as into a Bugzilla issue. In a follow-up along with the message below I learned that 1. The browser is Firefox 2. The URL is https://www.openoffice.org 3. From the screen capture, the message that arrives most-recently is as follows, with the home page visible and a pop-under beneath the address bar (which has a caution ! sign in front of the URL): 3.1 This website does not supply identity information. 3.2 and beneath that, The connection to this web site is not fully secure because it contains unencrypted elements (such as images). 3.3 There is a help button and a More Information ... button. Now that I think about it, that is all you would see that is relevant in the .jpg, so I won't bother to upload it. .jpg did not make it to the list, which is normal. More or less all attachments get stripped off. however I checked on the vm, the certificate is active. 2 good possibilities: - firefox dns caching does not resolve to our machine -- solution clear the firefox history and try again. - Firefox has the old certificate stored and for some reason did not update it. -- the certificate was changed some 5-6 month ago, due to a security fix. rgds jan i in any way - Dennis -Original Message- From: Brenda [blissfulh...@live.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 13:07 To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org Subject: Re: website security certificate It said something like the security certificate was for another website, I think. I tried it twice and it did it both times but once I decided to go ahead to the website, since I had been on it before, it hasn't done it again (I'm assuming b/c my browser saved my preferences) but it is showing a warning up near the domain address bar. I attached a screen shot of the warning. Normally, I wouldn't go on a website if I got that warning (b/c the warning screen from google recommended NOT continuing to the site) but since I've used Open Office before I did. Brenda -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:12 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: brendaleewilk...@hotmail.com Subject: RE: website security certificate [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Assigning an issue to myself
Developers, I'd like to start working on fixing a bug from Bugzilla, but I don't know how to assign one to myself. I have fixed a bug and submitted a patch file as an attachment to that issue, but I haven't heard any response. I read something in the documentation about clicking a button to assign an issue to yourself, but I don't see an assignment button on a Bugzilla issue. Also, How long should I expect to wait for a response on future bug fixes? Thanks, Erik
Re: Assigning an issue to myself
you can simply comment on the bug, and provide patches. Once you do a few times your role will be bumped and more features would be enhanced. If you did this already then please reffer to the patch and a mantainer/tester might take a look at it. Regards. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Erik Engstrom engstro...@g.cofc.edu wrote: Developers, I'd like to start working on fixing a bug from Bugzilla, but I don't know how to assign one to myself. I have fixed a bug and submitted a patch file as an attachment to that issue, but I haven't heard any response. I read something in the documentation about clicking a button to assign an issue to yourself, but I don't see an assignment button on a Bugzilla issue. Also, How long should I expect to wait for a response on future bug fixes? Thanks, Erik -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614
Re: New Contributor Looking for Directory Information
Please review our Dev documentation on the AOO wiki. For your specific question take a look at this: https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Source_code_directories On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Patrick Lynn plynn...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, my name is Patrick Lynn and I am a student at College of Charleston who is working on bug fixes for AOO this semester with my team. We have familiarized ourselves with the bug system but I was wondering if their is any information on the folder layout of AOO. As it stands whenever we find a bug that seems reasonably easy to fix we don't have the faintest idea where in the code it would be as there are a ton of folders and we aren't sure how the code is distributed among them. I'm not even sure where to look at just the code for Writer. If there is some document that details the contents of the folder system it would be much appreciated. If there isn't, what would be your best suggestion for navigating the code? -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:51 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Hi. We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people. There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as the page we produce are correct). There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO. The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has been added: *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses.* Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer and being on the bottom many do not even read it. We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about a lot of mails). I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on top of the page saying something like: This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC would at least stop the negative discussions. Thoughts? What exactly on this page do you think is an opinion and not a fact? Maybe we can focus on the specifics? I'd note also that this is one page of several, each of which the same accusation can be made. For example: OpenOffice can be freely used and distributed with no license worries. http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_edu.html Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it? Should we remove this page as well? And: Using Apache OpenOffice demonstrates your commitment to deliver best value services. It is not owned by any commercial organisation. Its open source license means there are no license fees to pay, no expensive annual audits, and no worries about non-compliance with onerous and obscure licensing conditions. You may also distribute the software free to your employees, through the schools system, or any other channel of your choice. http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_gov.html Same idea, claiming that the licence of AOO is an advantage, in this case to government users. And: And OpenOffice offers a high degree of compatibility with commercial office software, but with none of the costs or license worries. http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_sme.html Same idea there. And http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_odf.html This page claims advantages of using ODF. Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it? Should we remove this page as well? I'm a bit puzzled why we suddenly think that expressing a viewpoint or touting advantages of AOO is unusual or suspect. It should not be odd to remark that the licence *mandatory* for use by Apache projects is in some way preferable to the licence that is *forbidden* for use in all Apache projects. It should not be seen as controversial to note that. To me life is quite simple, I get email from apache people I respect and know what they stand for, saying this page gives a false impression, not in terms of facts, but in terms of whose opinions are expressed. When my inbox start filling with such mails, I tend to take a look myself...and in this case I find it correct that the page looks as being the opinion of ASF and AOO unless you are a lawyer and read the bottom line carefully. I am not in a position to discuss the actual content, and that it really not the discussion point. We have enough other problems, we do not need to create morewe do not need to make Apache friends of the project negative by not following a simple recommendation. It is a lot better that we show responsibility and act instead of running the risk, that we get told what to do. The current disclaimer was added after a discussion on the legal-discuss mailing list (public) to make it clear that it was not an ASF statement. As I understand it is now entirely a PMC question and there is no one who will tell us what to do. So a -1 from be for removing any of these pages. If you want a more
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more agreeable content on it. That sounds smart to me, +1. I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] misrepresentation - maybe he has comments on what the project should do here? Hi Simon, Rather than put it off to someone else, maybe you as an esteemed project contributor can help with some suitable replacement content. Why do you think the ASF mandates the ALv2 and forbids GPL? Surely it is not merely some bit of arcane religious dogma that we practice out of blind devotion, without knowing any reason why. So in your personal opinion, as a project member, why do we prefer ALv2? And how can we best express these benefits to potential users? Thanks! -Rob S. [1]: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/%3CB5FAC1D8-332E-48FD-A495-5E5C9255A859%40jaguNET.com%3E - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On 19 February 2015 at 18:22, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more agreeable content on it. That sounds smart to me, +1. I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] misrepresentation - maybe he has comments on what the project should do here? Let me put it like this without disclosing content of mails from private lists, Jim is also AOO PMC member and has given good advice. My recommendation follow that advice. I'm a PMC member as well. I trust my -1 has been noted. Hi Simon, Rather than put it off to someone else, maybe you as an esteemed project contributor can help with some suitable replacement content. Why do you think the ASF mandates the ALv2 and forbids GPL? Surely it is not merely some bit of arcane religious dogma that we practice out of blind devotion, without knowing any reason why. So in your personal opinion, as a project member, why do we prefer ALv2? And how can we best express these benefits to potential users? Changing the content, does not change the fact about whose opinion it is ! I have already made one proposal as to how a disclaimer placed at top could look like. This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC I assumed that was a placeholder. Abbreviations like ASF and AOO and PMC will not be understood by a random visitor. And beyond the abbreviations very few visitors will understand what the ASF is, what the PMC is, how they relate, etc. This is a kind of disclaimer that causes more confusion. I know that you've avoided actually reading or understanding the page but I'd highly recommend trying to understand that page in context. Something like 80% of the visitors to that page reach it from search (Google or Bing). Aside from a few Apache and FSF insiders writhing in anguish over this page, almost everyone who sees it comes to it without any deep knowledge of how the ASF works. So I think any disclaimer would need to be written in a form that is clear to them. you might be right that my proposal is not the best one, but to have a proposal is better that not have any, and I am not touchy about other wordings. I am not a license specialist nor do I want to be, but I think our project should not talk about other licenses, let others do that. Apart from that, ASF and not AOO is the one who decides on licenses, so that would be the right place to have such a page. But from what I understand from a number of conversations, ASF tries by principle not to talk a lot about others, f.x. you will not find an ASF page that compares different foundations and the ASF page about licenses explain how ALv2 works nothing more. I simply do not see the need that AOO goes out alone, on confrontation course with ASF, to explain the difference in licenses seen specifically for our pow. We do not need this kind of pointing fingers. Let other projects use the license they believe in and let us use the license ASF believe in without telling we are better or even different than the others. rgds jan I. -Rob rgds jan I. Thanks! -Rob S. [1]: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/%3CB5FAC1D8-332E-48FD-A495-5E5C9255A859%40jaguNET.com%3E - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: website security certificate
jan i wrote: On 19 February 2015 at 14:14, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:26 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: The connection to this web site is not fully secure because it contains unencrypted elements (such as images). Perhaps the line: img src=http://www.openoffice.org/images/2014-eu-234x60.png; alt=Logo ApacheCon Europe 2014 / is causing this? A very good idea...since this will cause a jump from HTTPS to HTTP. I had however expected another error for this. Funny thing is, that I do not get an error on that page, even with my Certificate analyzer. rgds jan I. S. I get the following warning with SeaMonkey 2.32.1. You have requested a page that is only partially encrypted and does not prevent eavesdropping. Keith signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Reporting a problem with the OpenOffice Wiki
As hard as it is to find a place on the website showing the improvements in the newest version of Open Office, It is even harder to find a place to let you know that it appears like an attempt to avoid making useful information easy to find I know this is the wrong place to send this to - please forward. I primarily want to know if the newest update will support a useful or very large subset of unicode characters. A search for Unicode on your site provides nothing, so I assume you don't support it. Each time I come to your site, finding anything more than a lot of statements about how wonderful you are is difficult. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
New Contributor Looking for Help Locating Bugs
My team and I are students at the College of Charleston are working on bug fixes for AOO. We have identified these three bugs as things that may be within our skill set: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=58604 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=54923 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=45593 Do you have any advice on where to find the code related to these bugs?
Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On 19 February 2015 at 18:22, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more agreeable content on it. That sounds smart to me, +1. I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] misrepresentation - maybe he has comments on what the project should do here? Let me put it like this without disclosing content of mails from private lists, Jim is also AOO PMC member and has given good advice. My recommendation follow that advice. I'm a PMC member as well. I trust my -1 has been noted. Hi Simon, Rather than put it off to someone else, maybe you as an esteemed project contributor can help with some suitable replacement content. Why do you think the ASF mandates the ALv2 and forbids GPL? Surely it is not merely some bit of arcane religious dogma that we practice out of blind devotion, without knowing any reason why. So in your personal opinion, as a project member, why do we prefer ALv2? And how can we best express these benefits to potential users? Changing the content, does not change the fact about whose opinion it is ! I have already made one proposal as to how a disclaimer placed at top could look like. This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC I assumed that was a placeholder. Abbreviations like ASF and AOO and PMC will not be understood by a random visitor. And beyond the abbreviations very few visitors will understand what the ASF is, what the PMC is, how they relate, etc. This is a kind of disclaimer that causes more confusion. I know that you've avoided actually reading or understanding the page but I'd highly recommend trying to understand that page in context. Something like 80% of the visitors to that page reach it from search (Google or Bing). Aside from a few Apache and FSF insiders writhing in anguish over this page, almost everyone who sees it comes to it without any deep knowledge of how the ASF works. So I think any disclaimer would need to be written in a form that is clear to them. you might be right that my proposal is not the best one, but to have a proposal is better that not have any, and I am not touchy about other wordings. I am not a license specialist nor do I want to be, but I think our project should not talk about other licenses, let others do that. Apart from that, ASF and not AOO is the one who decides on licenses, so that would be the right place to have such a page. But from what I understand from a number of conversations, ASF tries by principle not to talk a lot about others, f.x. you will not find an ASF page that compares different foundations and the ASF page about licenses explain how ALv2 works nothing more. I simply do not see the need that AOO goes out alone, on confrontation course with ASF, to explain the difference in licenses seen specifically for our pow. We do not need this kind of pointing fingers. Let other projects use the license they believe in and let us use the license ASF believe in without telling we are better or even different than the others. fwiw, as a lurker here, that approach is much more consistent with the broader culture around here. Leave the provocative stuff to personal blogs and media. I think a good solution is to just delete the page and add a link to the faq[1] to your existing 'free' page[2] - I just don't see any value beyond what's already written between those two. Thanks, --tim [1] - http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#WhatDoesItMEAN [2] - http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_free.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: website security certificate
On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Keith N. McKenna keith.mcke...@comcast.net wrote: jan i wrote: On 19 February 2015 at 14:14, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com javascript:; wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:26 AM, jan i j...@apache.org javascript:; wrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org javascript:; wrote: The connection to this web site is not fully secure because it contains unencrypted elements (such as images). Perhaps the line: img src=http://www.openoffice.org/images/2014-eu-234x60.png; alt=Logo ApacheCon Europe 2014 / is causing this? A very good idea...since this will cause a jump from HTTPS to HTTP. I had however expected another error for this. Funny thing is, that I do not get an error on that page, even with my Certificate analyzer. rgds jan I. S. I get the following warning with SeaMonkey 2.32.1. You have requested a page that is only partially encrypted and does not prevent eavesdropping. that is the error I expected due to the img src calling http and not https. rgds jan i Keith -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: Reporting a problem with the OpenOffice Wiki
This technica information is usually on our wiki, however what you are asking is a bit too specific. I think you should provide a sample document with large set of unicode to be able to test it. AOO uses the IBM developed ICU4C (International Component for Unicode), more information here: https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/ICU Looking on our Issue trackers, I couldnt find any issues related with large sets. So my guess is that you shouldnt have any substantial issue. On 2/19/15, Steve Henes stevehe...@henes.net wrote: As hard as it is to find a place on the website showing the improvements in the newest version of Open Office, It is even harder to find a place to let you know that it appears like an attempt to avoid making useful information easy to find I know this is the wrong place to send this to - please forward. I primarily want to know if the newest update will support a useful or very large subset of unicode characters. A search for Unicode on your site provides nothing, so I assume you don't support it. Each time I come to your site, finding anything more than a lot of statements about how wonderful you are is difficult. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: website security certificate
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:01 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Keith N. McKenna keith.mcke...@comcast.net wrote: jan i wrote: On 19 February 2015 at 14:14, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com javascript:; wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:26 AM, jan i j...@apache.org javascript:; wrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org javascript:; wrote: The connection to this web site is not fully secure because it contains unencrypted elements (such as images). Perhaps the line: img src=http://www.openoffice.org/images/2014-eu-234x60.png; alt=Logo ApacheCon Europe 2014 / is causing this? A very good idea...since this will cause a jump from HTTPS to HTTP. I had however expected another error for this. Funny thing is, that I do not get an error on that page, even with my Certificate analyzer. rgds jan I. S. I get the following warning with SeaMonkey 2.32.1. You have requested a page that is only partially encrypted and does not prevent eavesdropping. that is the error I expected due to the img src calling http and not https. Is there someone with commit access who could change that IMG tag to use https so Brenda Keith can check if that's the problem? S.
Re: OOo4Kids OOoLight Status
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 17/02/15 22:26, jan i wrote: Do we (AOO) have to solve that, or is it the project (being downstream to AOO) ? To me it sounds like a downstream adaptation. If the point is to remove _existing_ functionality, then it is a downstream adaption. If the point is to make it appear as if functionality has been removed, then an extension that changes/rewrites the main menu line will suffice. Rephrasing, if an extension can currently be written, than changes the content of the File | Edit | Insert | etc line, then a third party can write that extension today. jonathon * English - detected * English * English javascript:void(0); -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJU5mzsAAoJEKG7hs8nSMR7legP/ittAhhXIDZUVojLsHm2M0pU lmrSpIRFyXDOvFYPYEjHiHg9gIH1e4aYxS2cXR0CaSb9xsj+AZ1ToR/WVUg9H80f giBlPDfQxVvr021bXX5UXGAwM2C5Xj62oy3qaOUW2h3AKOmkVl4i4+xuydc4Z8eF lAiJ/FH2UrOPUszOOHUP9FwtL1jl2Lve3+ZWls4Mz5RvCiI/XvaevKaWI74/fMAT S6ayhWiE9I5N7eQshqESxjwhBBDGmm+OVwXz3yafqYCMAtBxaz4oJkjmzh6XXJH0 OaHFh5R8YDuGnOf0nOXHzH2HNZJRB+No13+qzjT5Nv2xLsSem1nKJJilg2SvWqU0 Io4nx8181R5nqv3ASLE7LCbIvFfPvFIk5sXmXerSbXiYrDIj+xGODjD5xCWNykn1 ZNX6hJIIyh2n2ct78IQ50g+URRlGTlsllsd4OrY0oVHEcbt1JsZ8qg9W70gj1t2+ blB5dPD2vW0610XyPW4nQnBc5C9b7hcIJSmXpXCoaEyRfJNQ58UgdnH42Ndf4QUl LMIIEzlrD19f7Hqi2JP3sva/kR2j2W1Y+/qdB2jwZm+BP3KaLnTvVAYjPRnIsGTH st2+93Pc4Z1pzj6IDiYoN/piACaPG2tufQ/cM+qTIjmU0tkJW9TnfIFtnlL62ytJ U8w2ue8n3N+EbLF8YOpq =eH4Q -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Vote] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website
On Feb 19, 2015, at 2:28 PM, jan i wrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I favor the option proposed by Tim Williams. I think a good interim maneuver is to remove the sidebar link and then we can fuss about the page ad lib. I haven't checked on the notice that Marcus put up just yet. If that stays, it needs to ripple through the translations too. I too favor the option proposed by Tim If I have to cast a ballot on the [VOTE] as worded, it will be for deletion. I strongly believe voting is doing more damage than good. but given the choices, I would have to VOTE +1 for deleting the page. but please sleep on it, cancel the vote tomorrow, and make a wording together with Andrea that the PMC (this includes Jim and yourself) are happy with. +101 Regards, Dave rgds jan i - Dennis -Original Message- From: Tim Williams [mailto:william...@gmail.com javascript:;] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 09:53 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; Subject: Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, jan i j...@apache.org javascript:; wrote: [ ... ] I simply do not see the need that AOO goes out alone, on confrontation course with ASF, to explain the difference in licenses seen specifically for our pow. We do not need this kind of pointing fingers. Let other projects use the license they believe in and let us use the license ASF believe in without telling we are better or even different than the others. fwiw, as a lurker here, that approach is much more consistent with the broader culture around here. Leave the provocative stuff to personal blogs and media. I think a good solution is to just delete the page and add a link to the faq[1] to your existing 'free' page[2] - I just don't see any value beyond what's already written between those two. Thanks, --tim [1] - http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#WhatDoesItMEAN [2] - http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_free.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Vote] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website
On 02/19/2015 11:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote: The page in question is here: http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html Voting choices are: [ ] Leave the page as it is. [ ] Make changes in that text parts where the facts are wrong or the tone does not fit or ASF rules were broken. [ ] Delete the entire page. The vote will last for 72-hours. All are welcome to vote. PMC votes are binding. Please put comments into the parallel [VOTE][DISCUSS] thread. [ X] Make changes in that text parts where the facts are wrong or the tone does not fit or ASF rules were broken. -- - MzK An old horse for a long, hard road, a young pony for a quick ride. -- Texas Bix Bender - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: website security certificate
Hi - We had a reason that we enabled https in the first place. I don't recall it now, but there was a reason. It may have had to do with update servers. Regards, Dave On Feb 19, 2015, at 2:49 PM, Marcus wrote: Am 02/19/2015 11:14 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: On 19/02/2015 Marcus wrote: OK, next try. Still an error message? Well... we NOWHERE, and I repeat NOWHERE, advertise the URL https://www.openoffice.org ; as a courtesy to those people who prefer HTTPS, we make it available, but if they use broken extensions or paranoid security settings they cannot blame us too much. then the solution would be to make it unavailable. ;-) Seriously, I agree with Jan. When it's available then it should work. Furthermore, there is also involvement of SEO: Google prefers the availability of HTTPS over HTTP. Then: 1) I also get (Firefox) the warning about This website does not supply identity information; I didn't investigate this one. 2) We still load components from HTTP. Marcus, the Net panel in Firebug will show you the URLs to all components. You will see that starting with a 404 (?) for http://www.openoffice.org/images/formElementDropShadow.png?2011060812 you have a series of action buttons that are all included via HTTP. This is because lines 56- of https://www.openoffice.org/home.css contain explicit HTTP links. You may fix it (but I would need to check the CSS syntax for the url() parameter) by: - Using /path/to links as Ariel suggested - Using // URLs (e.g., //www.openoffice.org will point to https://www.openoffice.org when called in a https page and to http://www.openoffice.org when called in a http page) ; I'm not a big fan of this solution, I would prefer the former one. All of this would anyway fix an undocumented, unpublished URL that we make available just to please people (remember, this is a static HTML site with no interactive server-side functionality or logins). I don't want to stress a new topic. :-P However, wasn't there a discussion to request a SSL certificate from Infra and the point was IMHO the difficulty to get this as a wildcard certificate? Anyway, I volunteer to do fixes where they a re needed (yes, I know we have a big wesite. ;-) ) Thanks for your valuable hints. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Vote] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website
Forgive my slipping a discussion on the vote thread with my +101. I have thought about things and I am going to cast the following vote: [X] delete the page. Why? It does not help the overall OpenOffice community to be making a strong argument over this issue at this point in time. it does not help to be parsing and discussing a range of possible language. In addition for end users it is FOSS regardless. This is the openoffice.org site. If we want nuance we can put it on the project site in a single language. Regards, Dave On Feb 19, 2015, at 3:29 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: On Feb 19, 2015, at 2:28 PM, jan i wrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I favor the option proposed by Tim Williams. I think a good interim maneuver is to remove the sidebar link and then we can fuss about the page ad lib. I haven't checked on the notice that Marcus put up just yet. If that stays, it needs to ripple through the translations too. I too favor the option proposed by Tim If I have to cast a ballot on the [VOTE] as worded, it will be for deletion. I strongly believe voting is doing more damage than good. but given the choices, I would have to VOTE +1 for deleting the page. but please sleep on it, cancel the vote tomorrow, and make a wording together with Andrea that the PMC (this includes Jim and yourself) are happy with. +101 Regards, Dave rgds jan i - Dennis -Original Message- From: Tim Williams [mailto:william...@gmail.com javascript:;] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 09:53 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; Subject: Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, jan i j...@apache.org javascript:; wrote: [ ... ] I simply do not see the need that AOO goes out alone, on confrontation course with ASF, to explain the difference in licenses seen specifically for our pow. We do not need this kind of pointing fingers. Let other projects use the license they believe in and let us use the license ASF believe in without telling we are better or even different than the others. fwiw, as a lurker here, that approach is much more consistent with the broader culture around here. Leave the provocative stuff to personal blogs and media. I think a good solution is to just delete the page and add a link to the faq[1] to your existing 'free' page[2] - I just don't see any value beyond what's already written between those two. Thanks, --tim [1] - http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#WhatDoesItMEAN [2] - http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_free.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website
On Feb 19, 2015, at 2:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Rob Weir wrote: Thread for discussion Come on, what's this? Do you guys read this list? We had this conversation earlier this month, not ages ago. It ended like this: http://markmail.org/message/2ae5vrtevxyizaje Unfortunately we have a party who wants to steamroll through a fast delete unless I immediately show proof of consensus for another option. From what I've been able to ascertain a vote is the only acceptable proof. Personally, I'd be happy to look at your eventual version. I think many others would as well. The vote does not really change that. Just saying. There are two ways to look at who is steamrolling. When the ASF is saying that there is a problem then it needs to be considered. You are providing a vote that proves we want Change - the range of this is large and ill defined. Your choices are missing options like: [ ] Convert to a positive statement about the AL2.0 plus provide some links on license compliance. Link to third parties. [ ] Make the minimal changes to satisfy the Foundation. Originally I was about preserving and converting the openoffice.org site and then doing minimal changes. Once I may have support this page. Now I feel that there are issues that reflect poorly on the Foundation. Regards, Dave Regards, -Rob [Andrea] The page provides relevant information in a bad way. It is by keeping it as it is that we play the game of haters. I'll propose a rewrite next weekend. Now, weekends do not last 5 days, unfortunately, and life on the OpenOffice lists has been more eventful than I expected. But I very much prefer that instead of flooding the list as a handful of people did in the last few hours, someone would remember this and either say that we were still waiting for my rewrite or that they were replacing me in the task since I'm clearly late. But voting on the abstract option of replacing the page which something that doesn't exist does not really make a lot of sense to me. And it sounds too much like the usual we talk about something expecting that someone else does the work that I'd like we abandon. Well, my offer to rewrite it remains valid... but you'll have to be patient until next weekend! Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: New Contributor Looking for Help Locating Bugs
On 19/02/2015 Patrick Lynn wrote: My team and I are students at the College of Charleston are working on bug fixes for AOO. We have identified these three bugs as things that may be within our skill set: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=58604 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=54923 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=45593 Do you have any advice on where to find the code related to these bugs? First, welcome! And second, please subscribe to the list or you will miss answers (today was a busy day but the list traffic is manageable in normal days): http://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html And third, I can help you with the second issue of the three you listed; I've just posted a comment at https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=54923 trying not to spoil too much... but if you need further help please ask here; and don't forget to write here when you have a patch and you would like to see it integrated. Also, since that specific issue needs some discussion on what shortcut(s) to assign be prepared to start a thread here about that. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
